Australia lowers the flag - Bringing their troops home. (Aurvant)
— Open Blog

Well, it's official, the Australian Army is leaving Iraq and is heading back home after transferring their duties over to U.S. forces.

While a part of me says "Thanks for all the help" another part of me says "Where the hell do you think your going?" I guess since the surge is working the Aussies feel that they can leave while everything is on the up-and-up and it won't be any skin off anyones back. Unless of course there is a major upswing in attacks on U.S. troops once the Australian's fully leave the area then I can't exactly say that I'll be having a glowing opinion of them.

"Our soldiers have worked tirelessly to ensure that local people in southern Iraq have the best possible chance to move on from their suffering under (Saddam Hussein's) regime and, as a government, we are extremely proud of their service," said Joel Fitzgibbon, Australian Minister of Defence.

Well, it's not like the job is done, but if you say so. All of the allied forces contribution in the Iraq war is an honorable thing, but this removal of troops isn't an indication of anyone finishing the job. No no, it's just a campaign promise to "bring em' home" in the same vein of anti-war appeasement that Obama and Clinton dwell in.

Howard, Rudd's predecessor, said in Australian news reports that he was "baffled" by the decision to withdraw the troops.

"If I had been returned at the last election we would not have been bringing (troops) home, we would have been looking at transitioning
them from their soon-to-be terminated role to a training role," Howard
told the Sydney Morning Herald in an interview published Monday.

Well, I'm not "baffled" at all. If a Prime Minister runs on the platform of removing combat troops from a warzone and constantly promises it in the light of anti-war appeasement then all I can say is "you should have seen it coming.".

However, don't let this withdrawal get to any of you. Australia has assured us that this move won't affect any of our relationships.

In January, Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said U.S. and Australian relations remained the backbone of Australian security. He said the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq won't be "anything of any significance in terms of a long-standing, enduring alliance which will last, in my view, for many, many years to come."

I feel much better. Appreciate it.

Maybe I'm being too hard on Australia, but from my point of view I don't think so. Then again, I'm also a giant hardass who doesn't really care about world opinion. I've always been under the impression that when you start a job that you should, ya know, finish the damn thing. I've always believed that quitting when things are "good enough" does not qualify something as "completed".

Eh, anyways, Australia will be keeping around 1,000 troops in Iraq to fulfill non-combat roles, but considering that U.S. troops are still actively engaged in "combat" I don't see those thousand being much in terms of back-up.

Posted by: Open Blog at 04:53 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama/Clinton/McCain all sign Darfur statement
— Purple Avenger

Wouldn't be newsworthy were it not for the statement containing the dreaded G-word. All three would be well aware of what that implies in terms of the UN.

We stand united and demand that the genocide and violence in Darfur be brought to an end

This is why the UN has carefully crafted all its Darfur language to avoid the G-word. Once the UN agrees that a genocide is occurring, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide essentially compels the UN to take positive actions to stop it and punish the perps.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 04:01 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

AP redefines the word “recession” (genghis)
— Open Blog

ItÂ’s like Ace has said many times beforeÂ…theyÂ’re not even trying to hide the bias anymore. ItÂ’s all about the narrative.

”The economy will perform a neat trick this year, experts predict: fall into recession without contracting. That hasn't happened since the government began tracking quarterly growth of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1947."

"While many believe a recession indicates a contraction in GDP, the National Bureau of Economic Research, known as the arbiter of recessions, merely looks for "a significant decline in economic activity" lasting more than a few months.”

A couple of charts related to the article indicate projected economic growth rates of roughly 2.5% next year. Not flaming skullish, but decent.

But wait! The Washington Post has more in a related commentary. WeÂ’re still doomed.

”Suddenly, it seems, we're getting hit from all directions.
Energy and food prices are soaring. The housing market continues to collapse. Government revenue is falling, and taxes are rising. Airlines are jacking up fares and fees while reducing service. Banks are pulling credit lines. Auto companies are cutting production once again. Even investment bankers are losing their jobs.”

ItÂ’s a fairly long article, so IÂ’ll just cherry-pick my favorites:

”…the story of the global economy purging itself of large and unsustainable imbalances that for a time allowed many Americans to think they were richer than they really were.”

