Saturday, July 29, 2006

WHO’S ON FIRST

Hi. Thought you might get a laugh out of this. If you have never heard it, I highly recommend the audio file (be patient while it downloads.) The first link seems to be the best, with Audio and transcript.
My students have always loved it. Hope you enjoy it. Please pass on to others.

Audio & Transcript

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/abbott&costellowhosonfirst.htm

http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhoOnFirst.html

Audio MP3 recordings:

http://www.abbottandcostello.net/

http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhosOnFirstAudio.mp3

WHO’S ON FIRST

(by Abbott and Costello)

The following text contains references to “baseball.”

Some baseball positions: first base/ second base/ third base/ in-field/ out-field/ center field.

Note: People’s names are in capital letters.

A: Well COSTELLO, I’m going to New York with you. You know BUCKY HARRIS, the Yank’s manager, gave me a job as coach for as long as you’re on the team.

C: Look, ABBOT, if you’re the coach, you must know all the players.

A: I certainly do.

C: Well, you know, I never met the guys so you’ll have to tell me their names and then I’ll know who’s playing on the team.

A: Oh, I’ll tell you their names. But you know strange as it may seem, they give these ball players nowadays very peculiar names.

C: You mean funny names?

A: Strange names, pet names, like DIZZY DEAN.

C: SMALL ADAFIUS.

A: DAFFY DEAN

C: I’ve got a French cousin.

A: French?

C: GOOFE?

A: GOOFE DEAN. Oh I see. Now let’s see, we have on the bags, we have WHO’s on first, WHAT’s on second, I-DON’T-KNOW is on third.

C: That’s what I want to find out.

A: I said, WHO’s on first WHAT’s on second, I-DON’T-KNOW’s on third.

C: Are you the manager?

A: Yes.

C: You gonna be the coach too?

A: Yes.

C: And you don’t know the fella’s names?

A: Well, I should.

C: Well then, who’s on first?

A: Yes

C: I mean the fella’s name.

A: WHO.

C: The guy on first.

A: WHO.

C: The first baseman

A: WHO!

C: The guy playing first.

A: WHO is on first!

C: I’m asking you who’s on first.

A: That’s the man’s name.

C: That’s whose name?

A: Yes.

C: Well go ahead and tell me.

A: That’s it.

C: That’s who?

A: Yes.

C: Have you got a first baseman?

A: Certainly.

C: Who’s playing first?

A: That’s right.

C: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

A: Every dollar of it.

C: All I’m trying to find out is the fella’s name on first base.

A: WHO.

C: The guy that gets…

A: That’s it!

C: Who gets the money on…?

A: He does. Every dollar. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

C: Whose wife?

A: Yes. What’s wrong with that.

C: Look, all I wanna know is when you sign up the first baseman, how does he sign his name to the contract?

A: WHO.

C: The guy.

A: WHO.

C: How does he sign his name?

A: That’s how he signs it!

C: Who?

A: Yes.

C: All I’m trying to find out is what’s the guy’s name on first base!

A: No! WHAT is on second base.

C: I’m not asking you who’s on second.

A: WHO’s on first.

C: One base at a time!

A: Well don’t change the players.

C: I’m not changing nobody!

A: Take it easy buddy.

C: I’m only asking ya, who’s the guy on first base?

A: That’s right.

C: OK.

A: Alright.

C: What’s the guy’s name on first base?

A: No, WHAT is on second.

C: I’m not asking ya who’s on second.

A: WHO’s on first.

C: I dunno (=don’t know).

A: Oh, he’s on third. We’re not talking about him…

C: Now, how could I get on third base?

A: Why, you mentioned his name.

C: If I mentioned the third baseman’s name, who did I say is playing third?

A: No, WHO’s playing first.

C: What’s on first?

A: WHAT’s on second

C: I dunno.

A: He’s on third.

C: There I go, back on third again. Would you stay on third base and don’t go off it!

A: Alright. Now, what do you wanna know?

C: Now who’s playing third base?

A: Why do you insist on putting WHO on third base?

C: What am I putting on third?

A: No, WHAT is on second.

C: You don’t want who on second?

A: WHO is on first.

