Cliftonchadwick's Blog

November 5, 2009

Deep thinkers: The more we study dolphins, the brighter they turn out to be!

Filed under: Beauty, Intellectuals, Stars — cliftonchadwick @ 1:42 pm

 

  • Anuschka de Rohan
  • The Guardian, Thursday 3 July 2003 02.25 BST
  • dolphins, rampant
    The brain of an adult bottlenose dolphin is about 25% heavier than the average human adult’s brain. Photograph: Stephen Frink/Getty Images

    At the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies in Mississippi, Kelly the dolphin has built up quite a reputation. All the dolphins at the institute are trained to hold onto any litter that falls into their pools until they see a trainer, when they can trade the litter for fish. In this way, the dolphins help to keep their pools clean.

    Kelly has taken this task one step further. When people drop paper into the water she hides it under a rock at the bottom of the pool. The next time a trainer passes, she goes down to the rock and tears off a piece of paper to give to the trainer. After a fish reward, she goes back down, tears off another piece of paper, gets another fish, and so on. This behaviour is interesting because it shows that Kelly has a sense of the future and delays gratification. She has realised that a big piece of paper gets the same reward as a small piece and so delivers only small pieces to keep the extra food coming. She has, in effect, trained the humans.

    Her cunning has not stopped there. One day, when a gull flew into her pool, she grabbed it, waited for the trainers and then gave it to them. It was a large bird and so the trainers gave her lots of fish. This seemed to give Kelly a new idea. The next time she was fed, instead of eating the last fish, she took it to the bottom of the pool and hid it under the rock where she had been hiding the paper. When no trainers were present, she brought the fish to the surface and used it to lure the gulls, which she would catch to get even more fish. After mastering this lucrative strategy, she taught her calf, who taught other calves, and so gull-baiting has become a hot game among the dolphins.

    “Intelligence” is a term with many definitions and interpretations. It’s difficult enough to measure in humans let alone other animals. Large brains are traditionally associated with greater intelligence, and the brain of the adult bottlenose dolphin is about 25% heavier than the average adult human brain. Generally though, larger mammals tend to have larger brains, and so a more accurate estimate of brain power comes from the ratio of brain size to body size – the “encephalisation quotient” (EQ). While river dolphins have an EQ of 1.5, some dolphins have EQs that are more than double those of our closest relatives: gorillas have 1.76, chimpanzees 2.48, bottlenose dolphins 5.6. The bottlenose’s EQ is surpassed only by a human’s, which measures 7.4 (Australopithecines – hominids that lived around 4m years ago – fall within the dolphin range: 3.25-4.72). But we don’t know enough about the workings of the brain to be sure of what these anatomical measurements truly represent. Today, most scientists share the view that it is behaviour, not structure, that must be the measure of intelligence within a species.

    Dolphins have invented a range of feeding strategies that more than match the diversity of habitats in which they live. In an estuary off the coast of Brazil, tucuxi dolphins are regularly seen capturing fish by “tail whacking”. They flick a fish up to 9 metres with their tail flukes and then pick the stunned prey from the water surface. Peale’s dolphins in the Straits of Magellan off Patagonia forage in kelp beds, use the seaweed to disguise their approach and cut off the fishes’ escape route. In Galveston Bay, Texas, certain female bottlenose dolphins and their young follow shrimp boats. The dolphins swim into the shrimp nets to take live fish and then wriggle out again – a skill requiring expertise to avoid entanglement in the fishing nets.

    Dolphins can also use tools to solve problems. Scientists have observed a dolphin coaxing a reluctant moray eel out of its crevice by killing a scorpion fish and using its spiny body to poke at the eel. Off the western coast of Australia, bottlenose dolphins place sponges over their snouts, which protects them from the spines of stonefish and stingrays as they forage over shallow seabeds.

    A dolphin’s ability to invent novel behaviours was put to the test in a famous experiment by the renowned dolphin expert Karen Pryor. Two rough-toothed dolphins were rewarded whenever they came up with a new behaviour. It took just a few trials for both dolphins to realise what was required. A similar trial was set up with humans. The humans took about as long to realise what they were being trained to do as did the dolphins. For both the dolphins and the humans, there was a period of frustration (even anger, in the humans) before they “caught on”. Once they figured it out, the humans expressed great relief, whereas the dolphins raced around the tank excitedly, displaying more and more novel behaviours.

    Dolphins are quick learners. Calves stay with their mothers for several years, allowing the time and opportunity for extensive learning to take place, particularly through imitation. At a dolphinarium, a person standing by the pool’s window noticed that a dolphin calf was watching him. When he released a puff of smoke from his cigarette, the dolphin immediately swam off to her mother, returned and released a mouthful of milk, causing a similar effect to the cigarette smoke. Another dolphin mimicked the scraping of the pool’s observation window by a diver, even copying the sound of the air-demand valve of the scuba gear while releasing a stream of bubbles from his blowhole.

    Many species live in complex societies. To fit in, young dolphins must learn about the conventions and rules of dolphin society, teamwork and who’s who in the group. For these dolphins, play provides an ideal opportunity to learn about relationships in a relatively non-threatening way. At Sarasota Bay in Florida, Randall Wells and his team have observed groups of juvenile male bottlenose dolphins behaving like boisterous teenage boys. Using its head to do the lifting, one dolphin may even get another dolphin air borne, actually tossing it out of the water. It’s unclear exactly what is going on. It could be play, but more likely these are serious interactions that are defining social relationships.

    Dolphins gradually build up a network of relationships, ranging from the strong bond between a mother and calf, to casual “friendships” with other community members. Wells and his team were the first to notice that adult male bottlenose dolphins tend to hang out in pairs. The dolphins’ motivation for ganging together is under study but may involve ecological and/or reproductive benefits. Dolphins may also form “supergangs”. Richard Connor and his team in Shark Bay, Western Australia, discovered a group of 14 males. The supergang was a force to be reckoned with. In the three years it was studied, it never lost a fight.

    To keep track of the many different relationships within a large social group, it helps to have an efficient communication system. Dolphins use a variety of clicks and whistles to keep in touch. Some species have a signature whistle, which, like a name, is a unique sound that allows other dolphins to identify it. Dolphins also communicate using touch and body postures. By human definition, there is currently no evidence that dolphins have a language. But we’ve barely begun to record all their sounds and body signals let alone try to decipher them. At Kewalo Basin Marine Laboratory in Hawaii, Lou Herman and his team set about testing a dolphin’s ability to comprehend our language. They developed a sign language to communicate with the dolphins, and the results were remarkable. Not only do the dolphins understand the meaning of individual words, they also understand the significance of word order in a sentence. (One of their star dolphins, Akeakamai, has learned a vocabulary of more than 60 words and can understand more than 2,000 sentences.) Particularly impressive is the dolphins’ relaxed attitude when new sentences are introduced. For example, the dolphins generally responded correctly to “touch the frisbee with your tail and then jump over it”. This has the characteristics of true understanding, not rigid training.