"The same factors that were behind the housing bubble were also at work, to varying degrees, in the auto bubble, the commercial real-state bubble, the travel bubble, the college-tuition bubble, the retail bubble, the Web 2.0 bubble and most recently the commodities bubble.”

So many bubbles, so little time. OohÂ…and a favorite of mine:

”Across the country, state and local governments are already hip-deep into budget crises in response to declining revenue from property assessments and real-estate transfers.”

Conclusions? (prepare to be shocked)

”One option is to raise taxes and leave less money for private spending, which is what many state and local governments have begun to do.
The other is to accept lower levels of government service and subsidies, which inevitably will lower the incomes of some households while forcing others to go without services or pay for them privately.
Either way, it amounts to a lower standard of living than we thought we had achieved.”

Posted by: Open Blog at 01:11 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

Clinton Leads the Popular Vote? Maybe, Maybe Not. But Does it Matter?
— Gabriel Malor

Today, Clinton will be running this ad, "17 Million," in Montana and South Dakota which trumpets her popular vote lead and claims that "More Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton than anyone in primary history." One of Clinton's final arguments to the superdelegates is that it would be electoral disaster to nominate a candidate who didn't win the popular vote.

Of course, the DNC's rules were always intended to override the popular vote if Democratic party leaders disliked the leading candidate. But what started out as a means of reining in recklessly overexcited primary voters turned out to be just as subject to the passions of the superdelegates. No doubt the very un-democratic process (for example, half the superdelegates are white men) will be scrapped after this year, not least because of its un-democratic nature.

No matter which candidate ends up with the popular vote lead (and Clinton's claims are premature according to Byron York's count), it's going to be very, very close. As Byron's figures show, there's just no way that either side will be able to persuade anyone but true believers that they've won. The Democrats have spent the last eight years questioning the legitimacy of close elections. They're still bitter about 2000 and whispers of stolen Ohio votes in 2004 persist. Holding a grudge over this sort of thing is a lifestyle choice for liberals.

All of which adds up to the same thing: John McCain is one lucky candidate.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:24 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Enough politics - how about a nice Johnny Rotten interview?
— Purple Avenger

The Telegraph has run a quite nice interview with John Lydon. If you were ever a devote of the Sex Pistols, as I was, its worth reading the whole thing.

'Everyone on our estate had it tough. Nobody had any money. You've got to pick a pocket or two. You had to know how to make money and not get caught. And at the same time not to turn into a thief or burglar. That sort of working-class community didn't wear anyone parasiting on their own. But that kind of code of conduct doesn't exist now. England's a violent place. Too violent for me. That's why I prefer it here. For a gun-toting nation, Americans are surprisingly passive. This place suits me and the wife.'

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:13 PM | Comments (38)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

Larry Johnson Claiming Big Doings on Alleged Michelle Obama Anti-"Whitey" Videotape
— Ace

I didn't believe this before and I continue not believing it. Politics follows the rules of physics, sort of: In physics, if it can happen, it does happen. In politics, if it's out there, it's already out there. No one would or could keep an explosive tape under wraps, and they almost certainly wouldn't wait until Barack Obama has clinched the nomination to release it.

Nevertheless, LJ is making more big claims. Remember, though, he claimed to know all about Karl Rove's imminent indictment, too.

New and dramatic developments. This is a heads up. IÂ’ll post the news Monday morning by 0900 hours. Now I know why people who have seen the videotape say it is stunning. BarackÂ’s headaches are only starting.

That's the entirety of the post. I'll dutifully check in tomorrow, but... Color me skeptical about the "whitey" tape.

Thanks to CJ.

DrewM Adds:

Roger Stone, professional gadfly, was on Fox saying he's heard that a network already has the tape but who knows.

Hmmm... Well, hah, if any network other than Fox has it, it's pretty much the same as it not existing, IYKWIMAITYD.

Heh:

I could no more disown my wife than I could my grandmother, or leave my church, or .....

ah, fuck it, rev up the bus again.

-- Barack Obama

Posted by: Ace at 04:42 PM | Comments (129)
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Its going to happen! [McGurk]
— Open Blog

Didjaheardidjaheardidjahear??? Hillary officially has more votes than Obama! No matter what happens, whoever loses can claim the winner was selected, not elected!