C: I don’t know.

C/A: Third base!

C: Look, you got a out-field?

A: Sure.

C: The left-fielder’s name?

A: WHY.

C: I just thought I’d ask you.

A: Well I just thought I’d tell you.

C: Then tell me who’s playing left-field.

A: WHO is playing first!

C: I’m not… stay out of the in-field! I wanna know what’s the guy’s name in left-field?

A: No, WHAT is on second.

C: I’m not asking you who’s on second.

A: WHO’s on first.

C: I dunno.

C/A: Third base!

C: And the left-fielder’s name?

A: WHY!

C: Because!

A: Oh, he’s center-field.

C: Look, look, look. You got a pitcher on the team?

A: Sure.

C: The pitcher’s name?

A: TOMORROW.

C: You don’t wanna tell me today?

A: I’m telling you man.

C: Well, go ahead.

A: TOMORROW.

C: What time?

A: What time what?

C: What time tomorrow you’re gonna tell me who’s pitching?

A: Now listen, WHO is not pitching!

C: I’ll break your arm you say who’s on first! I wanna know what’s the pitcher’s name?

A: WHAT’s on second.

C: I dunno.

C/A: Third base!

C: You got a catcher?

A: Certainly!

C: The catcher’s name?

A: TODAY.

C: Today? And tomorrow’s pitching?

A: Now you’ve got it!

C: All we’ve got is a couple of days of the week. You know I’m a catcher too.

A: So they tell me.

C: I get behind the players, do some fancy catching, tomorrow’s pitching on my team, and a heavy hitter gets up.

A: Yes.

C: Now the heavy hitter bunts the ball. When he bunts the ball, me being a good catcher, I’m gonna throw the guy out at first base, so I pick up the ball and throw it to who?

A: Now that’s the first thing you’ve said right!

C: I don’t even know what I’m talking about!

A: That’s all you have to do!

C: Is to throw the ball to first base?

A: Yes!

C: Now, who’s got it?

A: Naturally!

C: Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody’s gottta get it. Now, who has it?

A: Naturally.

C: Who?

A: Naturally.

C: Naturally?

A: Naturally.

C: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to naturally?

A: No you don’t. You throw the ball to WHO!

C: Naturally.

A: That’s it.

C: That’s what I said.

A: You’re not saying it right.

C: I throw the ball to naturally.

A: You throw it to WHO!

C: Naturally.

A: That’s it.

C: That’s what I said!

A: Listen, you asked me.

C: I throw the ball to who?

A: Naturally.

C: Now you ask me.

A: You throw the ball to WHO?

C: Naturally.

A: That’s it.

C: Same as you! Same as you! I throw the ball to who! Whoever it is drops the ball and the guy runs to second.

A: Yes.

C: Who picks up the ball and throws it to what. What throws it to I don’t’ know. I don’t know throws it back to tomorrow. Triple play.

A: Yes.

C: Another guy gets up and it’s a long fly ball to because. Why? I don’t know. He’s on third and I don’t give a darn.

A: Wha-what?

C: I said, I don’t give a darn!

A: Oh, that’s our short-stop.



Saturday, July 01, 2006

Free Press in the US



This is a stunning quote:

"There is no such thing in America as an independent press, unless it is in the country towns.

You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to writes (sic) his honest opinions, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

I am paid one hundred and fifty dollars a week for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with--others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things--and any of you who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.

The business of the New York journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his race and his country for his daily bread.

You know this and I know it, and what folly is this to be toasting an "Independent Press."

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping-jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune, in the 1880s, at a banquet of his fellow editors

Source:

Considering that George Bush is now angry at the New York Times at the moment for exposing all of his secret programs that are spying on American bank accounts, phone calls, emails, etc, then its quite stunning to read this quote. It seems that many journalists do actually behave as described above - they keep their real opinions out of the newspaper. And it also seems that George would like it to stay that way: media reports should be written or approved by the White House, the public doesn’t have a right to know. See the date of this quote? 1880!! So, what has changed in more than 100 years? Is there ever really a free press in the “land of the free”?