    Lou Herman and Adam Pack taught the dolphins two further signals. One they called “repeat” and the other “different”, which called for a change from the current behaviour. The dolphins responded correctly. Another test of awareness comes from mirror experiments. Diana Reiss and her researchers installed mirrors inside New York Aquarium to test whether two bottlenose dolphins were self-aware enough to recognise their reflections. They placed markings in non-toxic black ink on various places of the dolphins’ bodies. The dolphins swam to the mirror and exposed the black mark to check it out. They spent more time in front of the mirror after being marked than when they were not marked. The ability to recognise themselves in the mirror suggests self-awareness, a quality previously only seen in people and great apes.

    Not only do dolphins recognise their mirror images, but they can also watch TV. Language-trained chimps only learned to respond appropriately to TV screens after a long period of training. In contrast, Lou Herman’s dolphins responded appropriately the very first time they were exposed to television.

    Of course, an understanding of TV is of little use in the wild, but the ability to respond to new situations has huge implications. In the shallows of Florida Bay, Laura Engleby and her team have recently discovered an ingenious fishing strategy. A number of the local dolphin groups seem to use a circle of mud to catch mullet. The action usually begins with one dolphin swimming off in a burst of speed. It then dives below the surface, circling a shoal of fish, stirring up mud along the way. On cue, the other dolphins in the group move into position, forming a barrier to block off any underwater escape routes. As the circle of mud rises to the surface, the mullet are trapped. Their only option is to leap clear out of the water and unwittingly straight into the open mouths of the waiting dolphins.

    There is still much to learn about these flexible problem-solvers, but from the evidence so far, it seems that dolphins do indeed deserve their reputation for being highly intelligent.

    Zoologist Anuschka de Rohan produced last month’s Wildlife on One programme, Dolphins – Deep Thinkers? This piece is based on an article in the July issue of BBC Wildlife Magazine, available from newsagents or BBC Wildlife Magazine Subscriptions on 01795 414718.

    Some Thoughts on Barack Obama’s Awful Evening: The shine coming off

    Filed under: Dubious Achievements, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 9:53 am

    Re:

    Jennifer Rubin – 11.04.2009 – 10:09 AM

    Pete, your comprehensive analysis on the no-good, horrible evening for Democrats points to many dangers for the Congress and the president.

    It also highlights how counterproductive is their tendency to employ silly distractions and partisan jibes in lieu of serious governance.

    It has become something of a fetish among Democrats these days to fixate on the  most trivial and irrelevant issues they can find.

    The White House spends its time attacking radio-talk-show hosts and Fox News.
    Jon Corzine went after his opponent’s weight.
    Creigh Deeds obsessed over a 20-year-old college paper.
    There is, in all these gambits, a fundamental contempt for voters and a smallness by those attempting to distract and befuddle their fellow citizens.

    Are the voters to believe that Fox is the problem and not the president’s own policies?
    Should New Jersey voters think that Chris Christie’s girth is more important than the gluttony of spending in Trenton?
    And, really, did Virginia voters think school papers should dictate their votes?

    Democrats seemed to think so. The voters had other ideas.

    This sort of politics by distraction is especially ineffective when voters have serious economic concerns. It is one thing to enjoy a good political jab when times are good, but when unemployment is at record levels, America is at war, and the voters’ unease with the leftward lurch of government is high, they are in no mood for petty games.

    To their credit, the voters in New Jersey and Virginia didn’t get distracted, and are not likely to in 2010 either.

    The Democrats would do well then to drop the silly stuff and get to the real issues confronting the voters. As Pete points out, the Democrats aren’t going to win elections running against George W. Bush. It turns out they aren’t going to win running against Fox News, term papers, or Dunkin’ Donuts.

     

    American elections

     

    Nov 4th 2009
    From Economist.com

     

    Voters punish Barack Obama and the Democrats in two states, but offer solace in New York

    AFP

    A YEAR after winning America’s presidential election, Barack Obama and the Democrats have suffered two big defeats in governors races in Virginia and New Jersey. Last year Mr Obama won in Virginia in a particularly sweet moment for his party. This time the Republican, Bob McDonnell, trounced the Democrat, Creigh Deeds, by 59% to 41%. In northern corners of the state, which form part of Washington’s suburbs and are vital to Democratic chances in statewide contests, the Republican did even better in some places, winning Loudoun county by 61% to 39% for example. In the much deeper-blue state of New Jersey, the loss was narrower for the Democrats. Chris Christie, the Republican, won with 49% of the vote, defeating Jon Corzine, the incumbent governor, who picked up around 45%.

    The significance, if any, of these off-year elections will now be debated. The Republican wins will boost party morale and make Mr Obama seem a little bit more mortal. Mr Obama’s supporters point out that the governors elections were flavoured by distinctly local issues. Yet in Virginia exit polls indicated that almost a quarter of respondents said they had used their vote to register disapproval with the president (18% voted to express support for Mr Obama). The races clearly show an electoral limit to Mr Obama’s star appeal. The Democratic loss in Virginia had been predicted for weeks, if not months. But in New Jersey the race had tightened considerably and Mr Obama attended two rallies for Mr Corzine over the weekend in an attempt to enthuse the Democratic faithful. His efforts came to naught.

    Two broad points have emerged from this election night. The first is that the Democrats are now considered to own the economy—trying to blame George Bush for the country’s economic ills, as Mr Obama tried to do in New Jersey, will not wash with swing voters. In Virginia, moderates and independents warmed to Mr McDonnell’s themes of reduced taxes. The economy will doubtlessly improve before next year’s mid-term elections, but Mr Obama’s ambitions for government spending trouble many centrists.

    The other point is that Sarah Palin’s broadside against the Republican candidate in upstate New York has established her beyond doubt as the leading player in Republican politics, much to the chagrin of party grandees. There is nothing new about conservative insurrection in the party. The contest in New York is somewhat reminiscent of Pat Buchanan’s rebellion against the party establishment in the New Hampshire primary in 1992, except that conservatives have ditched their pitchforks for iPhones. But the danger for the Republicans remains the same now as then; the pursuit of an ideologically pure conservatism will turn away moderates and independents. The Republicans lost the 1992 presidential election, and they lost the 23rd congressional district in upstate New York on Tuesday.

    Tyra Banks is a sort of funny but no class loudmouth”: “Now I really can say … kiss my fit – and still fat – ass.”

    Filed under: Beauty, Funnies, Laughs and all that, Sex, Stars — cliftonchadwick @ 9:29 am

    She got some attention yesterday because she has lost weigth

    Banks is now revealing how she lost almost 30 lbs. since her famous “Kiss My Fat Ass” incident in early 2007.

    “On The Tyra Show,” she writes, “I told the world to “Kiss My Fat Ass!” two years ago, because after being attacked by the media for gaining weight, I wanted all my supportive people to know I had no shame in my game. I totally appreciate curves. Y’all know that. Well, I’m proud to say I’ve still got them! The pictures you see here have not been altered. It’s my body. The imperfections are real, but so are the newly toned arms–never had muscles before!”

    But don’t worry, Banks assures fans that she hasn’t turned her back on the curvy club. “I feel good about my curves and my imperfections – my booty, my boobs, my thighs – I embrace it all,” she says. “Now I really can say … kiss my fit – and still fat – ass.

    Well, she should be known for somethings other than her ass, as this shows.

    Trya Banks Boobs6
    Nutritionist Bauer suggest that to “get your shape in shape” like Banks, the first step is to keep a record of what you eat. “You have to write everything down,” she says, explaining that this will let you identify what foods make you feel good and which do not.