See, if Hillary loses, her supporters can claim that she had the popular vote but lost because the rules committee disenfranchised the people of Florida and Michigan! And, if the superdelegates break for Hillary because the Michelle "Whitey" Obama tape turns out to be as truly explosive as people like me are hoping, then the Obama supporters can claim that their supporters were disenfranchised by a small minority of the party that decided to go against the will of the majority!

Continue reading to see my reaction to the news this afternoon...

more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 03:13 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Government-run Healthcare Is a Killer
— Gabriel Malor

One of the problems with government-run healthcare is that faceless, bureaucratic rulemakers prescribe courses of treatment instead of doctors in consultation with patients. If the bureaucracy decides that a drug isn't cost-effective, it simply will not be provided, no matter what the doctors or patients want. It's not about saving lives or easing suffering. It's about plotting life-expectancy graphs and rationing finite taxpayer-provided resources.

Losing medical autonomy is bad enough, but government-run healthcare programs are also bound to public perceptions of fairness and equality. Which means that they usually end up doing things like forbidding a person to pay for treatment outside of the government-provided program.

That's just what the UK did last year when the Health Secretary ordered the NHS not to permit patients to pay for unfunded treatments themselves. He said that these "co-payment schemes" would create "a two-tier NHS" with preferential treatment for people who could afford their own medical care. We now know that the policy claimed its first life in March.

A grandmother died from cancer after her free NHS treatment was withdrawn because she had paid privately for a drug that could extend her life.

Linda O'Boyle, 64, had been receiving state-funded care including chemotherapy after she was diagnosed with bowel cancer.

But her local health trust made her pay for her treatment after she started a course of cetuximab, which is available on the NHS in Scotland but not in England and Wales.

[...]

Mr O'Boyle said his wife, who died on March 26, had to stop taking the drug after developing some side-effects but added he was convinced it had extended her life by three months.

Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one of the reasons Britain has one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe.

Cetuximab, also known as Erbitux, cost around £3,700 a month and prolongs the life of bowel cancer patients by six months on average.

It is one of many medicines that the government's rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, has denied to some patients on the grounds of cost-effectiveness.

Let's be clear about what happened here. Mrs. O'Boyle was diagnosed with cancer and had NHS-provided operations, chemo, and other care. Then she found out about a cancer-treatment drug that could prolong her life. Since NHS wouldn't pay for it, she bought it herself. At that point, NHS started charging her for her care that had previously been provided free-of-charge.

This type of policy isn't an unintentional side-effect of government-run healthcare. In fact, the whole point of "universal" healthcare is that it is provided to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. The guiding principle is equality of treatment, which means that any treatments which are too expensive to give to everyone must be denied to everyone. For fairness' sake.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:32 PM | Comments (56)
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

Allah-pundit Sex Aid demo. [krakatoa]
— Open Blog

Google does a live demo of their i-Phone buster, the open-source Android.

When asked for a comment, Allah's office issued a tersely worded release stating he would be "indisposed for roughly the next 5 hours."

Posted by: Open Blog at 02:17 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

ABC (Australia) Game Calculates When You Should Die For Using Up Your "Fair Share" of Earth's Resources
— Gabriel Malor

The game intended for children, "Planet Slayer," is on the Australian Broadcasting Corp. website. It's not actually much of a game; it's just PC propaganda software. Users are supposed to answer questions about their lifestyle and the game calculates how much of a "greenhouse pig" they are. It then compares the user to "the Average Aussie greenhouse pig" and to "an environmentally-sustainable 'green' pig."

For added fun, click on the skull and bones to have it calculate the age at which you should die so as not to use more than your fair share of the Earth's resources.

I still wasn't convinced that this wasn't some bizarre humor or parody gone wrong. But ABC says that it is a serious attempt to engage children in environmental issues. The TV network says it will review the content, but it's clear they have no idea why people are objecting.

Going after children is pretty common for environmentalists. You've got to get 'em before they become mindless consumers, after all. I remember when I was in elementary school there were a million "Save the Rainforest" events and "Plant a Tree" ceremonies. Looking back on it I'm surprised my parents put up with us bringing home all that crap all the time.

Thanks, once again, to Watts Up With That?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:54 AM | Comments (109)
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.