text:
Okay, xkcd is an awesome webcomic about, as it says, "romance, sarcasm, math, and language." Actually, science should be thrown in there somewhere too. But the "Powers of One" strip is particularly awesome. As with several webcomics, there's a little additional joke in the tooltip (mouseover) text, and in this case, it's cooler than the actual strip. See the strip to understand what's going on, but I'm adopting the tooltip joke as a new quote: "It's kinda Zen when you think about it, if you don't think too hard."
That so sums up much of Zen-type stuff for me. That's how I believe a lot of Zenlike stuff (I'm not really dissing Zen itself here; Zen philosophy is too complex for the kind of light treatment I'm giving here. So let's say this applies to some actual Zen stuff and a lot of pop Zen, or Zen-like, stuff) is. It sounds all cool and spooky and paradoxical until you actually examine it closely enough to understand it. For instance, I got an email from a friend today that said, "My father's mother once said 'I'm not a feminist. I'm not particularly feminine' and she was both right and wrong." Now, I'm not poking fun at the author of this email; she knew exactly what she meant, and so did I. But this is the sort of quote that could be interpreted all Zen-ly: oooh, something's both right and wrong at the same time, there's no absolute truth, we've just got to go with the flow and take a lot of drugs (or meditation, or whatever) so we can try to grasp, non-intellectually, the ultimate, seemingly contradictory Truths of the Universe.
Poppycock. For someone with an intellectual, scientific mindset, this is a simple problem (and I realize I didn't choose a particularly difficult example; if someone has a better one on tap, I'd gladly use it). Either this was intended to mean "she was both right and wrong at the same time and in the same way," in which case it's utterly contradictory, therefore it was nonsensical, therefore there was no meaning in the statement whatsoever; or it meant "she was right in at least one way and wrong in at least one other way," in which case it makes perfect sense, but isn't creepy or mystical or contradictory in any way, it's just couched in a shorter, more-interesting-sounding way (this is precisely how it was intended to be understood in this case, by the way).
Again, I realize I used a simple, almost straw-man example, but I really view a lot (if not all) of the seemingly-contradictory, mystical statements of the Zen-loving crowd this way: either they're actual contradictions, in which case they're both meaningless and utterly useless, or they're not, and a little analysis will uncover what's actually going on, thus removing the spooky mysticism from the situation. Yes, sure, this removes a little of the mystery from the Universe, but isn't the point of mysteries that it's fun to try to solve them? There's plenty more mysteries in the Universe to uncover, and meanwhile, you've increased your understanding of the world, which in my mind is more important than maintaining unnecessary mysteries.
Posted By Calion to Genius/Idiot—Current Thoughts at 6/04/2007 09:57:00 AM


The annual rush of TV clips previewing storied playoff intensity aren't likely to highlight a grim anniversary linked to the Stanley Cup.
It was a hundred years ago this week that death stalked the final in the only cancellation of a championship series in progress with no winner declared.
Rather than an escape from reality, this sporting event was a brutal reminder of World War I's legacy. Those who escaped the horrors of the 1914-18 conflict faced an influenza pandemic beyond European battlegrounds to the four corners of the world, and in this case, Seattle, Wash., where the Metropolitans and Montreal Canadiens met in the 1919 series.
It would take the life of Montreal star (Bad) Joe Hall, have a ripple effect on the early history of the Habs in the two-year-old NHL and leave a hole on the original Cup bowl.
Chapelle was first intrigued by the story while growing up in Scarborough, Ont., in the 1970s.
"Like a lot of kids, I collected those Esso Power Players stickers. One of them listed all the Cup winners and right near the top for 1919 was 'No Decision'.
"So much time has passed that most people still might not be aware of what happened that year or the bigger picture that the flu killed as many as 50 million. Not just the sick and elderly, but young people in the prime of life.
Some 21st-century studies on the rapid pandemic pinpointed hot spots such as Etaples in northern France, a troop-staging and hospital town where the close quarters of malnourished/wounded/gassed soldiers and unsanitary live animal pens could have easily bred a wide infection. Other research claimed a strain developed in Kansas a few years earlier that affected American soldiers coming overseas. Another traced it to crowded cities in Asia and some of its labourers transported to Europe and North America during the war. But in that turbulent time, more people going to more places on crowded ships and trains made medical risks unavoidable.
In September 1918, the Montreal Gazette warned of the 'Spanish Grippe' (Allied propaganda would only publicize the spread of disease in neutral countries such as Spain), reporting 73 dead in Boston in one day. In his history of the Montreal Canadiens, author Darcy Jenish said a Canadian army base south of Montreal was struck three days later. Between Oct. 1 and a week after Armistice Day in November, more than 3,000 died in Montreal as it took a toll across Canada.
On March 10, with the worst perceived to be over in Quebec and the Canadiens defeating Ottawa for the NHL title, the Habs departed the Windsor train station for their long trip to meet the Mets, due to begin nine days later. The year before, the Toronto Blues hosted and beat the PCHA's Vancouver Millionaires at Mutual St. Arena, so the venue shifted west.
But en route to Seattle, the Habs stopped for an exhibition game in Vancouver. Several players in that area were just getting over the flu, thus many suspect it's where it took root among Montreal's nine-man team.
Nothing was amiss in a spirited start to the best-of-five series at the 4,000-seat Seattle Arena. Under PCHA rules, which included seven men aside with a rover and more stringent penalty calls that hampered Montreal players such as Hall, the Mets won the opener 7-0.
NHL regulations applied every other match, resulting in a split of Games 2 and 3. Then came a 0-0 draw, with no one scoring in the extra period, followed by Montreal sub Jack McDonald with the first overtime goal in Cup history in Game 5 on March 29, a 4-3 win tying the series.
At that stage, the duelling stars were Frank Foyston of Seattle with nine goals and Newsy Lalonde of the Habs with six. Georges Vezina played every game in net for Montreal, Hap Holmes for Seattle, the latter having won in 1918 with Toronto.
Fans across the continent readied for news of the deciding game on April 1, to be settled under Western rules. But there'd be no celebration by either team.
While a few Mets had played through the flu and hockey-related injuries, the Habs gradually succumbed, five of them and manager George Kennedy confined to the Georgina Hotel, some with temperatures of 105 F. Hall was completely bedridden.
Doctors and nurses attended the players all hours and there was hope the Habs could at least get enough men in uniform to start Game 6. Kennedy suggested importing some replacements from B.C., but was denied. On game morning, arena workers were told to start taking the ice out and change the venue back to a roller-skating rink. Official word came later that day the series was cancelled.
Negotiators such as PCHA president Frank Patrick tried to make the best of it, agreeing to a 50-50 split of profits with the visitors, while Seattle manager Pete Muldoon didn't file a protest to claim the Cup as his team was ready to play and ahead on total goals. It was also agreed the coveted trophy would stay in the East until a PCHA team could mount another challenge in 1920.
If Seattle fans were upset, the death of Hall at Columbus Sanatorium four days later underlined the virus' deadliness. The 37-year-old had recently declared his body "good for 10 more years of hockey." As the rest of the Canadiens recovered and made their way home, Lalonde, Louis Berlinquette and Billy Coutu accompanied Hall's body home to Brandon, Man., for burial.
Kennedy never really recovered from the flu and died less than two years later, a terrible blow to the hockey community in Montreal as he'd helped build the deck of today's flagship franchise.
"This has been the most peculiar series in the history of the sport," Patrick said at the time.


Only 10,756 Miles! Scores 28 Highway MPG and 19 City MPG! Carfax One-Owner Vehicle. Dealer Certified Pre-Owned. This Chrysler Pacifica boasts a Regular Unleaded V-6 3.6 L/220 engine powering this Automatic transmission. WHEELS: 18" X 7.5" ALUMINUM POLISHED (STD), TRANSMISSION: 9-SPEED 948TE AUTOMATIC (STD), TIRES: 235/60R18 BSW AS (STD).*This Chrysler Pacifica Comes Equipped with These Options *QUICK ORDER PACKAGE 27P -inc: Engine: 3.6L V6 24V VVT UPG I w/ESS, Transmission: 9-Speed 948TE Automatic , MANUFACTURER'S STATEMENT OF ORIGIN, INFLATABLE SPARE TIRE KIT W/SEALANT -inc: Vacuum Delete, Puncture Sealant & Portable Air Compressor, 17" Inflatable Spare Tire, ENGINE: 3.6L V6 24V VVT UPG I W/ESS (STD), BRIGHT WHITE CLEARCOAT, BLACK/ALLOY/BLACK, PREMIUM LEATHER TRIM BUCKET SEATS -inc: With black/alloy interior includes alloy seats w/cranberry wine piping/stitch, satin chrome accents and cranberry wine bezels, With black/diesel interior includes black seats w/diesel gray piping/stitch, satin chrome accents and liquid titanium bezels, With black/deep mocha interior includes deep mocha seats w/diesel gray piping/stitch, satin chrome accents and liquid titanium bezels, BLACK SEATS, Wheels: 18" x 7.5" Aluminum Polished, Voice Activated Dual Zone Front Automatic Air Conditioning, Vinyl Door Trim Insert.* Stop By Today *Come in for a quick visit at Bleecker Chevrolet, 1200 E Cumberland St, Dunn, NC 28334 to claim your Chrysler Pacifica!


text:
Het Prince Mohamed bin Fahdstadion is een multifunctioneel stadion in Dammam, Saoedi-Arabië. Het stadion wordt vooral gebruikt voor voetbalwedstrijden, de voetbalclub Al-Ettifaq maakt gebruik van dit stadion. In het stadion is plaats voor 35.000 toeschouwers. Het werd geopend in 1973. Het stadion is vernoemd naar Muhammad bin Fahd Al Saud, van 1985 tot 2013 gouverneur van de Oostelijke provincie.