    Add Banks: “It’s about working with what you’ve got, and knowing, and learning what’s right for your body.”

    Clashes between government and opposition in Iran on Embassy Takeover Anniversary

    Filed under: Foreign Policy, Freedom of Speech, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 9:12 am

    BEIRUT, Lebanon — Iran’s beleaguered opposition movement struggled to reassert itself on Wednesday, as tens of thousands of protesters braved police beatings and clouds of tear gas on the sidelines of a major, government-sponsored anti-American rally.

    Protesters burned an American flag during a demonstration in Tehran on Wednesday.

    The protests — in Tehran and other cities — were the opposition’s largest street showing in almost two months and came on the 30th anniversary of the takeover of the United States Embassy in Iran, an event that was a crucible for both Iran and the United States. Although a huge force of police officers beat back and scattered many of them, the protesters took heart at their ability to openly challenge the government despite a stream of warnings from all levels of Iran’s conservative establishment.

    Even some government authorities seemed to grudgingly concede that the opposition had — for the first time — disrupted the annual anti-American rally. The official IRNA news agency reported in midafternoon that “rioters,” many wearing the opposition’s signature green color, had gathered in front of its offices on Valiasr Street chanting “Death to the dictator” and other antigovernment slogans.

    At the same time, a new theme emerged, with many protesters declaring their impatience with President Obama’s policy of dialogue with the Iranian government. Many could be heard chanting, “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us,” witnesses said.

    Mr. Obama released his own statement on Wednesday to mark the anniversary of the embassy takeover, repeating his appeals to move beyond the two countries’ mutual distrust. The statement expressed sympathy for Iran’s opposition movement and suggested that time was running out on a United Nations-backed plan aimed at averting a showdown over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    “The world continues to bear witness to their powerful calls for justice and their courageous pursuit of universal rights,” the statement said of the Iranian people. “It is time for the Iranian government to decide whether it wants to focus on the past, or whether it will make the choices that will open the door to greater opportunity, prosperity, and justice for its people.”

    Protesters openly flouted the day’s official anti-American message, with about 1,000 people gathering outside the Russian Embassy in Tehran and chanting, “The real den of spies is the Russian Embassy.”

    The American Embassy has been called the “den of spies” in Iran for decades. But many opposition supporters were angered by Russia’s early acceptance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed victory in Iran’s presidential election in June.

    On Tuesday, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gave an angry speech accusing the United States of dictating the terms of the nuclear deal, and suggested that Mr. Obama was no different from his predecessor.

    There were reports of several dozen arrests in Wednesday’s protests, including some outside Tehran, and many injuries. The reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi, who has become the government’s most outspoken critic, narrowly avoided injury when pro-government forces fired a tear gas cylinder at him as he marched with protesters in Tehran, according to Radio Farda, an American-backed station. Two of his guards leapt to defend him and were hospitalized for their wounds, the station reported.

    Mir Hussein Moussavi, who was Mr. Ahmadinejad’s main challenger in the election, was prevented by security officers from attending the protests, Radio Farda reported.

    Over all, the police appeared to have fought back protesters more aggressively than they did in September, when opposition supporters in much larger numbers virtually hijacked a state-sponsored rally known as Jerusalem Day.

    The protest turnout on Wednesday may also have been limited by the fact that it took place on a workday, unlike the Jerusalem Day protest. Still, starting early in the morning, the streets of central Tehran were lined with police officers and Basij militia members, witnesses said. In the subways, officers singled out people wearing green armbands, bracelets or head scarves and ripped them off.

     

    When Insults Had Class

    Filed under: Freedom of Speech, Funnies, Laughs and all that — cliftonchadwick @ 8:29 am

     

    (sent by a friend)

    These glorious insults are from an era before
    the English language got boiled down to 4-letter words.
    ____________________________________________________________

     
    The exchange between Churchill & Lady Astor:
    She said, “If you were my husband, I’d give you poisoned tea.”
    He answered, “If you were my wife, I’d drink it.”
    *****

    A member of Parliament to Prime Minister Disraeli:
     ”Sir, you will either die on the gallows or of some unspeakable disease.”
    “That depends, Sir”, said Disraeli, “whether I embrace your policies or your mistress.”
      *****

    “He had delusions of adequacy.”
    Walter Kerr
    *****
     
    “He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.”
     - Winston Churchill
      *****
     ”I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.”
    Clarence Darrow
    *****
     
     ”He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.”
    William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway).

      *****
     Thank you for sending me a copy of your book; I’ll waste no time reading it.” – Moses Hadas
    *****
     
     ”I didn’t attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.” – Mark Twain
      *****
    “He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends.”
    Oscar Wilde
    *****
     
    “I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play;
     bring a friend…. if you have one.”
    George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill
     
    “Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second… if there is one.”
    Winston Churchill, in response.
    *****
     
     I feel so miserable without you, it’s almost like having you here.”
    Comedian Kip Adota
    *****
    “He is a self-made man and worships his creator.”
    John Bright
      *****
    “I’ve just learned about his illness. Let’s hope it’s nothing trivial.”
    Irvin S. Cobb
      *****
    “He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others.”
    Samuel Johnson
      *****
    “He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up.”
    Paul Keating
      *****
    “In order to avoid being called a flirt, she always yielded easily.”
    Charles, Count Talleyrand
      *****

     ”He loves nature in spite of what it did to him.”
    Forrest Tucker
    *****
     
     ”Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address on it?”
    Mark Twain
      *****
     ”His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork.”
    Mae West
      *****
     ”Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.”
    Oscar Wilde
      *****
     ”He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts…
     for support rather than illumination.”
    Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
    *****
     
     ”He has Van Gogh’s ear for music.”
    Billy Wilder
      *****
     ”I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it.”
    Groucho Marx
    *****

    Mr. Narcissim did not watch the elections results on Tuesday. He watched documentary about – - – HIMSELF!

    Filed under: Dubious Achievements, Politics, Sheer Stupidity — cliftonchadwick @ 8:14 am

    From Taranto’s Best of the Web

    “As if hoping to avoid the outcome,” FoxNews.com reports in a postelection roundup, “the White House issued a statement after the GOP win in Virginia saying the president was not watching election returns and would not be making any remarks on the results.”

    He’s president of the United States, after all. What are mere governors’ races to him? He just doesn’t care. True, he doesn’t not care enough to refrain from putting out a statement letting you know how little he cares. So he cares a little. He’s only human; it hurts to lose. But he’s got it in perspective. He’s focusing on himself right now.

    Man, is he ever focusing on himself! NewsBusters.org reports on what he was doing last night when he was ignoring the election returns:

    During the 10AM ET hour of America’s Newsroom on Fox News Channel, fill-in co-host Martha Maccallum told viewers what President Obama watched on election night while Democrats suffered big losses in New Jersey and Virginia: “Robert Gibbs said, well, he was actually watching, you know, the HBO special about his year-long campaign and how it all went.”

    Good Lord, we’ve gone and put Norma Desmond in the White House. He is big. It’s the elections that got small.  (Follow the Norma link: it is great fun)

    *****
    “He is a self-made man and worships his creator.”   John Bright

    November 4, 2009

    Zelaya’s Hopes of Return Fade in Committee Vote

    Filed under: Freedom of Speech, Human Rights, National Security, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 5:12 pm

    By JOSé DE CóRDOBA

    A Honduran legislative committee voted not to convene a special session of Congress to consider returning the country’s ousted leader, in a move likely to dash chances of Manuel Zelaya’s returning to power even temporarily under a deal brokered last week by the U.S.