Warren Buffett donates $37bn to charity


Mana orang Islam seperti ini?? Kenapa orang non-Muslim yang bisa sumbangkan begitu banyak uang? Bukannya banyak orang Islam yang kaya juga? $US 37 milyar untuk amal? Luar biasa. Sayangnya, orang Islam yang kaya lebih cenderung menyimpan hartanya supaya anaknya tambah kaya. Berapa banyak orang Saudi dsb. yang kaya raya yang tidak pernah befikir untuk menyumbangkan hartanya untuk kepentingan ummat? Sayang sekali.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett has said he was waiting for decades to make a huge charitable donation.

He said he was overjoyed as he spoke for the first time since revealing he would donate about $37bn (£20bn) to Bill Gates' charitable foundation.

The donation is thought to be the largest charitable gift ever in the US.

Mr Buffett will hand 10 million shares in his Berkshire Hathaway firm to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The man known as "the sage of Omaha" for his relentless success in investments said he always wanted to give the bulk of his fortune away. [dari dulu dia berencana untuk menyumbangkan sebagian besar dari hartanya – tidak ada rencana untuk menyimpannya]

"I am not an enthusiast of dynastic wealth, particularly when the alternative is six billion people having that much poorer hands in life than we have, having a chance to benefit from the money," he said.

"It is a big challenge to make sure this money gets used in the right way," he said of the donation.

The foundation aims to fight disease and promote education around the world, particularly in developing countries. [tujuannya: membasmi penyakit dan menyebarkan pendidikan di seluruh dunia.]

"There is no reason why we can't cure the top 20 diseases," Mr Gates - who will give up his day-to-day role at Microsoft in 2008 to concentrate on the foundation's work - said.

BBC business editor Robert Peston said the size of the foundation's cash pile dwarfed that of other organisations, and compared it with the $12bn annual budget of the United Nations.

As well as donating to the Gates foundation, he also pledged shares for his three children and a substantial gift for a foundation named for his late wife, Susan Thompson Buffett.

Despite his huge wealth, Mr Buffett has modest tastes, is called a "cola and hamburger kind of guy", plays the ukulele, and still lives in the same house he bought in his home town of Omaha, Nebraska, in 1957. [mana ada orang Islam yang akan tinggal di rumah yang sama kalau jadi kaya raya? Pasti beli rumah gede di pondok indah dsb.]

Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2006/06/26 22:54:26 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Fund of $29.1bn

$10.5bn in grants since 1994

Aims: reducing poverty and improving health and access to education

Largest grant: $1bn to the United Negro College Fund

70% of aid spent outside US



TOP FIVE BILLIONAIRES

Bill Gates (US, Microsoft) - $50bn

Warren Buffett (US, investor) - $42bn

Carlos Slim (Mexico, industrialist) - $30bn

Ingvar Kamprad (Sweden, Ikea) - $28bn

Lakshmi Mittal (UK, steel) $23.5bn

Life in Burma


The BBC has run a series of articles about Burma recently. Here are the links and the first article. Life in Burma is similar to life in George Orwell’s book 1984.

1. Burma: Orwellian state, with teashops


2. Life under Burma's military regime


3. Burma's public service suffering


4. Burma's confusion over capital


5. Burma's opposition muted but alive


6. Should tourists go to Burma?


HERE IS THE FIRST ARTICLE. YOU CAN FOLLOW THE LINKS FOR THE OTHER FOUR IF YOU ARE STILL INTERESTED. -Gene

Burma: Orwellian state, with teashops

The BBC's Kate McGeown has just returned from Burma, where she talked to people about life under its repressive military regime. In the first of a series of articles, she gives her impressions of a nation the international community seems at a loss to know what to do with.

As I stepped down from the plane onto Burmese soil, my head full of warnings about spies watching my every move, I was pleasantly surprised to find friendly faces rushing to greet me.

"Thank you so much for coming," said an elderly man, smiling through betel-stained teeth.

Where was the Orwellian nightmare I had been warned about? Where were the police ready to cart me off to jail because they had found out I was a journalist?

The sun was shining, the people were open and friendly... it seemed like any other Asian country. I found it hard not to wonder what all the fuss was about.

