Two weeks until what?  Al-Qaeda covers its collective ears and eyes, and pretends we no longer exist?  They never do say . . .

From Breitbart:


Big of the guy.  Must be the Christmas/Chanukah spirit washing over him.


These guys really don't get it.  One, spewing rhetorical nonsense doesn't make it happen.  Two, I'll bet this guy doesn't even see that he's essentially saying that he won't negotiate with other Muslims--because most of the civilian carnage in Iraq is from "insurgent" IEDs, which means bombs planted and exploded by other Muslims.

According to a Bloomberg article:

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- OAO Gazprom agreed to buy 50 percent plus one share of Royal Dutch Shell Plc's Sakhalin-2 oil and gas project for $7.45 billion, handing President Vladimir Putin another victory in his drive to control Russia's energy industry.

Nothing new here--this was in the works for some time--but now it's final.  See my previous entry on this subject.  My guess is that the Dutch saw it coming, but too late to do anything about it.

Putin Comments

Shell and its partners also said they have agreed with Russia's energy ministry to ``jointly resolve all outstanding issues.'' The previous agreement covering project costs and rules for sharing oil and gas output with the state will continue, they said in a separate statement. An amended budget will be sent to a government supervisory board for approval, they said, without disclosing any specifics.

``We'll do everything in our power to make sure this project is realized,'' Putin told the heads of Shell, Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Gazprom at a meeting in the Kremlin today, in remarks broadcast on state-owned Perviy television.

Shell's stake will fall to 27.5 percent, with Mitsui retaining 12.5 percent and Mitsubishi 10 percent.

It was a nice idea to invest in Siberian natural gas, but it's obvious that Europeans trust Russia far more than they should.  With Russia, economics and politics are one and the same--when they're down, they tuck their tails between their legs, look friendly, and go begging, then kick out the investors once the foreign investment is about to begin payout.

Putin is building Gazprom and state oil company OAO Rosneft into challengers to Shell and Exxon Mobil Corp. using assets from Yukos, once Russia's largest oil producer.

Guess which company is next in Putin's crosshairs?  It's ExxonMobil.  Total and BP aren't far behind.

The Natural Resources Ministry in May urged Irving, Texas- based Exxon Mobil, Total SA in Paris and London-based BP Plc to give Russian companies a bigger role in their ventures.

Total's license to extract oil at Kharyaga, its biggest Russian project, will be reviewed tomorrow by the country's resources agency.

Production Agreements

The government has said it's unhappy with the original production-sharing agreements, signed in the 1990s, that cover Sakhalin-2, Exxon Mobil's neighboring Sakhalin-1 project and Total's Kharyaga field in northern Russia. Under the agreements, negotiated when crude was a third of today's price, most of Russia's revenue would be deferred until the companies earned returns on their investments.

Here's the simple English translation:  the Russian equivalent of the EPA will slap the remaining energy companies with fictitious environmental violations and huge fines, in an effort to force them into selling out a large chunk of their stakes.  Russia needs money, and it needs it now, so it's essentially handing out Monopoly "Go to Jail" cards to foreign investors in its energy industry.

On the (potentially) bright side, Russia will need distributors within Europe for its natural gas exports; sooner or later it will bump up against a current foe when it tries for those deals.

A Reuters article, based on a weekend article in Le Parisien (now archived, apparently) claims that French politician Segolene Royal, who herself has presidential ambitions, had planned a visit to the U.S. this month, but canceled it when Hillary refused to meet with her.

Socialist regional leader Royal, 53, a relative political newcomer with little foreign policy experience, has made little secret of the fact she would like to meet Clinton to bolster her international credentials.

But after gaffes by Royal on a trip to the Middle East, the Democratic Senator from New York, who is believed to be eyeing a White House bid in 2008, was less than enthusiastic about being seen together with the French candidate, Le Parisien daily said at the weekend, quoting a Clinton adviser.

"Hillary, whose candidature is far from assured, is very vigilant and cannot afford the slightest false move," it quoted the adviser as saying. "She does not want to be associated with Royal's recent comments. It wouldn't be good for her image."

Certainly it's understandable that the French candidate would want to suck up to Hillary--they're both left-wing female moonbats--especially if they both win their respective presidential elections.  Yet Hillary wants nothing to do with the woman who agreed with a Hezbollah leader.  Perhaps someone reminded Hillary of the flak she caught for giving Suha Arafat a big fat hug?  The fact that the Frenchwoman thought Hillary would be eager to meet with her, demonstrates quite clearly her lack of experience with foreign policy.

On her recent Middle East visit, Royal waited a day before condemning comments made in front of her by Hezbollah politician Ali Ammar who described past Israeli occupations of the country as Nazism. She said she had not heard his words.

She was also forced to clarify her position after she seemed to agree with Ammar's assessment of U.S. foreign policy as "unlimited insanity".