    On Tuesday, a committee of 13 legislators voted to not convene the special session, opting instead to wait until Congress receives nonbinding legal opinions on the issue from Honduras’s Supreme Court, attorney general’s office and other institutions. It set no deadline for when the reports had to be received.

    The decision means a presidential election scheduled for Nov. 29 could take place before any vote on Mr. Zelaya.

    Even if Mr. Zelaya pulls out of the U.S.-brokered deal, the interim government appears to have the upper hand. In announcing the deal, the U.S. made clear that it would respect any decision by the Honduran Congress, and would recognize the November elections even if Congress blocks Mr. Zelaya’s return.

    That may cause some friction with other countries in Latin America. Since the signing of the agreement, the Organization of American States and some Latin American countries have appeared to condition their support of the Honduran election on Mr. Zelaya’s return to power.

    Under terms of last week’s deal, Honduras’s interim government and Mr. Zelaya agreed to let Congress decide on Mr. Zelaya’s return and set up a government of national unity. In return, the U.S. promised to renew suspended aid to Honduras and recognize the legitimacy of the Nov. 29 presidential poll. Mr. Zelaya isn’t on the ballot.

    While many interpreted the deal last week as a sign Mr. Zelaya would return to power, Honduran politicians appear in no mood to change their vote from June 28, when they overwhelmingly voted to replace the president. With the election little more than three weeks away, analysts say neither side wants to risk losing votes by reinstalling a controversial president.

    “Zelaya is the kiss of death,” says Miguel Angel Calix, a Honduran political analyst.

    Honduras’s rival political factions disagree on what the deal was meant to achieve. Mr. Zelaya says he will consider the deal broken if he isn’t reinstated by Thursday. But the agreement itself offers no guarantee of reinstatement.

    The Case of a Major Human Rights Victim in Cuba

    Filed under: Freedom of Speech, Human Rights — cliftonchadwick @ 4:56 pm

    A friend of mine sent this link. The funder of the foundation has been in jail, mostly in solitary confinement for over ten years.  His crime?  To attempt to improve human rights in Cuba.

    It is a site woth visiting and a nobel cause.

    THE LAWTON FOUNDATION MISSION is “to defend the inalienable rights of the human race, we understand the need to put limits on government to prevent the undermining of those rights. It is because of this that we have become activists in this organization – to establish in our country the rule of law, so that each man and woman may be fulfilled as complete human beings.”

    firma de biscet

     “I am of the opinion that as long as a Castro-communist dictatorship exists in Cuba, we, Cubans, will not be able to live in freedom and democracy and that the violations of human rights will continue. I ask the democratic governments of the world and the individuals who love justice and freedom to support the Cuban people and not the government of the island which usurped power, betrayed the people, by sullying them. The conquest of liberty for Cuba is the present priority and will require a struggle that is detailed in its organization and persevering.  My steps are headed towards the conquest of that priority. Hear, oh God, my cry, listen to my prayer fulfilling my vows day by day. Free me and free the Cuban people.”

    THE LAWTON FOUNDATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS was founded in 1997 in Havana, Cuba, as a non-governmental humanitarian and peaceful organization based upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Lawton Foundation for Human Rights promotes the study, defense, and denunciation of human rights violations inside Cuba and wherever the rights and liberties of human beings are disregarded. Its’ members main objective is to establish in Cuba a state based on the rule of the law.

    Michelle Always Manages to Dress Badly!!

    Filed under: Funnies, Laughs and all that, One Ugly Woman, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 1:17 pm

    Is she trying to be a clown??   The orange thing that stops before her knees?  The pleats which make her look fat (I suppose she is).  That very short sweater which exaggerates her heigth and makes her look like she has a very short upper body!

     

    Jim Lo Scalzo for The New York Times

    NONPARTISANFrom left above: Bobby Flay, Cristeta Comerford, Alton Brown, Michelle Obama, Mario Batali and Emeril Lagasse.

    Another Major Win! Kim gets best Halloween Costume prize!

    Filed under: Beauty, Funnies, Laughs and all that, Sex — cliftonchadwick @ 8:33 am

     

    Kim Kardashian halloween

    Two Major Republican Wins!!

    Filed under: Freedom of Speech, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 8:24 am

    Christie beat Corzine 49% to 44% with 6% going to the third candidate, to take the race for Govenor of New Jersey, a major victory.  Remember that NJ is a very Democrat Party State. This is a big upset.

    Christie shaking hands after voting

    Mr. Christie’s victory ended a bruising and bitterly fought race that often descended into personal attacks by both candidates. Although the campaign focused mainly on local issues, including a statewide corruption scandal, Republicans across the country were quick to portray Mr. Christie’s win as a defeat for President Obama.

    The White House invested heavily in the New Jersey contest, a tacit acknowledgment that a defeat for Mr. Corzine would be interpreted as a rebuke of Mr. Obama, potentially affecting the president’s ability to pass major legislation and the public’s perceptions of the Democratic influence.

    Jen Rubin comments

    Multiple news outlets are calling the New Jersey gubernatorial race for Republican Chris Christie. Yes, this is largely a referendum on the incumbent governor and the tax, corruption, and budget woes which bedeviled his administration. But this is New Jersey, a Blue state where Obama campaigned hard for the Democratic candidate, Jon Corzine. He made five separate stops. Corzine’s ads looked like Obama ads. Corzine tied himself tightly to Obama, but it helped not at all.

    It is a breathtaking change from last year’s overwhelming Obama win. The White House will have a hard time saying this one doesn’t matter. Obama won the state by 14 percent. The Republicans in a only a year won the state back. It means something.

    ELECTION ‘09

    GOP reclaims Virginia

    McDonnell helps reestablish party Messages on taxes, jobs resonate with voters

    bob mcdonnell wins

    At the Richmond Marriott, Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II, left, who won the attorney general's race; Governor-elect Robert F. McDonnell; and Bill Bolling, reelected as lieutenant governor, greet their supporters. Tuesday's vote was the first time in 12 years that Republicans swept all statewide offices.
    At the Richmond Marriott, Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II, left, who won the attorney general’s race; Governor-elect Robert F. McDonnell; and Bill Bolling, reelected as lieutenant governor, greet their supporters. Tuesday’s vote was the first time in 12 years that Republicans swept all statewide offices. (Jonathan Newton/the Washington Post)
    , November 4, 2009  Virginians elected Republican Robert F. McDonnell the commonwealth’s 71st governor Tuesday, sweeping the GOP to power and emphatically halting a decade of Democratic advances in the critical swing state.

    November 3, 2009

    Why He will not go to Berlin: Behind Obama’s Berlin Wall Snub

    Filed under: Diplomacy, Dubious Achievements, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 8:30 pm

    November 3, 2009

    By Rich Lowry

    In his first year in office, Barack Obama has visited more foreign countries than any other president. He’s touched ground in 16 countries, easily outpacing Bill Clinton (three) and George W. Bush (eleven). It’s an itinerary befitting a “citizen of the world.”