But it did not take long to find evidence of Burma's darker side.

Barely 20 minutes along the main highway from the airport, I saw a road leading off to the right that was completely shut off by heavily-armed police.

The tight security was not surprising, given that the road led to the home of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, whose term of house arrest had been extended just days before my arrival.

Local people never mention Ms Suu Kyi by name - they just call her The Lady, a term of deference towards a woman whom many Burmese, probably the vast majority, believe is the rightful leader of their nation.

Despite spending more than 10 of the last 17 years as a prisoner, she remains the main symbol of resistance against the military regime that has ruled Burma for four decades, and which often uses fear and intimidation to keep people in line.

Gossip

Against this backdrop, Burma's 50 million citizens carry on with their daily lives as best they can.

Down the road from Aung San Suu Kyi's house, the people of Rangoon queue for the city's crowded buses, huddle in shops with working generators during the frequent power cuts or play their own version of the Thai national lottery.

Then they do what all Burmese do, and stop in one of the many teashops to gossip about the weather and the football.

But that does not mean that their anger at the military regime has disappeared. If you talk to someone about their life, any veneer of contentment will usually evaporate.


BURMA FACTFILE

Population of 50 million

Largely made up of Bamar people, but there are many other ethnic groups

Coup led by General Ne Win in 1962 heralded the start of military rule

Opposition won 1990 election but never allowed to take power

Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest



One day, as we drove past a peaceful rural scene of villagers ploughing paddy fields with their oxen, I asked my taxi driver for his views on the political situation.

He had been singing a song to himself, but his face suddenly turned red and angry, and he said: "I hate the people who rule this country. My hatred of the government knows no bounds."

In fact he got so upset that we had to stop the car so he could calm down.

Another man became equally animated when I asked him about the secret military informants who lurk around ever corner.

"They're like a virus - a disease ripping this country apart," he said. "They are everywhere, and they see everything we do.

"So many of my friends have been caught and jailed over the years - some for doing hardly anything. So many lives have been ruined."

Speaking out

It is hardly surprising that emotions run so high.

I was only in Burma for a short time, but I quickly found out how uncomfortable it is to be under surveillance - albeit by a somewhat amateur spy.

On my first day, a man walked into the lobby of my hotel and pretended to read a newspaper near where I was sitting.

He did not turn the page for 20 minutes, but the real giveaway was that the paper - a week-old copy of The Straits Times - was upside-down.

Despite the obvious personal risks of talking to a foreigner, many Burmese people were still willing to put aside their fears and share their lives with me.

They told me about their healthcare system, their schools, their views on the government and the extraordinary decision to move the country's capital to what was, until a few years ago, a rural backwater.

One day a tour guide showing me round one of the Burma's many pagodas turned to me and whispered: "Please let other people know what it's like for us here. We need the outside world to understand."

In this series of articles, I will do my best to answer his request.

Story from BBC NEWS:


Published: 2006/06/13 22:48:38 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Hermann Goering and George Bush

Herman Goering was one of Adolf Hitlers generals. Here he explains that it is easy for leaders to make the people follow them - even in a democracy. Just tell them they are being attacked and they will follow their leaders. If anyone criticizes, just say they are a danger to the country (George Bush is now saying that about the New York Times because they leaked information about his domestic spying programs).

"Why of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Hermann Goering, Nazi General

"I'm the Commander - see, I don't need to explain. That's the interesting thing about being President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

George W. Bush, August 2002

"At some point, we may be the only ones left. That's okay with me. We are Americans."

George W. Bush

"God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

George W. Bush

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." The revelation, he added, "makes it harder to win the war on terror."

George W. Bush talking about the New York Times publishing reports about the government’s program to spy on people’s bank accounts. June 2006

Analysis of War in Iraq

This is a nice Analysis of the US War against Iraq for domination in the Middle East. I know it will be diffiucult for some people to read, if you are not very fluent in English. Try to read it. Just go past the words you dont know and try to understand the basic ideas. Its worthwhile. Good luck. - Gene.

