Approximately 72 percent of Israelis support the use of nuclear weapons in certain circumstances, according to a Canadian survey released recently.
Bush said that during his talks with Roh, he reaffirmed the U.S. position that Washington will consider the war formally over only when North Korean leader Kim Jong Il actually dismantles his nuclear program.
Whatever Roh heard Bush say through his translator, it wasn't good enough.
"I think I did not hear President Bush mention the—a declaration to end the Korean War just now," Roh said as cameras clicked and television cameras rolled.
Bush said he thought he was being clear, but obliged Roh and restated the U.S. position.
That wasn't good enough either. "If you could be a little bit clearer in your message," Roh said.
Bush, now looking irritated, replied: "I can't make it any more clear, Mr. President. We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War. That will end—will happen when Kim verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons."
The White House immediately downplayed the testy exchange and said the meeting went smoothly.
"There was clearly something lost in translation," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in a rushed e-mail to reporters.
"I really think the interpreter must not have conveyed the president's comments entirely clearly," Johndroe said. "The president made clear in his opening remarks that he told Roh that the U.S. is committed to a peace agreement once North Korea complies."
And despite Roh's challenge for Bush to make a declaration to end the war, the war was not between the United States and the North but between the North and the United Nations, and Bush alone could not end the war with a simple declaration. "As we say, `all parties involved,' " Johndroe said, when asked about the mechanics of achieving a peace treaty.
In June 1950, the U.N. Security Council, acting on a resolution advanced by the United States, adopted a resolution calling on its member states to help South Korea repel an invasion by the North.
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By the middle of next week, Roy Pearson, the D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million and lost, will receive a letter that starts the process that could put him out of a job.
City sources said a marathon meeting of the Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges ended late Monday with agreement to meet again next week to finalize wording of a letter explaining the panel's doubts about granting Pearson a 10-year term on the bench. Pearson's initial term expired at the end of April, at the height of his legal battle against the Chung family, owners of Custom Cleaners on Bladensburg Road NE.
The panel's discussion about Pearson's future has focused on what role a judge's behavior outside the courtroom should play in assessing his qualifications. Was Pearson's extraordinary zeal in pursuing the case against the Chungs so embarrassing that it amounts to evidence of poor judicial temperament?
The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.
The large man of Middle Eastern descent took a seat next to the buxom woman in the low-cut blouse. Between deals, he made sexual suggestions.
Three seats away, the woman's husband spoke up.
"She's married," he said.
The dealer said to the new player, "You're going to have to curtail your dialogue."
"What did I do wrong?" the disgruntled player asked, according to one source. "Something I said? In my country, women should not be seen in public without a burqa or a veil."
The husband snarled, "Then why don't you go back to your (expletive) country?"
"You don't know who I am," he said, according to one source. "I'm from the Middle East. When I come back, I'm going to blow this place down."
The belligerence continued. So did the threats.
"When Nazarinia would lose a hand of blackjack, he would become violent and punch the gaming table," the Las Vegas police arrest report written by Detective Richard Umberger states. "Tell became fearful for herself and the other customers' safety. She asked Nazarinia to calm down and watch his language. He replied, 'Go (expletive) yourself.' Tell stated that Nazarinia then stated he could bring the entire hotel down. Tell states that Nazarinia indicated to her that he knew how to do it, too."
Nazarinia was arrested on charges of making threats or conveying false information concerning an act of terrorism and making a bomb threat. He was booked on May 19 at the Clark County Detention Center. I am informed he later returned to Canada.
That kind of talk, right in the heart of our tourism corridor, is arguably more egregious than shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and worse than joking at an airport about hijacking a commercial jet liner.
The investigative question is whether Reza Nazarinia has the contacts and capability to make good on his threat.
But threatening terrorism is a form of terrorism, and the jerk should pay a heavy price.
I am happy to report to you that the Oxford Union, in its infinite wisdom, has allowed America to continue existing.
After a raucous debate in front of a packed house, the motion - "this House regrets the Founding of America" - was overwhelmingly squashed.
"Sounded like a bad joke".
The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them."
Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider. We believe that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved. Planned Parenthood affiliates operate more than 860 health centers nationwide, providing medical services and sexuality education for millions of women, men, and teenagers each year. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive health care needs.
Contacts
Erin Kiernon, 202-973-4975
The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today sharply criticized a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions. It is the first abortion decision from the Supreme Court since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired. Both organizations said that the Court’s decision will endanger women’s health.
"It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."
"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women."
Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved Revolution Two Church theme by Brian Gardner Converted into Blogger Template by Bloganol dot com