Voetbalstadion in Saoedi-Arabië

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Continue to Site..
Check out the exciting content from one of our partners below - or click "Continue to Site" to visit deliciousliving.com now!
Detox & weight loss
Wise Words: A moment with Christine Horner, MD, FACS
By Susan Enfield Esrey October 1, 2005
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Google + Pinterest Print
Q. You believe most women today have an unspoken fear that breast cancer is inevitable.
A. Everyone knows somebody who has had it. As a plastic surgeon, I was taking care of postmastectomy patients. Then I lost my mom to it. So for me, getting a mammogram felt like playing Russian roulette: When is it going to get me?
Q. Why such fear?
A. Breast cancer incidence in the United States increased by 21 percent between 1999 and 2003 alone, though it's leveled off since. But also, when I was working with the American Cancer Society, they trained us to say: "We don't know what causes breast cancer; we don't know a cure; and the best course of action is regular mammograms and breast exams." But that's not prevention—that's catching it once you already have it. When it comes to breast cancer, we're taught we have no power over our health.
Q. So you checked out the scientific research yourself.
A. I found thousands of studies showing why rates are so high. It's no surprise: The American diet and lifestyle are a recipe for breast cancer. Women who eat the most red meat, especially well-done and grilled meat, have a 400 percent increased risk. Sugar is converted in the body to insulin, which is the preferred food for breast cancer cells. There's also a link to alcohol—even half a glass a day can raise women's risk between 6 percent and 18 percent.
Q. What else?
A. Obesity. After menopause, fat cells produce estrogen—and the more estrogen a woman is exposed to, the more likely she is to develop breast cancer. Also, many of us are sedentary, and regular exercise can lower cancer risk by 50 percent. Scientists have unknowingly created chemicals [often in pesticides and plastics] that mimic estrogen, but they're usually stronger than natural estrogen.
Q. How can we help prevent breast cancer?
A. People who eat a primarily plant-based diet, preferably organic, are much less likely to develop cancer. Phytochemicals are potent natural medicines. For example, cruciferous vegetables like broccoli contain precursors to DIM (diindolylmethane), a compound that actually "turns on" our tumor suppression gene. Turmeric and green tea are also powerfully protective. Japanese studies show green tea even enhances chemotherapy activity. Every oncologist should know this!
Q. Lifestyle changes can make a big impact as well.
A. If you go to bed by 10 p.m., your risk goes way down. Researchers think it has to do with the sleep hormone melatonin, which is a powerful antioxidant and also decreases the amount of estrogen our body produces. If you go to bed late, your melatonin levels don't rise as high. It's also important to exercise daily and try to minimize stress.
Q. But we can't keep stressful events from happening.
A. True, but there are things you can do that affect how your body responds to stress physiologically. People who regularly practice transcendental meditation use the hospital system 50 percent less for every diagnosis. Yoga and breathing exercises like pranayama have been shown to reduce levels of the stress hormone cortisol—as has taking the herbs ashwagandha, ginseng, and holy basil.
Q. What about the debate about the benefits of soy?
A. The problem came when our reductionistic Western minds tried to find the active ingredient in soy. So researchers picked out genistein and isolated it, concentrated, and gave it to women in a way that you'd never get it in nature. Whole soy foods—tofu, tempeh, miso soup—are highly protective. Do not take genistein supplements.
Q. You recently left your practice to write and speak on breast cancer prevention.
A. I feel I can make a much bigger difference by getting this lifesaving knowledge out there. What a cool thing if we see the breast cancer epidemic end, right? And I think we have the information to do it.
Susan Enfield Esrey
Natural menstrual relief that works
Eat fruit for stronger bones
Immune weekend: tip 2
How can I manage postpartum depression?
USDA unveils MyPlate to encourage healthy eating habits
60-minute workout: Cardiovascular walk/jog
Good Morning Wakame
Complementary and alternative medicine offer natural healing modalities
Black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa)
Recipes Only
The goal: Try a new supplement delivery format
Is your sunscreen working–or safe?
delicious living's 2019 Best Bite Award Winners
Almond Cookie Tart with Raspberry Fool
What are you absorbing through your skin?
Natural ways to regulate your menstrual cycle
How can I treat chronic body odor?
6 natural alternatives to statins
8 Paleo-friendly sweeteners
Time to ditch the 2:1 calcium-magnesium ratio
Sign up to receive exclusive Delicious Living weekly newsletters.
About Delicious Living
For more than 30 years, delicious living has been a trusted voice online and in print for the natural health community. delicious living meets modern needs with contemporary natural health care methods and expert advice, covering everything from health trends to natural beauty to healthy cooking. It's powered by North America's largest natural health and wellness publisher: Alive Publishing Group.
Delicious Living Blog

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Ahava Mineral Hand Cream - Cactus & Pink Pepper "Deadsea Water"
This mineral rich hand cream is specially formulated to protect hands while providing relief and nutrition. Mixed with Dead Sea minerals and infused with the fresh, uplifting aroma of Cactus & Pink Pepper, this hand cream softens and effectively dry skin and enhances the moisture level while protecting and softening your hands.
Apply a small amount on clean hands several times a day, when needed, especially after washing hands.
Ahava Mineral Hand Cream - "Deadsea Water" 100 ml WONDERFUL WATERS Give your hands an extra infu..
Ahava Mineral Hand Cream - Sea-kissed "Deadsea Water" 100 ml WONDERFUL WATERS AHAVA' s..
Moroccan Spa Argan Oil Shampoo - For dry hairDead Sea Treatment by Shemen Amour500mlMoroccan Spa Ar..


The first update to Cryptoverse has arrived! If you need an introduction to Cryptoverse, you can find one here. The latest CLI builds are on our downloads page for Windows and OS X.
Ian: Frontend, backend, and talented musician.
Kristofer: Frontend CLI and backend developer.
Usiten: Working on the frontend for a GUI version of Cryptoverse.
Publicly sharing a project is nerve wracking, but I have no regrets! The post on r/gamedev brought these fellows onboard! They've already made their mark on Cryptoverse, and if you're interested in helping you can contact us through our subreddit.
If you're interested in making your own Unity3D project that integrates with Cryptoverse's blockchain, check out our plugin. It's completely free under the MIT license.
The public alpha was a great first test for the Cryptoverse protocol. There were bugs, oh yes, but that's what these alphas are for. The biggest issue impacted attack commands, where blocks containing attacks with surviving ships would be rejected by the server. Other than that, jumping and probing of new systems worked well, with 43 star systems discovered by a dozen different users in the past week.
In addition to the bug fixes, this week's update adds the transfer command, allowing you to change ownership of your ships. Use this to consolidate fleets generated on different machines, though the ability to export your account information is planned to make this unnecessary. The real benefit of transfers will come when harvestable resources are added and traded among players.
The design, gameplay, and protocol of Cryptoverse is still evolving, so we've set up a wiki to organize our efforts. To keep track of our progress and the tasks we're working on, check out our JIRA.
Moving away from abstract ships, to unique ships with customized modules, is a big change that's on the horizon. How that works could be an entire blogpost on its own, but for now we have to lay the groundwork for it. This means cleaning up some tech debt, like adding merkle trees to manage block size.
Also, as you can see from the screenshots above, Usiten is also experimenting with some improved galaxy generation techniques. Again, it could be a whole blog post on its own, but the screenshots were too cool to leave out!
Cryptoverse is a game of stellar exploration, trading, and war. It is also my attempt at a decentralized MMO, with a distributed infrastructure and no need for moderation. It's built on blockchain technology, similar to bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Right now it's in alpha, and I need your help to shape its future!
Right now it's a barebones command prompt for probing new systems, jumping your ships to other systems, and attacking enemies. The process of probing for new systems can be done without any ships, and is actually how new ships are added to the game world. Every time you probe a new system, you're also verifying the actions of other players and adding them to the collective history of the game's universe. In return, you're rewarded with 10 new ships! The difficulty for probing on the test server is currently low enough that a decent computer will find a new system every couple of minutes. As more players probe for systems, the difficulty will increase so new ones are only discovered every two minutes. Jumping between systems is more dangerous the farther one goes, so it's advised to jump among the intervening stars to minimize losses to your fleet. Attacking ships is very dangerous, and each ship you send to kill an enemy is also lost, so you'll have to keep probing new systems to earn more ships.
To keep updated on new features and vote for the ones you like, check out the Trello board for Cryptoverse.
Download and run the command line interface matching your operating system here. If you'd prefer to build the CLI yourself, you can pull it from GitHub. Once running, it will generate a local.db file next to the executable. This is important, so don't lose or share it, since it contains the private keys for your fleet! The client will sync with the game state of the test server, which may take a moment depending on how much has happened.
You're now ready to start probing for new systems by entering "probe" into the command line. Depending upon the number of people probing and the speed of your machine, this can take seconds or minutes. Once it's done your newly discovered star system will be sent to the test server, where others can download and probe for new systems on top of it. In doing so, you've also earned yourself 10 ships! By default, ships start out in the genesis system, the first one that was probed. To find your ships, use the list deployments command "ldeploy". Your ships can be ordered around by using the "jump" or "attack" commands. For more information type "help" into the CLI, or for help with specific commands try "help <command>".
The Cryptoverse server and CLI are open source under the MIT license, so feel free to fork us on GitHub! If you have any questions or feedback, shoot me an email.
The Cryptoverse server and CLI are open source under the MIT license. Fork us on GitHub today!