    But there’s one stop Obama won’t make.  He has begged off going to Berlin next week to attend ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall.  His schedule is reportedly too crowded.  John F. Kennedy famously told Berliners, “Ich bin ein Berliner.”  On the 20th anniversary of the last century’s most stirring triumph of freedom, Obama is telling them, “Ich bin beschäftigt” – i.e., I’m busy.

    It doesn’t have quite the same ring, does it?
    Obama’s failure to go to Berlin is the most telling nonevent of his presidency.
    It’s hard to imagine any other American president eschewing the occasion. Only Obama – with his dismissive view of the Cold War as a relic distorting our thinking and his attenuated commitment to America’s exceptional role in the world – would spurn German president Angela Merkel’s invitation to attend.

    Obama famously made a speech in Berlin during last year’s campaign, but at an event devoted to celebrating himself as the apotheosis of world hopefulness. He said of 1989, “a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.”

    The line was typical Obama verbal soufflé, soaring but vulnerable to collapse upon the slightest jostling from logic or historical fact. The wall came down only after the free world resolutely stood against the Communist bloc.  Rather than a warm-and-fuzzy exercise in global understanding, the Cold War was another iteration of the 20th century’s long war between totalitarianism and Western liberalism.  The West prevailed on the back of American strength.

    But Obama doesn’t think in such antiquated, triumphalist terms.  Given to apologizing for his nation abroad, he resolutely downplays American leadership. “President Obama is applying the same tools to international diplomacy that he used as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side,” the Washington Post notes, approaching “the world as a community of nations, more alike than different in outlook and interest.” To the extent that the Cold War doesn’t fit this unbelievably naïve worldview, it’s an intellectual inconvenience.

    Wouldn’t Obama at least want to take the occasion to celebrate freedom and human rights – those most cherished liberal values?
    Not necessarily.
    He has mostly jettisoned them as foreign-policy goals in favor of a misbegotten realism that soft-pedals the crimes of nasty regimes around the world.
    During the Cold War, we undermined our enemies by shining a bright light on their repression.
    In Berlin, JFK called out the Communists on their “offense against humanity.”
    Obama would utter such a phrase only with the greatest trepidation, lest it undermine a future opportunity for dialogue.

    Pres. Ronald Reagan realized we could meet with the Soviets without conceding the legitimacy of their system. He always spoke up for the dissidents – even when it irked his negotiating partner, Mikhail Gorbachev. Whatever the hardheaded imperatives of geopolitics, we’d remain a beacon of liberty in the world.

    Obama has relegated this aspirational aspect of American power to the back seat. For him, we are less an exceptional power than one among many, seeking deals with our peers in Beijing and Moscow. Why would Obama want to celebrate the refuseniks of the Eastern Bloc, when he won’t even meet with the Dalai Lama in advance of his trip to China?

    So Obama huddles with Merkel during her visit to Washington and leaves it at that. An American president will skip events marking the end of a struggle to which we, as a nation – under presidents of both parties – devoted blood and treasure for 50 years. For Barack Obama, 1989 is just another far-away year – and the Democratic party of such men as Harry S. Truman and JFK has never seemed more distant.

    //

    Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review.
     
    Good piece. More people are realizing that Obama is a phony, a fake, an empty vesel who is going to harm all of us.

    Equatorial Guinea Frees British Mercenary

    Filed under: Dubious Achievements, Foreign Policy, History, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 7:16 pm

    Brief note.  EG was a poor country with a violent and misguided dictator.  Then it discovered oil and is now a somewhat richer country that still has the same miserable and stupid dictator.  An attempt to overthrow the country was the premise of a novel called Dogs of War.  When I first read it, many years ago, I thought it rather far-fetched.  The I spent some time in EG and learned that not only was it not so far-fecthed but that Forsyth himself had actually planned to attempt the overthrow but was stopped by the French government when it caught on.  This happened just a few years after Forsythe had served as a mercenary in the Biafran Civil War.

    DAKAR, Senegal – The oil-rich and repressive West African state of Equatorial Guinea said Tuesday it had pardoned Simon Mann, a former British special forces officer, jailed last year for plotting to overthrow President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo in a conspiracy that seemed as much a throwback to the continent’s past as a catalogue of bungles.

    Simon Mann during his trial held a conference center in Malabo, Equitorial Guinea, in June 2008.

    According to a government Web site Mr. Mann, an alumnus of Britain’s upper-crust Eton College and scion of a wealthy family of brewers, had been pardoned by presidential decree for his part in an episode that also entangled Mark Thatcher, the son of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

    “The pardon was allowed for by presidential decree and granted on humanitarian grounds,” the government in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea’s capital, said. It added that Mr. Mann had “shown sufficient and credible signs of repentance and a desire to take his place in society.”

    Mr. Mann, 56, must leave Equatorial Guinea within 24 hours and is “absolutely prohibited” from returning, the Web posting said.. Mr. Mann was jailed for 34 years in July 2008, accused of leading a coup attempt that barely reached its target. As the plot unfolded in 2004, he was among a planeload of 80 mercenaries arrested at Harare airport in Zimbabwe after they landed there to pick up weapons on their way to Equatorial Guinea.

    Mr. Thatcher pleaded guilty in a South African court to unwittingly helping to bankroll the operation. He was fined and given a suspended sentenced.

    But fortune reserved a harsher fate for Mr. Mann. He served three years of a seven-year sentence for weapons trafficking in a high-security prison in Zimbabwe and was then extradited to Equatorial Guinea to face trial.

    As outlined in a series of court cases and news articles, the events mirrored the plot of Frederick Forsyth’s 1974 book, Dogs of War, later made into a movie starring Christopher Walken.

    The conspirators had hoped to be paid well — or, in their argot, receive “a large splodge of wonga” — in return for toppling the Equatorial Guinea government in order to secure access on behalf of shadowy backers to the country’s oil and mineral wealth.

    The target of the coup — President Obiang — seized power in 1979 in a coup backed by Moroccan soldiers. Equatorial Guinea has just half a million residents, but it is one of Africa’s leading oil producers.

    Obama’s Foreign Policy Failures Mount and mount: Now Burma!

    Filed under: Diplomacy, Dubious Achievements, Foreign Policy, Freedom of Speech, Human Rights, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 6:56 pm
    Tuesday, Nov 03

    Now Burma

    Jennifer Rubin – 11.03.2009 – 8:55 AM

    The premortem analyses on the failure of the Obami foreign policy to date are now dotting the journalistic landscape.
    There is remarkable similarity in these — engagement hasn’t panned out, the hope that we would unlock the hearts of our foes has been dashed, the settlement-freeze gambit was a bust, our allies are nervous, and the dithering over Afghanistan has unnerved nearly everyone.
    To their credit, the authors of these critical reviews have not ignored human rights. Well, it would be hard to. The Obami have racked up quite a record, and it’s about to get worse.

    Obama has chosen accommodation over clarity with the Iranian mullahs, defunding democracy activists and bestowing legitimacy on the regime.
    He has snubbed the Dalai Lama while Hillary Clinton put human rights on the back burner with the Chinese leaders.
    Obama has nary a harsh word to say about human rights in the Muslim World, choosing not to use the Cairo speech to deal with the dicier issues (honor killings, for example) so as not to embarrass his new best friends.
    We are engaging Sudan, though the criteria for that are secret. Yes, secret. (So much for the government of transparency!!)