The Empire Needs New Clothes

by Thom Hartmann

It's easy to vilify George W. Bush as a cynical warmonger, anxious to attack Iraq to repay the oil companies that funded his election campaigns. But to do so is to make a dangerous and fundamental error, and such a myopic view of the Bush administration's policies puts America's future at risk.

The reality is that the current administration has a clear and specific vision for the future of America and the world, and they believe it's a positive vision. In order to put forward an alternative vision, it's essential to first understand the vision of America held by the New Right.

The core of the neoconservative vision was first articulated on June 3, 1997, in the Statement of Principles put forth by the Project For The New American Century. Signed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Bennett, Jeb Bush, Gary Bauer, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, Steve Forbes and others from the Reagan/Bush administration, it clearly stated that "the history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."

Frankly acknowledging that America is a small portion of the world's population but uses a large percentage of the world's oil and other natural resources, Poppy Bush is famous for having said, "The American lifestyle is not negotiable."

McMansions for two-person families, a transportation infrastructure based on 6,000-pound SUVs carrying single individuals, cheap Chinese goods at Wal-Mart and cheap Mexican food in the supermarket - all of this is not anything America intends to give up. We're king of the hill, and we intend to stay that way, even if it means going to war to keep it.

At the core of this is oil. When the administration's people say American involvement in Iraq is "not about oil," they're often responding to charges that they're only going after profits for American oil companies. They speak truth, in that context, when they say the war isn't about revenues from oil - the profits will only be a desirable side-effect. What the war is really about is the survival of the American lifestyle, which, in their world-view, is both non-negotiable and based almost entirely on access to cheap oil.

The same year Cheney, et al, wrote their papers on The New American Century, I wrote a book about the coming end of American peace and prosperity because of our dependence on a dwindling supply of oil. "Since the discovery of oil in Titusville, PA, where the world's first oil well was drilled in 1859," I wrote in The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, "humans have extracted 742 billion barrels of oil from the Earth. Currently, world oil reserves are estimated at about 1,000 billion barrels, which will last (according to the most optimistic estimates of the oil industry) 'for almost 45 years at current rates of consumption.'"

But that doesn't mean that we'll suck on the straw for 45 years and then it'll suddenly stop. When about half the oil has been removed from an underground oil field, it starts to get much harder (and thus more expensive) to extract the remaining half. The last third to quarter can be excruciatingly expensive to extract - so much so that wells these days that have hit that point are usually just capped because it costs more to extract the oil than it can be sold for, or it's more profitable to ship oil in from the Middle East, even after accounting for the cost of shipping.

The halfway point of an oil field is referred to as "The Hubbert Peak," after scientist M. King Hubbert, who first pointed this out in 1956 and projected 1970 as the year for the Hubbert Peak of US oil supplies. Hubbert was off by four years - 1974 saw the initial decline in US oil production and the consequent rise in price. In 1975, Hubbert, who is now deceased, projected 2000 for a worldwide Hubbert Peak. Once that point had been hit, he and other experts suggested, the world could expect economy-destabilizing spikes in the price of oil, and wars to begin over control of this vital resource.

Most of the world has now been digitally "X-rayed" using satellites, seismic data, and computers, in the process of locating 41,000 oil fields. Over 641,000 exploratory wells have been drilled, and virtually all fields which show any promise are well-known and factored into the one-trillion barrel estimate the oil industry uses for world oil reserves.

And of that 1 trillion barrels, Saudi Arabia has about 259 billion barrels and Iraq is estimated by the US Government to have 432 billion barrels, although at the moment only about 112 billion barrels have been tapped. The rest, virgin oil, can be pumped out for as little as $1.50 a barrel, making Iraqi oil not only the most abundant in the world, but the most profitable. This at a time when virtually all American oil fields (except the Alaska North Slope) have dwindled past the Hubbert Peak into $5 to $25 per barrel pumping costs.

Thus, we see that our "lifestyle" - our ability to maintain our auto-based transportation systems, our demand for big, warm houses, and our appetite for a wide variety of cheap foods and consumer goods - is currently based on access to cheap oil. If we assume that the American people won't tolerate a change in that lifestyle, then we can extrapolate that our very security as a stable democracy is dependent on cheap oil.