text:
After Being Denied Arctic Refuge, House Loosens Restrictions on Offshore Drilling
From News Reports
Washington -- The House approved a bill Thursday that could dramatically boost offshore drilling across the nation by offering coastal states a huge slice of billions of dollars in federal royalties if they allow oil and gas rigs off their shores.
The measure would scrap the 25-year federal ban on drilling off most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and parts of the Gulf of Mexico, which most California officials argue has protected the state's coastal ecosystems and its beach-dependent tourism industry.
The 232-187 vote Thursday night capped one of the most contentious debates on an environmental issue in recent years. The bill faces much steeper opposition in the Senate, where Florida's two senators have already pledged to thwart it using a filibuster.
The measure has received only lukewarm support from the White House, which is concerned the revenue-sharing provisions could worsen the federal budget deficit by depriving the Treasury at least $20.6 billion by 2017.
But the bill's sponsors, including its chief author Republican Rep. Richard Pombo, say the offer of cash assistance to states is the best way to persuade coastal lawmakers to overcome their resistance to drilling offshore.
"Our energy policy is 'no,' " Pombo, the chairman of the House Resources Committee, said on the House floor. "For 30 years, we've had the same people coming down here making the same arguments as to why we can't develop our domestic energy sources. It doesn't matter if it's natural gas or oil or hydro or solar or wind. ... There's always a reason to be a 'no.' "
But Democrats, in turn, accused the bill's sponsors of crafting a massive giveaway of federal money that will primarily benefit four coastal states that already produce oil and gas offshore --Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
"This is a fiscal nightmare," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, pointing to a chart showing the billions of dollars that would flow to the Southern states. "This money should remain in the budget for our troops in Iraq, it should remain in the budget for Medicare recipients, it should remain in the budget for the poor children of our country."
The measure's revenue-sharing provisions, written by Louisiana lawmakers, were designed to provide generous incentives to drill. Under the bill, states -- which currently receive less than 5 percent of oil and gas royalties -- would see their share jump to 50 percent over 10 years. Eventually they could get as much as 75 percent of royalties from drilling.
Of the $20.6 billion that would flow to the states over the next decade, all but $1.7 billion would go to those four states, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Louisiana's share is estimated at $8.6 billion.
Gulf Coast lawmakers argue the windfall is only fair because states that produce energy on public lands onshore already benefit from revenue-sharing. Louisiana officials said the new money could help restore coastal wetlands and repair New Orleans' storm-battered levee system.
The debate Thursday was fierce, but the vote broke more along lines of geography than the House's usual partisan divide.
Forty Democrats voted with the GOP majority to pass the bill, with many of the votes from Democrats from the South and Midwest. Thirty-one Republicans voted against the measure, including many from coastal states that oppose drilling such as Florida, New Jersey and New York.
Critics of the bill, including some Republicans, complained it would force coastal states that oppose drilling to jump through bureaucratic hoops to protect their coasts. Under the bill, states would have to petition the Interior Department every five years to block drilling in federal waters 50 to 100 miles off the coast.
"This bill does far more than simply lift the long-standing moratoriums on drilling," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., a chief critic of the measure. "The bill makes it difficult for a state to bar drilling. We should not be opening all of our coasts to oil drilling when we have not taken the first step to conserve oil" adding that the bill "pretty much defines 'travesty."'
House leaders refused to consider an amendment by Boehlert that would have required an increase in federal fuel efficiency standards. Lawmakers also soundly defeated an amendment pushed by Rep. Michael Bilirakis, R-Fla., that would have given states the authority to protect their coasts out to 125 miles.
A key aspect of the bill would be to give the Interior Department complete control over federal waters 100 to 200 miles from shore. While that portion of California's coast is considered too deep to drill with today's technology, other areas across the country could be opened to deep offshore wells.
Supporters of the bill say America needs to develop more of its offshore oil and gas reserves to avoid increasing its dependence on foreign sources and losing an edge to competitors.
Democrats argued the most energy-rich portions of the so-called Outer Continental Shelf -- in the western and central Gulf of Mexico -- already are open for oil and gas leasing. The bill's sponsors countered that the federal moratorium has closed off more than 80 percent of federal waters to development.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said the 1969 blowout at an oil rig near Santa Barbara, which blackened miles of coastline, should remind lawmakers of the risks of drilling.
"We have learned from bitter experience that a large oil spill can cause long-lasting damage to the marine ecosystem at all levels," she said.
The bill includes a provision that allows for a swap of existing leases off the coast of California for leases in new areas opened up for drilling. Pombo, who negotiated the package, said the measure is California's best hope to permanently protect its coast.
"Right now the state of California controls 3 miles off our coasts. This bill gives our state 100 miles," Pombo said.


Thanks Anti_Illuminati , Very useful thread / Awesome addition. Every one needs to read that thread.
A $1.2 billion program to deploy new radiation monitors to screen trucks, cars and cargo containers for signs of nuclear devices has been delayed by questions over whether Department of Homeland Security officials misled Congress about the effectiveness of the detectors.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the contracts for monitors with cutting-edge technology a year ago. He said they would improve radiation scans at borders and ports, while sharply reducing the number of false alarms. Congress had allowed the five-year project to move ahead after Homeland Security assured appropriators that the $377,000 machines would detect highly enriched uranium 95 percent of the time.
"What this next generation of detection equipment is going to let us do is make those determinations much more precisely, much more easily and much more quickly," Chertoff said. But the department's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office did not know whether the detectors would work effectively, according to documents and interviews.
Auditors from the Government Accountability Office later found that the detection rates of machines tested by the department were as low as 17 percent and no higher than about 50 percent. The auditors said the department's optimistic report to Congress on the cost and benefits of the machines was based on assumptions instead of facts -- a finding that prompted lawmakers to put the project on hold last year.
Last week, the GAO told Congress that Homeland Security officials did not follow their own guidelines for ensuring that the cost-benefit report was accurate and complete. The GAO also said the director of the nuclear detection office was incorrect when he testified in March that the office was not aware of any specifics about whether officials followed the guidelines. A GAO official said auditors would release a report about the monitors next month.
Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Congress will continue pressing officials for more verifiable details about the monitors before they allow the project to proceed.
"As DHS develops costly new technology critical to the nation's security, Congress must be able to rely on DNDO's claims about the technology," Lieberman said in an e-mailed statement. "DNDO's estimates of costs and benefits must be based on facts, not assumptions. And, while taking into account the effects this technology will have on commerce, it must be based first and foremost on how best to prevent nuclear smuggling."
Vayl Oxford, director of the nuclear detection office, defended the high detection rate cited in the report to Congress last year as a "high-water goal" the agency hoped to achieve, not an assessment of the monitors' capabilities. Oxford said recent tests of the monitors in New York show a "dramatic decrease" in false alarms. Oxford said eight monitors will be deployed at four border crossings and ports for further performance tests this week.
The government has had difficulty getting independent, reliable technical assessments about the plausibility, cost and benefits of advanced technology before Congress and agencies commit to spending. It has always struggled when buying new technology, which is why Congress created the Office of Technology Assessment in 1972. For two decades, scientists and engineers in that office helped sort out technical truths from wishful thinking in project proposals. But the office was killed in 1995 in an effort to streamline federal programs.
Since then, as government spending on new technology rose to record levels, the primary technical advisers to federal officials often have been the contractors themselves. Billions of dollars have been wasted on failed, flawed or speculative projects.
The radiation portal monitors were envisioned as the nation's key bulwark against attacks with radioactive material. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the government spent more than $200 million on detection equipment that could not distinguish nuclear devices from more benign sources of radiation, such as ceramic tiles and cat litter. [INSERT: because you want to pretend that you're doing something about security, while have your false flags go undetected, so that you can continually claim that you still don't have enough security, because you just want to destroy everyone's inalienable rights and get everyone in FEMA camps.
Same with "you can't have Geiger counters", because you might detect one of our false flags prematurely before Rendon, Lincoln Group, and Omnicom can give you "the correct" version of the story we want you to hear nationwide to instill MAXIMUM FEAR and LOSS OF CONFIDENCE in the various security infrastructures. We want you to beg Northcom to fix everything that we break, and get you used to them being the only solution!
President Bush directed the establishment of the nuclear detection office in spring 2005 to be the main resource for assessing and buying monitors. Its mission includes providing technical advice to other agencies. The office immediately began testing machines that, according to GAO estimates, cost about six times as much as current monitors. The Advanced Spectroscopic Portal radiation monitors rely on sensitive detection technology that had not previously been used in the field in the way officials envisioned.
Homeland Security officials tested monitors made by 10 companies. But before the results of those tests were made available to Congress, auditors from the GAO, in March 2006, raised questions about the procurement process.
The auditors predicted cost overruns of as much as $596 million and said the "prototypes of this equipment have not yet been shown to be more effective than the portal monitors now in use." The auditors concluded that it "is not clear that the dramatically higher cost of this equipment would be worth the investment."
In response, Congress told Chertoff and officials at the nuclear detection office to produce a "cost-benefit" analysis, comparing the existing machines with the proposed replacements. In June 2006, the department delivered a report that said that the new machines "can correctly detect and identify highly enriched uranium (HEU) 95 percent of the time," according to the GAO. Congressional appropriators then approved the spending.
On July 14, 2006, Chertoff and Oxford announced that they had ordered the first 80 of 1,400 new monitors. The monitors, manufactured by three companies, were to be deployed last fall under a deal that officials said involved up to a year of research and development and up to four years of full-scale deployment.
In the meantime, the GAO auditors examined the detection office's cost-benefit report. In a private meeting last August, the auditors told lawmakers that the report used optimistic assumptions and overstated the acquisition costs of the existing detection machines, distorting any cost comparison.