    And now word comes of engagement with another member of the “international community” whose human-rights record has earned it isolation up until now – Burma. 
    This report explains that Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, the top U.S. diplomat for East Asia, and his deputy are going to meet with the prime minister and an array of government officials, the first such visit since 1995. We are told that this is the new “engagement” policy for Burma:

    The United States has traditionally relied heavily on sanctions meant to force Burma’s generals to respect human rights, release imprisoned political activists and make democratic reforms. Washington has said it will maintain its tough political and economic sanctions against the regime until talks with Burma’s general’s result in change. Campbell said last month if Burma doesn’t address U.S. worries, “we will reserve the option of tightening sanctions on the regime and its supporters as appropriate.”

    And how will we know if it is “working”?  Nobel Prize–winner (deservedly so) Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house arrest. Is her release the test?
    Rape and displacement are used as weapons against the people of Burma. If there is no inquiry, no accounting, and no change in the brutalization of women, can we say engagement is “working”?
    Unfortunately for the Obami, the definition of “working” has precious little to do with the real world.
    Engagement in and of itself is the name of the game for this crowd. So our engagement policy is “working” if the regime is talking to us.
    But wait, talking to us and ending the regime’s isolation are supposed to be rewards for improved conduct. Oh, well. It doesn’t quite work out in practice, does it?

    Having announced the goal of engagement and staked the president’s prestige on our ability to sustain “dialogue” with thuggish regimes, we have given up the leverage, one type of leverage at any rate, necessary to apply pressure. It is now we who are desperate to maintain the dialogue and reluctant to “grade” the despots’ behavior too quickly or too strictly. We have given the regimes legitimacy and prestige and achieved nothing tangible in return.

    So if the mainstream press is disappointed in the paltry results of Obama’s foreign policy, imagine how the people of Iran, Burma, Darfur, China, and many other locales must feel. 
    They are, apparently, on their own. The president seems to believe that “success” is measured in the number of meetings he can hold with their oppressors and not the improvement in the lives of those living under despotic governments. One imagines that the human-rights advocates and the imprisoned democracy activists around the world had hoped for so much more.

     

    W.H. diplomacy ‘back down to earth’  Ben Smith

    Foreign policy never goes according to campaign plan, but for President Barack Obama, who promised a hardheaded new engagement with the world, the last week and the weeks he sees looming ahead must be discouraging. 

    President Barack Obama walks off of Marine One at Andrews Air Force Base.

    Across a region spanning Pakistan to the Mediterranean, foreign leaders seem to be challenging the very premise of his policy: that foreign countries can reasonably be persuaded to move in the direction of common interests, and that a better-loved America can get more done. 

    In Afghanistan, an all-out effort to promote a legitimate election turned into a scramble to prevent a civil war and ease the defrauded challenger off the stage. Iran persuaded the White House to drop its late-September deadline for action and then appears to have rejected a deal on nuclear fuel. Great powers such as Russia and China show no appetite for crucial concessions, while the U.S. Congress continues to block major action on a pillar of Obama’s policy goals — international action on climate change. 

    “This is a clarifying moment,” said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration foreign policy hand. “It’s not the week that they wanted to have happen, but sometimes it’s better to get your rough lessons early when the stakes are lower.”  Another Democratic analyst, the National Security Network’s Heather Hurlburt, labeled this “back-down-to-earth week.”

    “None of these things is more ugly than they were a week or a month or six months ago,” she said. “They’ve now done the easy things, and we got spoiled for six or eight or 10 months: easy thing, applause, Nobel Prize. We’re now at the stuff that’s really hard.”

    Less sympathetic analysts see the clarification in more negative terms.  “For an administration that came in thinking it was going to be more realistic than the previous administration, they’ve certainly been hit in the head by real facts,” said Gary Schmitt, a former Republican congressional staffer and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, citing a “growing perception that they’re the team that can’t shoot straight. They had — ironically for realists — unrealistic expectations on what they could accomplish,” he said.

     It’s a cliché of presidencies that foreign policy priorities set themselves and that presidents have far less control than they imagine they will. Obama’s key priorities looked, weeks ago, intact. On his most profound challenge, Afghanistan, he was herding key constituencies — from the British military to American Democrats — toward a consensus. 

    “There had been a huge amount of momentum behind his emphasis on Afghanistan — thanks also significantly to [envoy Richard] Holbrooke — and this election has halted all that momentum,” said Peter Galbraith, an American diplomat who left the U.N. mission to Afghanistan in a dispute about the election.

    In Iran, meanwhile, detailed and painstaking talks about shipping nuclear fuel to Russia — a subject of cooperation with French and Russian leaders — also foundered last Friday, when Iran rejected the deal.  Iranian officials were quoted Monday offering only the haziest reassurances. The country’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told reporters that Iran has “some technical and economic considerations” about the proposal, The Associated Press reported.  

    The central problem in those two theaters, and in others, has been the lack of a reliable partner whom Obama can engage.  

    “There is a unifying issue in the Palestinian territories, in Iraq, in Iran, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, and that is you need to have a trustworthy partner and the people on the ground need to want to change,” said Rothkopf. “Unless both of those conditions are present, then you’re playing at the margins.”

    Some analysts also question the focus of an administration whose foreign policy seems dominated by the president’s personal interest.  “The administration is finding it difficult to have six major priorities,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s not a question of can the administration walk and chew gum, but it’s hard to devote high-level attention to a wide diversity of things.”   

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to the Middle East and Central Asia in recent days contributed to the impression of an unsettled policy approach.  In Pakistan, she said bluntly that the Pakistanis ought to know where Al Qaeda leaders are — then walked the candid comment back.  In Israel, she praised Israeli leaders for their willingness to compromise — then rushed to shore up a Palestinian leadership that appears to have been badly weakened by that same compromise.  

    And so Obama has been forced to adjust his targets.  On Afghanistan, he declared Karzai’s election “legitimate” Monday — a statement of hope as much as a description of reality. On Iran, he faces congressional pressure for harsh sanctions and a choice of imperfect options, some weaker compromise with skeptical Russian and Chinese partners on international sanctions or sanctions enacted by the sort of Bush-style coalition of the willing, dubbed “the coalition of the like-minded nations” he’s long derided.  

    What had appeared to be a new approach to foreign policy — a combination of charismatic leadership, moral suasion and cool judgment of interests — at this moment looks like a simpler pragmatism.

    But that, for those who want Obama to succeed, is still a welcome change.  “Any foreign policy is going to have ups and downs, but what characterizes Obama’s foreign policy is a great deal of pragmatism and strategy,” said Galbraith. “Strategy by definition means you’re always evaluating the circumstances — the terrain — and making adjustments.”

    Frank Rich’s Paranoid Style, Rich and Comical and a bit Ridiculous

    Filed under: Funnies, Laughs and all that, Politics, Sheer Stupidity — cliftonchadwick @ 6:39 pm

    Peter Wehner – 11.02.2009 – 3:07 PM

    Here’s a stunning development: the New York Times’s theater-critic-turned-political-columnist Frank Rich is foot-stompin’ mad. The cause for Mr. Rich’s latest outburst is the race in New York’s 23rd District, in which the liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava was challenged by the Conservative party’s Doug Hoffman, forcing Scozzafava to withdraw. (She subsequently endorsed the Democrat Bill Owens.) For most people, this is an interesting intra-party skirmish with some potentially important political ramifications. But for Mr. Rich, it’s so much more than that. It’s going to set off a “riotous and bloody national G.O.P. civil war.” The northern district in New York “could become a G.O.P. killing field.” What’s going on there is evidence that “the right has devolved into a wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy Obama.” And conservatives are “Jacobins” who are “re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode.” And in case that was too subtle, they are “the Stalinists of the right.”