Somehow, I really doubt that the woman suddenly became deaf, yet her backpedaling makes it clear she understands her gaffe.

The Sydney Morning Herald, quoting an unnamed Clinton adviser, reported it thusly:

But the main problem, said the adviser, stemmed from Ms Royal's association with the Hezbollah official, who denounced the "unlimited dementia of the American administration" and likened Israel's foreign policy to "Nazism".

"Hillary, whose investiture is far from assured, is very vigilant and cannot afford the slightest false move," said the adviser.

Rue Rude, run by an American living in Paris, has an article that points out Royal's connection with Mitterand back in 1985 when he gave the order for the Rainbow Warrior to be blown up for protesting French nuclear testing around New Zealand.  If the article's correct, one of Segolene's brothers actually planted the bomb:

Yesterday I was reading Le Parisien's special on Ségolène Royal. There was an interview with one of her brothers, Antoine, who runs a sawmill in the south of France. "Hey, listen to this!" I said as I read. "Ségolène Royal's brother was one of the French secret service guys who blew up the Rainbow Warrior!"

Antoine said in the interview that their brother Gérard had told him that he had actually put the bomb (posé la bombe) on board.

This really could come back to haunt her.  The article goes on to give an update:

Update: The plot thickens! It turns out that in 1985, when Mitterrand gave orders for the Rainbow Warrior to be exploded, Ségolène Royal was working as conseillère technique au secrétariat général de la présidence de la République, i.e. working with Mitterrand.

Makes Billy Carter seem tame by comparison, doesn't it?

I never thought I'd agree with a member of the House of Lords, but this particular article highlighted the contents of a letter that Lord Monckton sent to U.S. Senators Rockefeller and Snowe. As such, it holds no power to compel either senator to resign, but it makes some extremely valid points.

Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, writes: "You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to 'senior elected and appointed government officials' who disagree with your opinion."

I don't think it defies democracy per se to send a letter to the CEO of ExxonMobil demanding that he cease funding for scientists who don't necessarily believe the global warming hype, but it's obvious that the senators are targeting a company with deep pockets because they refuse to accept any research that doesn't bolster their own junk science preconceptions.

In what The Charleston (WV) Daily Mail has called "an intemperate attempt to squelch debate with a hint of political consequences," Senators Rockefeller and Snowe released an open letter dated October 30 to ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, insisting he end Exxon's funding of a "climate change denial campaign." The Senators labeled scientists with whom they disagree as "deniers," a term usually directed at "Holocaust deniers."

Okay, WV's economy is based in no small part on coal as an energy source. However, calling scientists the equivalent of what can currently get someone arrested in several European countries, is beyond the pale. Just because not all scientists fall into the trap of thinking the "sky is falling" in regard to global warming, doesn't make them pariahs.

Responds Lord Monckton, "Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest, 'obfuscate' the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the 'consensus' argument and they compel necessary corrections ... "

Lord Monckton's Churchillian reproof continues, "You acknowledge the effectiveness of the climate sceptics. In so doing, you pay a compliment to the courage of those free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken preconceived positions; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretence to uphold or cherish academic freedom."

That's telling them, Lord Monckton. If the skeptics weren't at least somewhat successful in creating some debate, senators Rockefeller and Snowe wouldn't be so up in arms and desperate to cut off their funding by any means possible, even if it means meddling where they have no business meddling.

Concludes Lord Monckton, "I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer- reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call 'disastrous' and 'calamitous' consequences."

This challenge will hold no water with either senator, but perhaps the press coverage it generates will make them rethink their place in history as elected senators, aka lawmakers, as opposed to the thought and science police they seem to believe they are.

Michael Crichton wrote an essay titled Why Politicized Science is Dangerous. In part, it tells the true tale of pseudo-science run amok back in the early-to-mid 1900s:

"Imagine that there is s new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out by prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms."

Sound familiar? However, Crichton was not talking about global warming. He was talking about eugenics.

"Today we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of this theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the death of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and it's history is so dreadful--and, to those who were caught up in it so embarrassing--that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated."

I wouldn't necessarily equate global warming with eugenics, but at this point, it is a theory, not a proven fact. To act on a theory because it suits your political agenda is to do a disservice to the American public, and those who elected you.

Further, your Chicken Little attitude, Senators Rockefeller and Snowe, is disingenuous--what good could it do to squelch scientific debate and possibly grind the global economy to a halt if all climate and energy-related research is banned, and your ultimate goal (going back to a non-polluting agrarian society?) is achieved. The economy collapses, and the cows and pigs still pump out methane by the barge-load per animal, polluting the atmosphere and contributing to global warming.  Oh, and don't forget about water vapor being a huge contributing factor to greenhouse gases, senators.  Cutting off scientific funding won't make that go away.