The auditors concluded that "DNDO's cost-benefit analysis does not justify its recent decision to purchase and deploy" the new machines and that the nuclear detection office should not spend more money buying the machines "until it conducts realistic testing," according to documents included with a GAO report last fall. That finding prompted Congress to tell Chertoff that deployment of the new monitors should not occur until he vouched for a new round of tests his department conducted in January and February, the results of which have yet to be released.
In March, Oxford testified before a House homeland security subcommittee that the GAO misunderstood the cost-benefit report. He said "we stand behind the basic conclusions" of the report, which he said was done to justify research and development, not full-scale production. Oxford said his office followed department guidelines in drafting the report.
That assertion was contradicted last week by the GAO letter, which said that Oxford's nuclear detection office did not meet seven of eight department guidelines. The letter also said that DHS officials were briefed on the requirements just days before the cost-benefit report was delivered to Congress. During that March hearing, the GAO's Eugene E. Aloise warned lawmakers that "the data used in the [cost-benefit] analysis was incomplete and unreliable, and as a result, we do not have any confidence in it."
Lawmakers in both parties were also openly skeptical of Oxford's testimony. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) told Oxford that Aloise's testimony suggested that "you screwed up big time. You did what you weren't supposed to do."
In an interview this week, Oxford said the contracts for the project were written in a way to give his office flexibility to continue studying the performance of the monitors before they were deployed. He defended last year's cost-benefit report as a "preliminary" document that did not mean his office was prepared to authorize full production.
Oxford stood by his assertion that his office was not told by the GAO precisely what to include in the cost-benefit report. "We were never given the specific details of what they thought was flawed in our methodology," he said.
And so, they are officially firming up the stage for an - "I told you so moment," under Barrak Oh'we're'gonnabombaya.
Great follow up. Thanks again Anti Illuminati.
So, just trying to see if I can find anything planned I did the following searches.
* EALs required in COLA?
* Emergency preparedness program inspections and exercises that have resulted in lessons learned and practical solutions. A regional NRC panel also will provide lessons learned from the agency's perspective.
* Sessions will be devoted to emerging issues (EP Security Advisory, Protective Actions, EP-security drill pilot program), events that have occurred and lessons learned; EP/security related initiatives, Regulatory Oversight Process lessons learned, and other topical issues.
* A session will be devoted to emergency preparedness communication, including lessons learned, information flow from the licensee to the Joint Public Information Center during actual events, as well as new communication concepts.
"june 2009 emergency drill schdule"
This is the html version of the file http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/perp/docs/sch(final).pdf.
Which is a tabled document and doesn't paste over properly but really gives a lot of other related drill information in Alaska that may be used to track down coinciding events in other states.
A NWO Mouthpiece published this just last week.
It is a you tube piece of video.
This is obviously a psy op piece.... but they are still pumping up the propaganda for "Radiological Terrorist Attacks"... Interesting how they use similar scenarios to those described in Jericho an also BlackJack.
Now we realize that this financial crisis will bring things to a head.
It is obvious that this country will collapse into martial law soon, without any further major amounts of help from the elite.
They have already engineered this demolition of the economy, rigged it, and pressed the button.
As Alex said while speaking with Paul Craige Roberts at one point a few months back, "We are in the moment right before free fall."
This action is essentially complete this change has been completed essentially we are all now just realizing it has already occurred.
That said - many who read this may be thinking - "Why then, if they've already done something this huge -would they need to stage attacks to carry out their plans to put every one in FEMA camps?
Isn't a Malthusian catastrophe enough?
Let us examine the logical avenues leading to martial law and it's outcomes.
Top on this list is protests.
Also we must account for provocateured resistance.
Next is what we see taking place all around us now as well - a majority of states passing or working to pass 10th amendment style legislation.
It is highly likely that most of the states that declare sovereignty may unite under the cause of re-instating the origional constitution.
It is highly likely that people not wanting to go to FEMA camps will flee to these states forming a stronger resistance.
The people in the EU are rioting and disposing governments - already - as we speak even.
The elite at this point need a "Great Catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor. In order to get every one on board with the New World Order."
Sound familiar? ie PNAC perhaps ?
How have the elite stopped pushes for state sovereignty in the past? For instance Oklahoma?
Remeber , "The Federal Building?"
Many accredited people have said we were on the verge of revolution prior to the events of 9/11.
They cannot have a Nation of Free States with access to local military and their bases, who have side with local governments in hopes of restoring the Constitution.
Do you really think that 152+ genius level psychopaths who have been studying and planning this for decades at least - haven' thought about these possibilities?
They are as we can see the way things apear to be panning out, No?
When cornered as these elite realize they are - as Alex and others have said - they will and are doing everything they can to establish their NWO.
I once again mention that every one should spend a long time considering the ramifications of PNAC and that it's ideas hold true even now.
Then examine OODA loop we are in now. The one who's detonator button still hasn't been pushed. What will this detonation be?
What kind of event would be WORLD CATALYZING AND GLOBALLY UNIFYING?
I know it's a disturbing thing to do, but try to think about how you would react and act and plan if; you were a cornered, evil, elite, psychopath, and this was the last moment you had to implement your plans?
Remeber, these psychos believe the world will end in 2012 ?
That's only 3 years away by their clock otherwise they miss the dawn of what they hope will be ther new golden age of Technocracy.
Any one else ever wonder why Tony Blair still seems to be being groomed for something - ie the EU presidency?
I wonder if the EU would give emergency powers - in a situation where it's current president and oh say the current prime minster of the UK were killed during a terrorist attack on London involving a Nuclear Bomb?
"What ever would they do? Who - ever? Would step up to save the EU and the UK ? "We must stop those eveil Terrorists!"
We need a strong president with experience fighting terrorism...."
"Who ever could we draw upon?" , " Sarkozy?
No .... He's soft on terrorists. He didn't want to go over there to the middle east to stop them in the first place."
" Merkel?" " A Woman , Layer, banker?" "She's a lawyer banker a woman even, not a fighter."," She sided with that coward Sarkozy - when Bush and Blair warned us about this."
"See , Barrak should have listened too."," He ignored all those intelligence warnings about terrorists possibly setting off radiological weapons in his country and now he's dead and Biden is running the country from a bunker in Colorado."
I'll leave you to imagine the rest of the possible scenario..... Realize the quoted above transcript is 100% fictitious but, it doesn't seem too far off from what talking heads would be saying on what's left of global news networks after something like that occurred.
Yes, I believe there is hope.
Even, if it occurs I believe we will eventually beat them.
However, would it not be best now to expose this before it's too late?
If nothing happens similar to the events in blackjack. AWESOME! I Hope for the love of the universe and all that is, that I am wrong on this correlation and it proves to just be a theory!
This is my ultimate goal here - in trying to expose this - to insure that I am wrong, and nothing goes down and it all just goes away as story of fiction.
Man that would be great.
I assume you mean the whole idea that they will stage another event ?
As in it seems like their usual setup?
I will assume that is what you meant... Yes, sadly it does.
But, as I said I believe we will overcome them, it's just a matter of when.
Hence, my writing of this post and the feeling in my gut that there is something more to the whole blackjack piece especially when taken into contex.
An Article predating 9/11 and PNAC expresing the warnings of possible suitcase sized nukes being detonated here in the US.
Are Suitcase Nukes on the Loose?
Former Russian Security Council Secretary Aleksandr Lebed has stirred controversy in both Russia and the United States with his allegations that the Russian government is currently unable to account for some eighty small atomic demolition munitions (ADMs) which were manufactured in the USSR during the Cold War. Lebed originally made the allegations in a closed meeting with a US congressional delegation in May 1997. His charges generated public controversy three months later when he repeated them in an interview with the CBS newsmagazine 60 Minutes, which was broadcast on 7 September 1997.1 Russian officials initially dismissed Lebed's charges, saying all of the country's nuclear weapons were accounted for and under strict control. Top-ranking Russian defense officials later went further and denied that any such weapons had ever been built by the USSR, claiming that they would be too expensive to maintain and too heavy for practical use. Lebed has stood by his statement, however, and his charges have been backed by a former advisor to President Yeltsin, Aleksey Yablokov, who told a US Congressional subcommittee on 2 October 1997 that he was "absolutely sure� that such ADMs had been ordered in the 1970s by the KGB.
Despite a coordinated campaign by Russian officials designed to discredit Lebed and Yablokov, technical inaccuracies and inconsistencies undermine the credibility of the official Russian denials that Soviet ADMs were never manufactured. In addition, the current controversy is not the first public discussion of whether former Soviet ADMs are under adequate control in Russia. During 1995, a flurry of Russian media reports claimed that Chechen separatist fighters had obtained such weapons. And in January 1996, long before the current media furor, the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies received information from a Russian presidential advisor that an unspecified number of small ADMs had been had been manufactured in the 1970s for use by the KGB.2 This evidence does not corroborate Lebed's claims that ADMs have "gone missing,� but it does strongly suggest that the Russian government is not being completely candid in its discussion of the issue.
OFFICIAL DENIALS AND REBUTTALS: DO THEY RING TRUE?
On 10 September 1997, the Moscow daily Nezavisimaya gazeta quoted an anonymous "high-ranking� source in the Operational Intelligence Directorate of the GRU as flatly denying the existence of "any 60x40x20cm briefcases containing nuclear charges.� The source said that while special GRU detachments are tasked with conducting sabotage operations behind enemy lines, "they never use nuclear munitions to do so,� relying instead on conventional explosives. The anonymous officer claimed that US special forces also did not use nuclear explosives. "We are not suicide squads,� the anonymous Russian officer concluded.11 The insistence of this anonymous GRU officer that the USSR had not possessed ADMs was unusual at this stage of the controversy. Official Russian government statements refuting Lebed's charges had not denied that such weapons existed, but had merely said that all Russian nuclear weapons were under strict control.