    This is what passes for stylish and temperate discourse on the Left — references to the Civil War and to Cambodian genocide, to the French Revolution and to one of the greatest mass murders in history – all in the context of a congressional race in New York’s 23rd District, mind you.

    This also comes from a man who in August wrote a column — without irony — warning about the rise of what Richard Hofstadter called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” and who earlier this summer castigated conservatives for their “toxic” rhetoric that is “getting louder each day of the Obama presidency.” It could lead, Rich has warned several times, to political violence. Conservatives, you see, are so terribly uncivil and so terribly indecent in their rhetoric. Coming from Rich, it is all rather comical.

    But Mr. Rich’s latest tantrum is an indication that conservatism, rather than being “dead,” is actually doing quite well. After all, if conservatism were as moribund as we’re told by Sam Tanenhaus and others – and if the Left was in the ascendancy – then the latter would presumably be in a relatively cheerful and celebratory mood, ignoring conservatives because they were irrelevant. Instead Rich and others on the Left are going around the twist because they sense that the political ground is shifting beneath their feet. Their political Messiah is turning out not only to be mortal but also deeply flawed. His policies are generating widespread and intense opposition. The public seems to be rejecting what Mr. Obama is offering; and what he is offering may well cost Democrats politically.

    For liberals, Barack Obama was supposed to be (take your pick) our new FDR, our new Lincoln, or “sort of God.” It wasn’t supposed to be this hard — and now that it is, people like Frank Rich are lashing out in desperation. It will only get worse. When thinking about what this all might do to poor Mr. Rich, it’s worth recalling the children’s folk rhyme and the fate of one of the three geese in a flock. One flew East, one flew West, and one flew over the cuckoo’s nest.

    Dree Hemingway, Ernest’s Grandaughter, is not a writer

    Filed under: Beauty, Sex, Stars — cliftonchadwick @ 5:50 pm

    Dree Hemingway, daughter of Mariela, who once was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, has now burst onto the scene , in a pose very similar to how her mother got started!!

    Dree Hemingway

    This is how her mother looked

    Mariel Hemingway

    Mariel’s most famous role was in Woody Allen’s 1976 film Manhattan for which she was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress.

    She also posed on the cover of Playboy and later played the role of Playboy model Dorothy Stratten in the 1983 film Star 80.

    Read more

    President Obama’s selective “innocence” or is it worse

    Filed under: Diplomacy, Dubious Achievements, Foreign Policy, One Ugly Woman, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 1:21 pm

    November 2, 2009 Posted by Paul at 9:19 PM

    I have suggested, in connection with President Obama’s dealings with Russia, that to call him a fool is to give him the benefit of the doubt. For Obama’s hat-in-hand approach to Russia assumes that the thuggish, autocratic, expansionist Russian regime is more sinned against than sinning in relation to the U.S. If Obama believes this, he is anti-American; iIf he doesn’t believe this but elects to act as if it were so, then he is a fool.

    Now, it may be starting to dawn on the more perceptive members of the MSM that portraying Obama as a fool — or, more kindly, as naive — puts him in the best plausible light. This desire to offer an innocent (in two senses of the word) explanation for Obama’s foreign policy may well explain today’s front page Washington Post story regarding the alleged origins of Obama’s approach to foreign policy.

    The author, Scott Wilson, is pretty clear that Obama’s approach to dealing with our allies and our adversaries has come up empty so far, whether in enlisting allies to help us in Afghanistan, persuading them to stimulate their economies, or causing Iran to change its behavior.  How to explain Obama’s embrace of an approach that seems so ineffectual?

    Wilson does so by claiming that the president’s approach to dealing with nations is an outgrowth of his days as a “community organizer.”  He argues that Obama sees foreign countries, including our adversaries, as part of a community to be organized. Wilson writes:

    President Obama is applying the same tools to international diplomacy that he once used as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, constructing appeals to shared interests and attempting to bring the government’s conduct in line with its ideals. . . . As a community organizer, Obama worked to identify the common interests of neighborhoods suffering through the economic aftermath of plant closings and of the politicians elected to represent them. The role requires patience — a word used consistently by his advisers in regard to reviving Middle East peace talks or reaching out to Iran — and cultivating a lower profile than the other parties involved.

     

    Whether Obama is actually cultivating a lower profile than the other parties involved in his foreign dealings — and, indeed, whether he did so during his ascension through Chicago politics — is open to question.  But let’s put that issue to one side.  Does Obama really believe that the relationship between the U.S. and its allies to the likes of China, Russia, and Iran is comparable to the relationship between aggrieved constituents and their elected representatives?  If so, then he certainly is a fool.

    But the evidence is that Obama believes no such thing.  Obama has not treated Israel and Honduras with the same “patience” he has treated our adversaries.  They have not been the beneficiaries of his “I come here to listen, not to lecture” approach to activism.

    Thus, Obama’s selective use of what Wilson calls a “cool, interests-based” approach to foreign policy should be viewed as a matter of ideology, not one of style.  After all, Jimmy Carter was never a community organizer; yet his approach to the world was an awful lot like Obama’s.

    In sum, the only relationship between Obama’s diplomacy and his community activism is the left-wing ideology behind both.

    I agree with Paul but would go further and stress that Obama has had NO experience in foreign relations and therefore misperceives what will and will not work.  He is inexperienced and his Secretary of State also does not have much experience.  They seem to be very weak on the reality of foreign relations.  So, they are scewing up daily, as all can see.

    War on Terror Update: Confidence in U.S. War on Terror Tumbles To Lowest Level In Nearly Three Years

    Filed under: Foreign Policy, Politics, War on Terror — cliftonchadwick @ 9:58 am
    Monday, November 02, 2009, Rasmussen

    Voter confidence in America’s conduct of the War on Terror has fallen to its lowest level since the first week of January in 2007. Voters are also much less optimistic about the course of the war in Iraq.

    New Rasmussen Reports national telephone polling finds that just 34% of voters say the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s down nine points from a month ago and 21 points from when Barack Obama first took office.

    Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe terrorists are winning that war, and 31% say neither side is ahead.

    As recently as April, 28% said the terrorists were on top, but numbers consistently at that level haven’t been seen since late 2007.
    The belief by 31% that neither side is winning is the highest such finding in at least three years.

    Just 24% say the situation in Iraq will be better in the next six months, down seven points from 31% a month ago and the lowest finding since May of last year.
    Thirty-seven percent (37%) say things will get worse there in the next six months, and 30% expect them to stay about the same.

    With October the deadliest month for U.S. casualties since the war began in October 2001, it’s less surprising to find that 57% believe the situation in Afghanistan will worsen in the next six months. This number is slightly higher than in the two previous months and has been worsening since June. Only 13% say the situation in Afghanistan will be better six months from now, and 20% think it will be about the same.