Viewed in this context, the rush to seize control of the Middle East - where about a third of the planet's oil is located - makes perfect sense. It's a noble endeavor, in that view, maintaining the strength and vitality of the American Empire.

Of course, there are a few cracks in this vision. In order to have such a new American century, we must be willing to foul our waters and air with the byproducts of oil combustion and oil-fired power plants, and tolerate the explosions in cancer they bring. We must be willing to gamble that raising CO2 levels won't destabilize the atmosphere and tip us into a new ice age by shutting down the Great Conveyor Belt warm-water currents in the Atlantic. We must be willing to hold the rest of the world off at the point of a bayonet, and to take on the England/Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine type of terrorism that inevitably comes when people decide to assert nationalism and confront empire.

And, perhaps most distressing, the third George to be President of the United States must be willing to clamp down on his own dissident citizens the same way that King George III of England did in 1776. These are the requirements of empire.

The last American statesman to put forth a different vision was President Jimmy Carter, who candidly pointed out to the American people that oil was a dwindling domestic resource. Carter said that we mustn't find ourselves in a position of having to fight wars to seize other people's oil, and that a decade or two of transition to renewable energy sources would ensure the stability and future of America without destabilizing the rest of the world.

It would even lead to a cleaner environment and a better quality of life. Carter put in place energy tax credits and incentives that birthed an exploding new industry based on building solar-heated homes, windmill-powered communities, and the development of fuel alternatives to petroleum.

Ronald Reagan's first official act of office was to remove Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House. He then repealed Carter's tax incentives for renewable energy and killed off an entire industry. No president since then has had the courage or vision to face the hard reality that Carter shared with us.

And so now we discover these oddities. Osama bin Laden, for example, explicitly said that he had attacked the US because we had troops stationed on the holy soil of his homeland - a position not that different from Northern Irish, Palestinian, Tamil, and Kashmiri terrorists. And our troops are there to protect our access to Saudi oil, a dependence legacy we inherited from Reagan's rejection of Carter's initiatives.

If we are to hold a vision of America that doesn't depend on foreign sources of oil and doesn't require the enormous expenditures of money and blood to project and protect empire, simply saying "stop the war" isn't enough. We must clearly articulate a vision of what America could be in a world in balance, a world at peace, and a world where the planet's vital natural resources are protected and renewed. This is the ultimate family value, the highest patriotism, and the most desperately needed story to guide the next generation of Americans.

As President John F. Kennedy said in his 1961 Inaugural Address, "All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

Thom Hartmann is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Source: CommonDreams.org

Some Comments from George Bush & Co.

US Says No to Talks With North Korea


By Burt Herman
The Associated Press


U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton:

"You don't normally engage in conversations by threatening to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles, and it's not a way to produce a conversation because if you acquiesce in aberrant behavior, you simply encourage the repetition of it, which we're obviously not going to do," Bolton told reporters at U.N. headquarters in New York.

[but if you are threatening to launch wars of aggression against them, its ok: Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Iran. Threats are fine as part of “conversations” as long as it’s the US doing the threatening.]

"It should make people nervous when non-transparent regimes who have announced they have nuclear warheads, fire missiles," Bush said at a meeting with European leaders in Vienna, Austria. "This is not the way you conduct business in the world."

[Bush giving lessons on how to behave as a responsible member of the global community?? No to Kyoto Protocols, No to ICC in the Hague, No to Geneva Conventions whenever its suits them, No to ban on Proliferation etc.]


BBC News:

President Bush said that he was "pleased" the Chinese government had also advised North Korea against testing the missile.

This is a "positive sign", he said, adding that Pyongyang must realise there are "certain international norms" to live by.

Here are some examples of the US living by “international norms”:

Source:

The International Criminal Court:

It is no small irony that the nation that championed the Nuremberg trials and helped bring about the indictment and capture of Slobodan Milosevic now stands as the single greatest opponent of the International Criminal Court.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child:

This historic document recognizing the inalienable rights of children has been ratified by every nation in the world with the exception of the U. S. and Somalia.

The World Arms Trade:

But despite the evidence demonstrating the deadly impact of the small arms trade in nations such as Rwanda and Bosnia, the Bush Administration refused to support a UN Conference seeking to ban small arms trafficking, alleging it interfered with the United States' constitutional guarantees on the right to bear arms.