While official Russian reaction was skeptical or derisory, Lebed's claims received a more open and positive reception in Washington. Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), Chairman of the US House Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, pointed out that Lebed had originally made the charges in a private May 1997 meeting in Moscow with a US Congressional delegation led by Weldon. Weldon has argued that had Lebed wanted to create a stir he would have gone public with the information at that time, but that instead he quietly communicated it to the Congressional delegation. Indeed, Weldon told The Washington Post that he sees "no reason why [Lebed] would make this story up.�12 At the time, Lebed informed the delegation that he was able to confirm the production of 132 ADMs, but could only account for 48. When asked about the whereabouts of the other 84, said Weldon, Lebed replied "I have no idea.� A State Department cable sent to Washington summarizing the same meeting cites 100 as the number of ADMs Lebed said were produced, but otherwise agrees with Weldon's account.13 This does not, however, square with Lebed's later statements that he does not know how many ADMs were produced.
Lebed is not a political novice, however, and he could have decided that it was to his advantage to raise the issue in a subtler manner than simply issuing a press release. Consequently, Weldon's account does not completely exclude the possibility that Lebed's story is politically motivated. Congressman Weldon is an outspoken critic of the Clinton Administration's policy toward Russia, and has criticized the president for using "the bully pulpit of the presidency to create some false impression of stability in Russia.� He also has criticized the Russian government for issuing "absolute denials of what we know to be fact,� indicating that he gives some credence to Lebed's account.15 Clinton administration officials, by contrast, have indicated that they accept Moscow's assurances that the Russian nuclear arsenal is under tight control.16 The issue is highly politicized in both Moscow and Washington, which greatly complicates the interpretation of the available evidence.
There was some partial corroboration of Lebed's story, however. One of his former deputies on the security council, Vladimir Denisov, told Interfax on 13 September that he had served as head of the special commission formed by Lebed to ascertain the disposition of former Soviet ADMs. Denisov said that the commission had been formed on 23 July 1996 in response to reports that separatist Chechen fighters had possibly gained access to these weapons. Denisov's commission was to ascertain whether the "nuclear suitcases� were in the active arsenal of the Russian armed forces, interview specialists trained to use them, and determine if similar munitions could be manufactured illegally.
However, Denisov's comments cannot be regarded as providing independent confirmation of Lebed's account, given his close ties to Lebed. Denisov was appointed Lebed's deputy on 25 June 1996 as part of a personnel shakeup after Lebed became Security Council Secretary, but after President Yeltsin dismissed Lebed in October 1996, Denisov was also ousted.18 Denisov's comments could therefore be political cover for his former boss.
Yablokov's statement, which corresponds closely to the to charges reported to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in January 1996, appears to confirm some aspects of Lebed's earlier claims, but it also differs from them in several key respects. While Lebed said the "suitcase� bombs were built for use by military special forces, Yablokov said they were intended for the KGB. To this extent the two accounts do not fully support one another. But as Yablokov has no obvious connection with Lebed, and no clear political motive, his statement was not so easy to dismiss as Denisov's. Nevertheless, Yablokov's letter provoked a coordinated denial campaign by a wide range of Russian government officials.
AN ORCHESTRATED CAMPAIGN OF DENIALS?
The Defense Ministry issued the most detailed refutation of Lebed and Yablokov's charges on 25 September. Lieutenant General Igor Valynkin, the head of the ministry's Twelfth Main Directorate, which is responsible for the storage and security of nuclear weapons, attempted to reassure journalists about the safety of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Valynkin asserted that absolutely all nuclear weapons in the Russian armed forces are currently in the custody of his directorate, which ensures their "state acceptance at the factory, storage in arsenals, servicing, and their transport to the troops.� Valynkin said that because of concerns about the "criminal situation� in Russia, at the beginning of the 1990s all Russian tactical nuclear weapons, including nuclear mines and artillery shells, were removed from the arsenals of individual military units and transferred to special storage sites under the control of the Twelfth Directorate. This step was taken in order to prevent terrorists from gaining access to the weapons, as the arsenals at individual units are much less secure than the central storage sites.
Referring directly to the issue of the "suitcase� bombs, Valynkin admitted that is technically possible to build a small low-yield nuclear warhead. However, he denied that the USSR or Russia had ever manufactured such small nuclear weapons. Valynkin noted that such a small nuclear weapon would be too expensive to be practical, since its "nuclear core� would need to be "recharged� every three months in order to retain its effectiveness.23 Even the United States, said Valynkin, could not afford such weapons.24 He concluded by reiterating that those smaller tactical nuclear weapons which Russia does possess, principally artillery shells and land mines, are under strict control in the storage depots of the Twelfth Directorate, and their "planned destruction is being carried out.� He added that in any event, the size and weight of these systems were not comparable with "small carrying cases,� which made their theft highly improbable.
Unclassified sources report that the W-54 warhead was developed from 1960-1963, and initial deployment began in 1964. It had a variable yield of .01-1 kT. The Davy Crockett warhead was tested twice in July 1962, with yields of 22 and 18 tons (TNT equivalent), or .022 and .018 kT.30 About 300 SADMs were deployed by the United States, and Army and Marine Corps commando units were trained to use the munitions, as were the special forces of several US allies, including Germany, Britain, and the Netherlands. The SADM was intended for use behind enemy lines to disrupt communications and logistics, a mission similar to that ascribed by Lebed to the Soviet "suitcase� bombs.31 The Davy Crockett was removed from service in 1972, but the SADM apparently remained deployed until at least the mid-1980s, and may only have been withdrawn from forward deployment following the 1991 Bush-Gorbachev unilateral initiatives.
The existence of the W-54 and the SADM derived from it undermines the credibility of Valynkin's denials that the USSR built similar systems, especially since he justified his claims by arguing that even the United States could not afford such small nuclear weapons. Apparently, the United States could afford them, since it had several hundred in its stockpile during the Cold War.
The existence of the W-54 and SADM undermines Valynkin's claim that small nuclear weapons would be prohibitively expensive to maintain. Valynkin claimed that a small nuclear weapon would need to be disassembled every three months for its "nuclear core� to be recharged. However, American physicists familiar with nuclear weapons design consulted by the author have dismissed Valynkin's argument. A small weapon would probably be a uranium or plutonium implosion device, possibly boosted with tritium to compensate for the reduced amount of conventional explosive used to compress the fissile core in the compact device. Neither the uranium nor plutonium metals used in the fissile core of such a bomb would need such frequent maintenance, and even tritium, which has a half-life of 12.3 years, and must be recharged periodically, would not need replenishing so frequently. While we do not know the details of Soviet weapons design, there is no obvious technical constraint that can account for Valynkin's claim that small ADMs would require frequent and expensive maintenance. Since the United States maintained a stockpile of several hundred such systems for at least twenty years, it seems unlikely that the maintenance cost for such systems is so high as to have been prohibitive for the USSR.
The Russian official denials are also inconsistent and contradictory. While Valynkin denied that the US or USSR had built such weapons, other Russian spokesmen—like Georgiy Kaurov of the Ministry of Atomic Energy—admitted the existence of equivalent US weapons. General Romanov, of the National Nuclear Risk Reduction Center, tried to discredit Lebed's allegations by implausibly arguing that any nuclear warhead would need to weigh at least 200 kg, while others, like Valynkin, admitted that lighter, more compact weapons were technically feasible. Although ignorance or incompetence could account for both these inconsistencies and the glaring factual inaccuracies that mar the official denials, the pattern suggests a poorly designed "cover story.� So many of the official arguments explaining why the USSR did not construct ADMs are based on obviously false premises that one is led to wonder whether the denials are false as well. This circumstantial reasoning does not support the claim that such ADMs are currently unaccounted for, but it does suggest that Soviet ADMs may have existed and that the issue of their current disposition is a real one.
Most Russian media accepted the official denials without closely examining their specifics. Thus Komsomolskaya pravda published General Romanov's claim that a nuclear weapon would have a minimum weight of 200 kg without comment. The most notable exception was the 51% state-owned ORT network, which broadcast a special report on the "suitcase� bomb controversy on 27 September. The broadcast said that information it had uncovered suggested that small nuclear weapons had been manufactured by the USSR, but that although "the Defense Ministry knows this, it prefers to be insincere.� The program reported that some small nuclear devices were built by the Soviet Union for use in geological prospecting and oil exploration. Consistent with the statement by Valynkin, the program said these systems had a "service life� of only a few months, after which they would cease to function.32 Some support for the existence of small peaceful nuclear explosives (PNEs) is contained in a recently-published official history of Russian the nuclear testing program. The history reports that several low-yield PNEs were detonated at a site in Kazakstan during the mid-1970s for "industrial" purposes. The yields in these tests ranged from .01 kT (10 tons) to .35 kT (350 tons).33 While the report does not indicate if these low-yield devices were small in size, it does provide some indirect support for the ORT report and hints at the existence of similar low-yield military systems.
The ORT report added that other small nuclear weapons were developed for use by military special forces, which would use them for such missions as blocking mountain passes to enemy tank armies. The program insisted that the weapons were not developed for "terrorist purposes,� were not issued to the KGB, and if they had been deployed outside the USSR, had been returned to Russia in the early 1990s. The program also assured its viewers that like similar devices in the United States, the Soviet ADMs "always remained under official control.�34 While rebutting most of Lebed and Yablokov's charges, the program did break with the official explanation that ADMs were never manufactured.