    Still, largely unchanged for months is the view by 45% that America is safer today than before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
    Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and say the country is not safer. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure.

    Republicans are consistently more pessimistic on all these questions than are Democrats or voters not affiliated with either major party.

    Iran remains at the top of a list of seven countries as the nation that poses a bigger national security threat to the United States. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of all voters cite Iran, followed by 18% who think North Korea is a bigger concern. Seventeen percent (17%) name China.

    Afghanistan is now the first choice of 11% of voters, followed by seven percent (7%) who say Pakistan and four percent (4%) each who list Iraq and Russia.

    Forty-five percent (45%) of voters say it is possible for the United States to win the eight-year-old war in Afghanistan, but 29% disagree and another 25% aren’t sure.

    Forty-two percent (42%) say the United States cannot win the war in Afghanistan if Pakistan remains unstable.

    Only 16% say America’s relationship with the Muslim world will be better one year from now, the lowest level measured all year.
    Thirty-three percent (33%) say that relationship will be worse, and 44% think it will stay about the same.

    The Pelosi Plan for the government takeover of Health Care

    Filed under: Health, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 9:52 am

    Here is a Republican explaining what the Democrats want to do.  It is worth watching.

    The House Republican Conference, meanwhile, has gone to the Herculean effort of tabulating the new federal boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs that would be established by the House bill–all in the name of cutting costs, of course! They add up to 111!!

    Here are a few samples:

    14. “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)
    15. Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)
    16. Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(b), p. 215)
    17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
    18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 617)

    46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
    47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
    48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
    49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
    50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
    51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)

    The government is going to be all over you on this issue. You break wind and some committee will take note and most likely tax you!!

    toon_110209_FULL

     

    November 3, 2009

    The “Costs” of Medical Care

    By Thomas Sowell

    We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is “too high”– either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.

    There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor’s office and more in taxes– or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.

    Costs are not reduced simply because you don’t pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.

    Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive– but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.

    Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance– and fewer people who can afford it.

    Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.

    If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors’ incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors’ offices.

    What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.

    Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries where the medical training may not be the best. In short, reducing doctors’ income is not reducing the cost of medical care, it is refusing to pay those costs. Like other ways of refusing to pay costs, it has consequences.

    Any one of us can reduce medical costs by refusing to pay them. In our own lives, we recognize the consequences. But when someone with a gift for rhetoric tells us that the government can reduce the costs without consequences, we are ready to believe in such political miracles.

    There are some ways in which the real costs of medical care can be reduced but the people who are leading the charge for a government takeover of medical care are not the least bit interested in actually reducing those costs, as distinguished from shifting the costs around or just refusing to pay them.

    The high costs of “defensive medicine”– expensive tests, medications and procedures required to protect doctors and hospitals from ruinous lawsuits, rather than to help the patients– could be reduced by not letting lawyers get away with filing frivolous lawsuits.

    If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys’ fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this.

    Why should they, when it is so much easier just to start a political stampede with fiery rhetoric and glittering promises?

    November 2, 2009

    Bush, Gorbachev, Kohl mark Berlin Wall’s fall, and I reminisce

    Filed under: History, National Security, Politics — cliftonchadwick @ 6:46 pm

     BsAS Herald

    George Bush, Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl paid their respects to the ordinary people who were behind the peaceful revolution of 1989 that brought down the Berlin Wall at an emotional ceremony in Berlin.

    The three statesmen from the United States, Soviet Union and West Germany — whose steady-handed leadership paved the way for the Wall’s opening on November 9, 1989 — recalled the heady events that led to the end of the Cold War at a ceremony attended by 1,800 people.

    “We Germans don’t have very much in our history to be proud of,” said Kohl, 79, who was chancellor of West Germany and then united Germany from 1982-98. “But we’ve got every reason to be proud about German reunification.”

    The reunion in Berlin of the three leaders at the center of the whirlwind of events kicked off a week of celebrations in the German capital marking the 20th anniversary of the opening of the Berlin Wall on November 9.

    Foto Noticia

    Bush, U.S. president from 1989-93, paid tribute in his speech to the countless thousands of courageous East Germans who risked persecution by attending mass protests to demand reform in the months leading up to the Wall’s peaceful collapse.

    “It’s a joy to be here with my former colleagues,” said Bush, who repeatedly put his arm around both Gorbachev and Kohl during the two-hour long ceremony in a theater on Friedrichstrasse just east of where the Berlin Wall stood until 1989.

    “The point needs to be made that the historic events we are gathered to celebrate were set in motion not in Bonn, or Moscow or Washington but rather in the hearts and minds of the people who had too long been deprived of their God-given rights.

    “The Wall could never erase your dream, our dream of one Germany, a free Germany, a proud Germany,” said Bush, 85.

    The three former leaders clearly enjoyed each other’s company at their first reunion in many years — even though Kohl was in a wheelchair and had difficulty speaking while Bush relied on the help of a cane to move about.

    At the time of the fall of the wall I was in San Salvador, El Salvador, in Central American, supervising a major project to evaluate the effectiveness of US money given to the Health Sector in that country which was, at that tme, in a periopd of stress because of the guerilla movement know as the FMLN (Liberation Front).  Watching the footage of the fall of the wall, on a Thursday, in my hotel room at the Sheraton, was truly thrilling. The guerillas were not at all happy.  On Saturday I received a call from Embassy Security telling me to make sure all of my people stayed in their hotels on Saturday evening because trouble was expected.  It seemed that the FMLN wanted to show that they were alive and well despite the fall of the wall.

    And trouble did begin, about nine-thrty in the evening.  To the left of the hotel, as you look toward the city, there is a small canyon that runs along the side of the mountain that is there.  That canyon was one of the main entryways for the guerilleros.  Most of them went down into the city but some stopped in the hotel area and began shooting at people driving by in cars.  Soon there were several wounded people being brought into the hotel.  A wedding party was going on and it happened to be the son of a local doctor. Soon a small clinic was opened in one of the second floor meeting rooms and the doctors started attending to the wounded.  Meanwhile, in the main disco of the hotel, dozens of people were drinking and dancing to the Lambada (remember that!).

    El Salvador-CIA WFB Map.png

    Fortunately I had advised almost all of my people and they were staying out of harm’s way, except for one, who had not recieved the mesage and was chasing boys in the University area.  We did not have cell phones and there was no way we could contact him.  For several days there was intermittent fighting in the city, particularly in the University area.  On Sunday we were told that we could not leave the country without an official embassy escort to the airport, about 40kilometers away.  The missing staff person got so scared that he grabbed his bags and a taxi and left without permission.

    A few days later, as I negotiated with Embassy staff for the transfer of my people to the airport, six Jesuit priests were killed at a local university. They included the rector and vice rector of El Salvador’s most prestigious university. It was quite a schock for the local community and for the Catholic church.  Today’s execution-style slayings, which may have been preceded by torture, took place as the government armed forces unleashed heavy air and artillery attacks on strongholds established by leftist guerrillas in the massive offensive they launched the previous Saturday. 

    I finally left the city, returned to Tegucigalpa and then went on to Madrid, at the invitation of the Sanchez Ruiperez Foundation. When I arrived there I learned that the University President has been a member of the advisory board of the Foundation.

    Older Posts »

    Blog at WordPress.com.