The International Ban on Landmines:

Anti-personnel landmines kill or maim several thousand people each month. Some are soldiers. Most are civilians. Many are children. And to date some 139 governments have signed and 107 have ratified the historic treaty that establishes a comprehensive ban on the use of these mines in all circumstances.

The Clinton Administration refused to join the Mine Ban Treaty, claiming that anti-personnel mines were needed to protect the Republic of Korea from invasion by North Korea. But even some military commanders now consider these anti-personnel mines not only outmoded but a real and deadly liability to U. S. troops.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW):

More than 160 nations have ratified CEDAW, yet the United States joins Iran and Sudan as one of those few nations who have not accepted this important treaty.

#######

The US 'wants to end Guantanamo'

BBC News

US President George W Bush has said he would like to close the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and send many detainees back to their home countries.

However, he said not all the inmates would be returned - some would need to be put on trial in the US because they were "cold-blooded killers".

[Thought Crime at its best. Nice that George is able to know if someone is a cold blooded killer before they have done any killing. I guess dropping bombs on other countries and killing countless civilians gives him the ability to spot other killers.]

Mr Bush said he understood European concerns over the US detention camp in Cuba.

"I'd like to end Guantanamo. I'd like it to be over with," he said.

He said 200 detainees had been sent home, and most of those remaining were from Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan.

[Remember that Donald Rumsfeld called them “the worst of the worst” as justification for the prison camp. Now 200 have been released. Are we all in danger then??

> No comments from anyone in the media. Interesting]

But he added that there were some detainees "who need to be tried in US courts".

"They will murder somebody if they are let out on the street."

Buoyant Bush sees common ground

BBC News


President Bush addressed the issue in his trademark style, but with more subtlety when it came to content.

"Some people," he said, "say it's okay to condemn people to tyranny. I don't believe it's okay to condemn people to tyranny. And I'll try to do my best to explain to the Europeans that on the one hand we are tough on the war on terror, and on the other we are providing more money than ever before in the world's history for HIV and Aids on the continent of Africa.

"I'll do my best to explain our foreign policy. On the one hand it is tough when needs be, on the other hand it's compassionate."

[Funny comments from a guy who has invaded and occupied two countries recently. No one else has done that. So who is the tyrant??]

Dutch paedophiles to launch political party


Para Pedofil (“paedophile” – orang yang suka main seks dengan anak) sudah membuat sebuah partai politik baru di Belanda. Tujan mereka supaya umur legal untuk berhubungan seks turun dari 16 tahun menjadi 12 tahun. Artinya, kalau kebijakan mereka diterima, maka orang dewasa yang berzina dengan anak SD tidak bisa dihukum. Pronografi dengan anak dan seks dengan binatang juga ingin dibuat legal. Kemungkinan besar, orang Belanda tidak akan mendukung partai baru tersebut, dan dengan demikian, kebijakan baru mereka tidak mungkin menjadi hukum.

Dulu, orang mengatakan hal yang sama tentang perzinaan, aborsi, homoseks, penggunaan narkoba, tindik, tato, dsb. Orang merasa bahwa hal tersebut tidak normal dan tidak akan menjadi normal. Ternyata, semuanya bisa diterima masyarakat barat sekarang sebagai hal yang wajar dan oke saja. Bagaimana dengan para pedofil pada 20 tahun mendatang?? Apakah mereka akan diterima masyarakat juga?

Dutch paedophiles to launch political party

Tuesday May 30, 2006 11:16 AM BST 13(Reuters)

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch paedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals.

The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered on Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"

The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.

"We want to make paedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding that the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighbouring Belgium. "We have been hushed up. The only way is through parliament."

The Netherlands already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage, but the NVD is unlikely to win much support, the AD quoted experts as saying.

"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-paedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the daily.

The party said private possession of child pornography should be allowed although it favours banning the trade of such materials. The broadcast of pornography should be allowed on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening, according to the party.

Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.

The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public.

The party's programme also includes ideas for other areas of public policy including legalising all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.