A close examination of this purported design, however, undermines the credibility of the report in several respects. First, available open sources indicate that barium is not used as a neutron initiator in a nuclear weapon. Initiators described in the open literature consist of two elements that are combined to generate neutrons at the moment the weapon begins detonating. The Zavtra report mentions only one element in the initiator, which is supposedly coated in gold—an implausible design in terms of basic physics. Indeed, one possibility is that the Zavtra report was based on a poorly translated US source, with barium confused with beryllium, which is present in nuclear weapons. The use of TNT as the explosive to produce the implosion is also highly improbable, since even early US implosion weapons used more energetic conventional explosives. The description of the weapon thus appears to have been written by someone with a very incomplete knowledge of nuclear weapons design, suggesting a hoax.
In addition to being technically implausible, the design mentioned in this article is identical to one cited in an August 1995 article in Moskovskiy komsomolets.41 This article was another of the many Russian press reports in 1995 suggesting that Chechen fighters might have acquired a small nuclear device. As indirect evidence for this proposition, the article included a description of a US atomic demolition munition taken from the Russian-language edition of Soldier of Fortune magazine (Soldat udachy). This same Soldier of Fortune account, which claimed that several ex-Soviet military intelligence officers had been arrested in Lithuania and charged with selling former Soviet tactical nuclear weapons, was also the basis for a similar July 1995 article in the Russian government newspaper Rossiyskaya gazeta.42 This one Soldier of Fortune article thus appears to have spawned a series of questionable reports that Chechen fighters had acquired former Soviet ADMs. Given the reputation of Soldier of Fortune, these reports must be regarded as of dubious reliability.
Zavtra published two follow-up articles to its original October 1995 report. In the first of these reports, the paper claimed that the reporter who had written the original article had been abducted by four gunmen who "brutally beat him up,� and threatened that "if you'll be digging for nuclear arms, we'll kill you!�43 However, two issues later the paper concluded that the original story had been planted by Chechen agents, who, after feeding Zavtra the material, beat up the reporter in order to attract attention to the story. The paper alleged that the goal of this Chechen "operation" was to increase the separatists' leverage in ongoing negotiations with the Russian federal government.
The overall credibility of this series of reports in Zavtra is questionable, since the paper is known for its sensationalistic and biased reporting. The paper's harsh stance on the Chechen issue gave it ample motivation to publish unfounded reports suggesting that Chechen fighters had access to nuclear weapons. Although it cannot be proven that the Chechens did not acquire a nuclear device, the available evidence suggests that they did not. Nevertheless, the paper's reportedly close ties with Russian intelligence agencies give its claim that ADMs were made by the Soviet Union some residual plausibility. The story, and the others like it cited above, demonstrate that the issue of the current disposition of Soviet ADMs was not invented by Lebed, but has been repeatedly raised by other sources over the past few years.
Even this interview attracted a riposte in the Russian press, with the well-known military analyst for the Moscow daily Segodnya, Pavel Felgengauer, misleadingly claiming on 7 October that in the interview Lebed had retracted his claims that ADMs had been stolen. In fact, Lebed simply reiterated his earlier claims that the weapons exist, but cannot currently be accounted for. Felgengauer also ridiculed Lebed's use of 155mm and 152mm nuclear artillery shells as evidence that "compact� nuclear bombs are possible. These shells, said Felgengauer, naming the US W-48 warhead for the 155mm artillery shell, weigh "well over 100 kg (220 lbs),� making them all but impossible for a single person to carry. He also argued that "portable� nuclear devices are "senseless� from a military point of view.46 But Felgengauer's arguments are based on inaccurate information. According to the NRDC Nuclear Weapons Databook, the 155mm projectile containing the W-48 warhead weighs 128 pounds (58 kg), still heavy for a suitcase, but not as impossible for one person to carry as Felgengauer would have his readers believe.47 The warhead separate from the projectile would weigh even less. And if portable nuclear weapons are militarily senseless, then why did the United States and NATO deploy over 300 of them during the Cold War? Felgengauer, who has close ties to the Russian Defense Ministry, thus continued the pattern of using arguments based on false premises to rebut Lebed's charges.
Yablokov also stands by his story. In testimony before the US House Subcommittee on Military Research and Development on 2 October, Yablokov stated that he was "absolutely certain� that suitcase-sized nuclear weapons had been manufactured for use by the KGB during the 1970s. He reiterated his earlier assertion that he had met with scientists who designed these weapons, which he said would not have been included on any "official list� of Soviet nuclear weapons. But he added, "nobody knows� how many such weapons were made, and expressed the opinion that they might not exist any longer. Yablokov estimated that the bombs would have required two major overhauls in the over twenty years since they had been manufactured, which he doubted would have been carried out, especially during the last decade. Yablokov chastised Russian officials for not telling the truth about the issue, and said the controversy over the suitcase bombs was "connected� with the larger problem of nuclear security in Russia.49 On 31 October 1997, Yablokov went one step further, threatening to release the technical details of the "nuclear suitcases� if President Yeltsin does not reply to a letter Yablokov sent to him on 27 October. According to Yablokov, the letter warns that Russia has "a whole class of nuclear weapons, not immediately controlled by the President.�50 Rather than backing down from the controversy, Yablokov has upped the ante, placing the onus on the Russian government to reveal what it knows about the subject.
Ironically, on 6 October 1997, Russian President Boris Yeltsin signed a set of amendments to the Russian Federation Law on State Secrets, which effectively classified virtually all information about military nuclear facilities.51 The amendments, which have been attacked by Russian environmentalists and human rights activists as designed to restrict public access to information about the Russian nuclear complex, are likely to have a chilling effect on public discussion of issues such as warhead storage and security.52 And just one day after General Valynkin denounced Lebed's allegations, his boss, Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev, and other top military officers discussed the safety and security of warhead storage at a 26 September session of the ministry's collegium. While the session reportedly emphasized the reliability of the current system of safeguards, Sergeyev pointed out that it was necessary to speed up the introduction of new automated systems to make storage sites even more secure.53 So while Lebed and Yablokov's allegations may already have begun to fade from the public eye, the underlying issues they have illuminated will not go away so easily.
What conclusions can we draw from this controversy? First, given the secrecy surrounding Soviet nuclear weapons, it is impossible to reach any definitive conclusion about the veracity of Lebed's claims. There is no convincing evidence that any former Soviet nuclear warheads have been lost, stolen, or misplaced. But since both the Russian and US governments would have powerful incentives to keep any such evidence confidential, and we have very little information about the number of nuclear weapons in the Russian stockpile and the location of the depots where they are stored, we also have no way to disprove Lebed's claim that some weapons are unaccounted for.
Although there is no conclusive evidence to support Lebed's charges about the diversion of ADMs, there is a good deal of evidence that small nuclear devices, analogous to known US systems, were produced in the Soviet Union. Internally contradictory official Russian denials that such systems were ever made raise the question of how candid the Russian government is being in response to Lebed's charges. If small ADMs were made by the USSR, why does the Russian government deny it? Are the denials designed to allow the government to avoid having to answer questions about the disposition of the current stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons? Although it is impossible to answer these questions on the basis of currently available information, they do point out the need for greater transparency of nuclear stockpiles in both the United States and the USSR. Although Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton agreed at their March 1997 summit in Helsinki that the planned START III treaty would address such issues, the controversy over Lebed's comments underlines how far the two countries still have to go in this respect.
(1) The contents of the interview were leaked to the press prior to the broadcast, meaning that initial media coverage and official reaction to the charges began before 7 September 1997.
(2) William Potter, "'The Peacemaker' Is a Warning to All,� The Los Angeles Times, 29 September 1997.
(3) Interfax, 8 September 1997; in "Lebed Says Individual Warheads in CIS Pose Danger,� FBIS-TAC-97-251.
(6) Interfax, 5 September 1997; in "Chernomyrdin Denies Lebed Claim on Nuclear Warheads,� FBIS-SOV-97-248.
(7) Valdimir Klimov, "Khvatay meshki, vokzal otkhodit!� Rossiyskaya gazeta, 6 September 1997, p. 2.
( "Minatom oprovergayet zayavleniye Aleksandra Lebedya o propazhe okolo sotni yadernykh zaryadov Rossii,� ITAR-TASS, 10 September 1997.
(9) ITAR-TASS, 10 September 1997; in "Moscow Denies Lebed's Claims on Nuclear Charges,� FBIS-SOV-97-253.
(10) ITAR-TASS, 11 September 1997; in "Lebed Statement on Missing Nuclear Warheads Dismissed,� FBIS-UMA-97-254.
(11) Aleksandr Shaburkin, "Voyennyye oprovergayut zayavleniye Lebedya,� Nezavisimaya gazeta, 10 September 1997, p. 2.
(12) R. Jeffery Smith and David Hoffman, "No Support Found for Report of Lost Suitcase-Size Nuclear Weapons,� The Washington Post, 5 September 1997, p. 19.
(14) U.S. House, Committee on National Security, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, Testimony of Alexei Yablokov at a Hearing on Russian Nuclear Materials, 2 October 1997 (unofficial transcript by Federal News Service), pp. 41-43.
(16) See for example, "Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, September 5, 1997,� available from the USIA Washington File web page at http://www.usia.gov/products/washfile.htm.
(17) Interfax, 13 September 1997; in "Further on Possible Nuclear Arms in Former Soviet Republics,� FBIS-TAC-97-256; Michael Hoffman, "Suitcase Nuclear Weapons Safely Kept, Russian Says,� The Washington Post, 14 September 1997, p. A23.
(18) Interfax, 25 June 1996; in "Yeltsin Dismisses Two Deputy Security Council Secretaries,� FBIS-SOV-96-123; and ITAR-TASS, 30 October 1996, in "Rybkin to Meet with Two New Aides Soon,� FBIS-SOV-96-211.
(19) Yuriy Shchekochikhin, "Znamenityy uchenyy utverzhdaet: vozmozhno, my vse sidim na chemodanakh. Yadernykh,� Novaya gazeta, 22 September 1997, pp. 1-2; and "Segodnya,� NTV, 22 September 1997; in "Scientist Confirms Missing Suitcase Nuclear Bombs Exist,� FBIS-UMA-97-265.
(20)"Rassuzhdeniya o beskontrolnosti v khranenii yadernykh materialov v Rossii bespochvenny, zayavil ofitsialnyy predstavitel pravitelstva,� RIA-Novosti, 23 September 1997.
(21)Vyacheslav Zalomov, "Yaderniy detektiv k priyezdu Gora,� Pravda-pyat, 24 September 1997, pp. 1-2.
(22) Aleksandr Bondarenko, "Yadernoye oruzhiye my nikogda ne teryali,� Krasnaya zvezda, 26 September 1997, p. 1.
(23) Vladimir Zaynetdinov, "Ministerstvo oborony klyanetsya, chto yadernykh chemodanchikov ne bylo i net,� Izvestiya, 26 September 1997, p.
(24) "Vse yadernye zaryady rossiyskikh vooruzhennykh sil nakhodyatsya na meste, zayavil vysokopostavlennyi predstavitel minoborony,� RIA-Novosti, 25 September 1997.
(25) Bondarenko, "Yadernoye oruzhie,� p. 1.
(26) Viktor Sokirko, "A chto u vas, rebyata, v ryukzakakh?� Komsomolskaya pravda, 26 September 1997, p. 2.
(27) Interfax, 25 September 1997; in "Rybkin Denies Knowledge of Small Nuclear Weapons,� FBIS-SOV-97-268.
(28) "Vremya,� ORT, 27 September 1997; in "Russian TV Discusses Contradictory Views on Nuclear Charges,� FBIS-TAC-97-270.
(29)Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, and Milton M. Hoenig, Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume 1: U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 1984), p. 60.
(30) For a summary of the Davy Crockett system, see the web pages of The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project of the Brookings Institution, at http://HTTP://WWW.BROOK.EDU/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HTM.
(31) Cochran, Arkin, Hoenig, Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume 1: U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities, pp. 60, 89, 91, 96, 281.
(32)Vremya, ORT, 27 September 1997; in "TV Examines History of Nuclear Suitcase Bombs,� FBIS-SOV-UMA-97-270.
(33)Viktor Mikhailov, et. al., Yadernye ispytaniya SSSR: obshchiye kharakteristiki, tseli, organizatsiya yadernykh ispytaniy SSSR, (Moscow: Izdat, 1997), pp. 116, 162, 164-166.
(34) "Vremya,� ORT, 27 September 1997; in "TV Examines History of Nuclear Suitcase Bombs,� FBIS-SOV-UMA-97-270.
(35)"Is Lebed Russia's Loosest Cannon?� MSNBC Interview with Aleksandr Lebed, 2 October 1997, available at http://www.msnbc.com.
(36) This story is told in detail in Andrew Cockburn and Leslie Cockburn, One Point Safe, (Washington, DC: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 101-103.
(37) Aleksey Andreyev, "Yadernaya bomba dlya…Chechni,� Zavtra, no. 40, (October 1995), pp. 1,5.
(38) OMRI Daily Digest, 27 November 1995.
(39) H. Eismont "Basaev Doesn't Sound Interested in Having Any Nuclear Weapons in His Weapons Chest Now,� Segodnya, 27 July 1995, p. 2.
(40) Andreyev, "Yadernaya bomba,� p. 5.
(41) Alekdsandr Pgonchenkov, "A Nuclear Bomb in Basayev's Hands: Myth or Reality?� Moskovskiy komsomolets, 22 August 1995, p. 2.
(42) V. Kucherenko, "Basayev Threatens Russia with Nuclear Terror,� Rossiyskaya gazeta, 15 July 1995, p. 4; Dzhim Morris, "On ne pustobrekh--on geroy," Soldat udachy, no. 6, 1996, pp. 12-15, 57.
(43) "Terrorist Act Against Zavtra Correspondent,� Zavtra, #41, October 1995, p. 1.
(44) "Is There a Backpack Nuclear Bomb?� Zavtra, #43, October 1995, p. 1.
(46) Pavel Felgengauer, "Lebed otreksya ot yadernykh chemodanchikov,� Segondya, 7 October 1997.
(47) Cochran, Arkin, Hoenig, Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume 1: U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities, pp. 54-55, 308.
(48) Konstantin Eggert, "General Lebed nameren nayti 'yadernye chemodanchiki,� Izvestiya, 7 October 1997.
(49) U.S. House, Committee on National Security, Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, Testimony of Alexei Yablokov at a Hearing on Russian Nuclear Materials, 2 October 1997 (unofficial transcript by Federal News Service), pp. 34-36.
(50) Interfax, 31 October 1997; in FBIS-TAC-97-304.
(51) "Federalnyy zakon o vnesenii izmeneniy i dopolneniy v zakon Rossiyskoy Federatsii 'o gosudarstvennoy tayne,� Rossiyskaya gazeta, 9 October 1997, p. 4.
(53) RIA-Novosti, 26 September 1997; in "Sergeyev to Establish Reliable Control Over Nuclear Sites,� FBIS-TAC-97-289.
He claims that we would need to use smaller controllable Nuclear weapons and will in order to even stand a chance in Iran.
It would seem that some very deep well thought out plans are but a heartbeat away from being unleashed upon we the US and the rest of the world. Kinda throws a monkey wrench into many a response/ survival / retaliation plans so many of have been working on. Be not disheartened we will prevail.
Washington - The Pentagon's latest strategy review proposes a new military unit that would prevent the transfer of weapons of mass destruction from states such as North Korea and Iran to terrorist groups, The Washington Times reported on Friday.
The WMD task force would be comprised of several hundred troops, including special operations forces and intelligence personnel, the Times said.
The Times said the proposal was included in the Pentagon's 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review, a sweeping assessment of US defense strategy Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will send to the White House and Congress on February 6.
Portions of an unclassified summary of the document were made available to The Washington Times, the newspaper said.
"A section on combating weapons of mass destruction said future US military forces will have the capability to interdict and 'render safe' weapons of mass destruction before terrorists can use them," the newspaper reported.
A Pentagon spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the report.
The Times said Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita declined to comment on the strategy review which has not been made public.
"We have over the past few years focused on ways of having a standing and rapidly deployable task force," DiRita was quoted as saying. "It's something that can respond quickly to a tough problem."
The Times said the Pentagon review stated that a core element of the new joint task force would be the Army's 20th Support Command, which would become a rapid deployment unit "to command and control WMD elimination missions by 2007."
"They will possess an expanded ability to locate, tag and track dangerous individuals and other high value targets globally," the review was quoted as saying.
Defense officials this week confirmed the planning document calls for the addition of nearly 8,000 troops to its elite Special Operations Forces next year to bolster the US military's ability to fight terrorists and insurgents worldwide.


text:
Syria, the Big Russian Bear, and Iran
When I lived in Damascus, at the time the TV had only two channels. One of them used to broadcast Russian ballet performances quite regularly. Also, Iranian pilgrims were everywhere. An entire segment of the Syrian tourist industry has been set aside just for Iranian pilgrims visiting important Shia shrines. I saw busloads, and I even learned that certain hotels were exclusively serving Iranian patrons.
So, the official public UN stance of Russia in vetoing the resolution last week, along with the Iranian regime's less public military and security support for the Assad regime, all come as little surprise to me. But, both Russia and Iran are playing a most heinous and ominous role in the destruction of the Syrian people, including countless unarmed civilians, women, men, and children alike. Michael Weiss published an article in the Telegraph that explicitly describes what's happening in Syria, and the complicity of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in the slaughter of thousands:
"For those who haven't had lunch today, I encourage you to see up-close what Russian weapons and Iranian and Hezbollah 'military consultants' have helped accomplish in Syria. This video is of a young boy in Homs. His entire lower jaw has been removed from his head and I'm told that this is more watchable version of the footage; an earlier reel went round where he hadn't been anaesthetized yet."
(NOTE: You can find the hyperlink to the video inside Michael Weiss's article: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100135384/russia-iran-and-hezbollah-are-already-intervening-in-syria-why-arent-we/ — WARNING: It's very graphic).
"Vladimir Putin's copper-bottomed support for Bashar al-Assad at the UN Security Council can be taken in one of two ways. There will be those who claim that here was one organized crime lord pledging solidarity with his human ferret counterpart. The two men really do understand each other and are even beginning to replicate each other's CVs. Assad is doing to Syria what Putin did to Chechnya a decade ago and under the same pretext of combating "terrorists". Moscow had its dodgy apartment bombings in 1999, blamed with credible evidence on the FSB, to justify the razing of Grozny. Damascus has had its spate of "suicide bombings" lately, blamed by the regime on the following actors: al-Qaida, the United States, Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Syrian opposition and loyalists of former Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam. Footage showing the mukhabarat's theatrics before and after these incidents matters not at all because the Assad regime, with a little help from Russia Today and other Kremlin mouthpieces, has also blamed "foreign media" for presenting a mere domestic misunderstanding as a full-blown humanitarian crisis. Taken another way, Putin's support for Assad is a foreign policy "victory" that comes at just the right time for Russia, weeks ahead of a presidential election.
…If certain comment editors have difficulty finding Syrians on the ground who want NATO fighter jets overhead, I'll be glad to introduce them to several.
Here is al-Sheikh: 'As an activist and a coordinator for the Khaled Bin Waleed brigade, I state that we in Homs, Idlib and Damascus suburbs call for unilateral American and British intervention. We also want to improve our relations with the US administration and people after the revolution, but we need you to save us. We are getting slaughtered, save us'."
You don't need me to point out that the United Nations has miserably failed the Syrian people. The UN is broken and is far from democratic. If anything, this whole incident underscores the need for a UN overhaul; at a minimum, there should be provisions for those countries that wish to implement the R2P mandate in cases such as Syria to override Security Council vetoes. I am a diehard believer in state sovereignty, but I am a human rights activist first and foremost. Russia, Iran, and China have done a tremendous disservice to humanity. Now, Assad is having a field day in exterminating his own people: protesters and by-standers alike, civilians making a run for it to grab some bread (now in dire short supply), families huddling in their homes, and individuals picked off by snipers.
This reminds me of the bloody, ruthless killings in the former Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavia analogy is not off base… remember how long it finally took Western powers to intervene in Bosnia and stop the massacres?!! You'd think that we all have learned from lessons past.
The Syrian people have the right to live without fear. Most of all, they have the right to live. What the hell happened to the "Responsibility to Protect" civilians, that was so potently invoked in the case of Libya? I write this with a very heavy heart for Syria, and wish that ballet performances would have been the extent of Syrian-Russian relations. Sadly, it's not.
Tags: Assad Regime, Bosnia, Damascus, Former Yugoslavia, Hezbollah, Human Rights, Intervention, Iran, Putin, R2P, Russia, Sovereignty, Syria
Categories : Assad, Bashar al-Assad, China, Damascus, Human Rights, Iran, Middle East 2012, R2P, Responsibility to Protect Civilians, Russia, Syria, Women
Catch-22 in Syria
Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jonathan Miller (for ITN Channel 4 News, London) reports: "Omar Shakir, the opposition activist in Homs, told Channel 4 News: 'We are hoping and trying not to drift into civil war, but only international action will prevent it. If the regime continues its murderous violence, we will have to defend ourselves.' Both sides are going for broke."
This is obviously a catch-22 situation for both the anti-Assad activists and opposition groups, as well as for the Assad regime, and even for the international community. Hypothetically, if there is an R2P ("Responsibility to Protect" civilians) mandate implemented by the UN in Syria, much like the Libya case, there is no guarantee that civil war will not occur. In fact, that is exactly what happened in Libya. And, as far as I can tell, the early stirrings of civil war have already rippled inside Syria.
Yes, the odds against the Assad regime will stack up upon applying the R2P mandate, assuming it involves a no-fly zone and NATO-led airstrikes, as in Libya. But, it does not mean that the civil war would be any less bloody.
In fact, the Assad regime will have the opportunity to accuse external powers of interfering in Syria's internal affairs, and he'll no doubt point his finger to them and say, "See, I told you it was foreign agitators all along" (not that the opposition will believe him, of course!).
Syria faces a delicate dance, because, unlike Libya, the Syrian government has strong allies, Iran and Russia to name the top two. And, the Assad regime can manipulate proxies in Lebanon to widen the conflict. The stakes are extremely high for the opposition groups as well as the Assad regime. The international community's potential role can either be a game-changer, or the fuse that further intensifies civil war in Syria. It could be another Lebanon. It's two sides of the same coin: It can either offer Assad opportunities to exploit foreign involvement, or it can ultimately be the nail in his coffin. I'm guessing, sadly, that one thing Syria will not face a shortage of is shrouds and coffins.
Tags: Assad, bashar al assad, Iran, Libya, R2P, Russia, Syria
Categories : Assad, Bashar al-Assad, Civil War, Damascus, Iran, Libya, R2P, Responsibility to Protect Civilians, Russia, Syria, United Nations
The Qaddafi Template in Syria
In his latest public speech, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad sounded a lot more like the late Colonel Qaddafi, who threatened to crush his opponents mercilessly. Where Qaddafi threatened to go door-to-door, house-to-house, and alley-to-alley – and made good on his threats – Assad is now saying he will crush his opponents with an "iron hand." Assad started off in the early stages of the Syrian uprising sounding very delusional and detached from the reality on the ground, to the point of making ridiculous claims in his interview with Barbara Walters a few weeks ago. He attempted to dissociate his presidency from the authority and responsibility of giving orders to, and controlling, the state security forces. But, he fooled no one.
However, Assad's latest 110-minute speech in Damascus manifests a shift in his rhetoric towards an even more threatening stance, which by the way contradicts what he said in the Walters interview, and now puts him in a similar light as Qaddafi. Whereas Qaddafi referred to the opposition as "rats, cockroaches, and Al Qaeda terrorists on drugs," Assad labeled his opposition as "terrorists, murderers, criminals."
The critical question for the international community is whether or not the "R2P" (Responsibility to Protect civilians) UN mandate applies to the Syrian case. With 5,000+ casualties (mostly civilians), the protesters in Syria have been pleading with the international community to apply the R2P mandate and protect them from Assad's ruthless crackdown.
But, Syria is not Libya, and even in Libya, with its much smaller size and less formidable military compared to Syria, it took NATO and the rebels several long months to achieve their missions, and for the regime to fall. Syria is a different nut to crack. You can compare the military strength between Syria and Libya at Global Firepower: http://www.globalfirepower.com/. Plus, one must consider Syria's powerful allies, Iran and Russia, as a January 10th article in the Globe and Mail describes:
"The Syrian President still has powerful allies like Russia, five of whose naval vessels docked on the weekend at the Syrian port of Tartous, where the Russians maintain a base."
Nonetheless, Assad clearly is not applying lessons learned from the 2011 Arab uprisings and revolts. Perhaps denial and delusions of grandeur and invincibility are in the DNA of dictators.
Tags: bashar al assad, qaddafi, state security forces
Categories : Assad, Bashar al-Assad, Damascus, Iran, Libya, Qaddafi, R2P, Responsibility to Protect Civilians, Russia, Syria, United Nations


Published on August 30, 2018. Farmhouse Wood Bench. Farmhouse bench turquoise farmhouse bench old bench rustic, rustic vintage antique wood farmhouse bench or coffee table. Farmhouse bench wood dining bench entryway bench. 30br.


This event is open only to members of The National Press Club & their guests.
Former CBS News Correspondent Marvin Kalb, host of the long-running "The Kalb Report" produced in conjunction with the National Press Club will be the first guest as the Club's Broadcast Committee launches a series of "Broadcast Legends" dinners on Tuesday Sept. 16.
The event, strictly limited to 35 people, will be held in the Winners Room, an intimate setting within the Fourth Estate Restaurant on the 13th floor of the Club. The price of the dinner is $50.
Although we expect a wide ranging discussion, we anticipate the talk to focus on Kalb's expertise on Russia and the Ukraine which will be displayed in an upcoming book. The book will focus on the importance of history, especially in understanding the current crisis with Ukraine and Russia. Kalb says, "Truth is, no matter what deals are struck between Obama and Putin, the key will remain what modus vivendi Ukraine can strike with Russia. Without it, no deal involving the West will work. With it, one is possible, when one considers the close, almost intimate, relationship Ukraine and Russia have always had.
Questions on the event should be emailed to Bill McCloskey at bmcclos325@aol.com.


We do not diagnose illnesses but look at the patient's experience of their illness. The symptoms you feel when you become ill are your body's way of signalling to you things are out of balance. This could be physically, mentally or emotionally or all three. The body and mind and emotions are all linked. It may be an acute illness that comes on suddenly or it could be a chronic illness that rumbles on and on.
Patients often come with a diagnosis from their doctors ranging from asthma and eczema to anxiety and depression, from PMS (Pre- menstrual syndrome) to IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) or migraines to high blood pressure. They often come to me because they haven't been helped by conventional medicine or can't tolerate the conventional drugs or simply don't want to take them.
Homeopaths look at how different patients experience the same disease so ten people coming with, for example, pre- menstrual syndrome, may each be given a different remedy. We treat the individual person and how they are experiencing and expressing their illness and don't just treat the disease.
Please do telephone our Homeopath if you want to find out more. There is no obligation to book.
Sciatica pain refers to the pain originated due the irritation of sciatica nerve.
Sciatica pain itself is not a disease but the symptoms of many underlying pathologies.
Sciatica refers to pain that begins in the hip and buttocks and continues all the way down the leg. This condition is often accompanied by low back pain, which can be more or less severe than the leg pain.
Numbness, also drawing and tearing in limbs, especially while at rest or at night.
Sciatica, worse right side. Cannot lie on painful side.
Hands and feet numb. Right foot hot, left cold.
Cramps in calves and toes at night in bed.
Limbs go to sleep. Twitching and jerking.
Head strong and haughty when sick.
Symptoms characteristically run from right to left, acts especially on right side of body, and are worse from about 4 to 8 pm.
Sciatica, right side, better lying down.
Sad in the morning; no desire to mix with the world.
Restless and uneasy; does not wish to attend to business; wants to be off somewhere all the time.
Mental labor best performed at night.
Craving for alcohol, oysters. Any food causes distress.
A rheumatic remedy. Pains shift rapidly.
Pains from hips to knees and feet.
Pains affect a large part of a limb, or several joints, and pass through quickly. Weakness, numbness, pricking, and sense of coldness in limbs.
Sleepless, wakes very early in morning.
Nausea; vomiting. Pain in pit of stomach; worse by bending forward; relieved by sitting erect.
Sensation of something being pressed under the epigastrium.
A remedy of unquestioned benefit in sciatica, when pain is associated with numbness of the part affected.
Cramps in calves of legs and feet when in bed.
Rheumatic pain in ankle joints and legs.
Intense pain along the sciatic nerve; numbness alternates with pain.
Frequent pains in calves and feet.
Better, drawing limbs up, flexing thigh on abdomen.