Here you have it from the chief cop-out person at Time Magazine:


Bloggers win!  Yes, folks, that would be you and me, and how many other hundreds of thousands of people?  This way, no nasty insane dictator gets named, but neither does anyone else, who could possibly be controversial.

Nice duck and jive, Time!


Gee--Ahmadinejad must have been too recent a "phenom" to win the prize--but there's always next year.

John Kerry just can't manage to keep his feet of clay out of the limelight.  "Feet of clay" is a figure of speech from the Bible (Daniel 2:33-45) used to indicate a weakness or a hidden flaw in the character of a greatly admired or respected person.  Let's face it--he's a poster boy for the left-wing moonbats.

He suggests the Bush administration sit down and talk with the Iranians and Syrians to make all our problems go away.


Bow obsequiously to anti-U.S. factions is more like it.


Listen all you want, Sen. Kerry, but the second you open your mouth, you sound like you're begging for love from America-haters.  The bottom line is that your tactic won't work.  Even if the Syrian and Iranian government officials are rational and trustworthy, which itself is highly doubtful, no amount of talking, and bowing and scraping in front of them will earn you their respect.  Indeed if you buy their kissy-kissy, on the way out the door, they'll just laugh at your gullibility.

As a diplomat, Sen. Kerry, I think Madeleine Albright might actually have been more effective than you, and she was completely useless.  She did no good, but she did no harm.  You would do harm if given free rein, assuming you actually accomplish your mission to make these countries believe you can influence and control the U.S. to bow to your command.  Do you think your trip to Syria will actually do any good?


If you succeed in sucking in Assad, which is unlikely, if not impossible, you will end up looking like a complete fool when you come back bragging about how sitting down with him solved the world's problems.  Clearly it will not, and cannot.  Take off your blinders.

You have a serious character flaw, and it is hubris.

Ahmadinejad held his ridiculous conference about the holocaust to assure the world that: 1) it never happened, and 2) if it did, it wasn't so bad as historians make it out to be.  From Breitbart:

Some of the most notorious Western figures who have downplayed the scale of the Holocaust have been attending the event, including French professor Robert Faurisson and German-born Australian Fredrick Toeben.

The conference wrapped up in the early afternoon and all of the participants, who have showered the Iranian president with praise throughout the meeting, were bussed away for a private meeting with Ahmadinejad.

Let's get this straight.  Ahmadinejad combed the globe to hand-pick invitees he specifically knew agreed with the myth he himself wished to spread, or as the case may be to his audience, perpetuate.

What this guy is doing is in effect claiming that liquid water isn't wet.  If an audience member were to say "But it is wet," no doubt Ahmadinejad would have one of his henchmen hold the guy's hands under running water, make him smell, taste, and feel it, then try to claim it was mineral oil, or some such nonsense.  Nevermind the fact that mineral oil doesn't taste, feel, nor smell like water.

Then to top it off, we get this little gem of a quote from a Reuters article:

Ahmadinejad, who has sparked international outcry by referring to the killing of six million Jews in World War Two as a "myth" and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map", launched another verbal attack on the Jewish state.

"Thanks to people's wishes and God's will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want," he said.

So . . . what he's saying is "The world hasn't had a real holocaust yet, but it will after I wipe out Israel."

Does this guy qualify as clinically insane, or just a garden variety megalomaniac?

I've come across a couple of news articles on Putin's push to force out foreign investors.  From the UK Times, we have this:


Putin's logic is that after the fall of the iron curtain, the Russian economy was in the dumps, and it needed foreign investors.  Now that it's on the rebound, it's time to force foreigners to turn over most of their stake, and become subcontractors.


Given that attitude, you'd better not count on any further foreign investment.


Sure, go ahead and strong-arm the Dutch into giving up a significant chunk of their investment, and control of the project.  Anyone want to guess how long it'll take for Rosprirodnadzor to crawl back into the woodwork once the Russian government gets its way?  Nanoseconds?  This is the way the Russians work.  How many governments nationalize private industries when they're making money, then when they fall apart, invite foreign investors back in with privatization offers?  Pemex, anyone?


Chilly, eh?  Well, that sort of treatment would do it for me as well.  Can't blame the Dutch.

And this from the Guardian:


Well said, Mr. Amsterdam.  You hit the nail on the head.

Cynthia McKinney introduced a bill on Friday, her last day of work, to impeach President Bush.  I actually think the AP reporter had it right, about it being her parting shot. It would seem to be a real dig at Nancy Pelosi, more than at Bush.  McKinney's been a Bush-hater for years--no secret there.  But this one's aimed right at Pelosi, who declared that impeachment proceedings against Bush would never happen on her watch.

I don't think McKinney would have dared introduce such legislation had she actually been re-elected, but now that she's out of a job, she must figure that it doesn't matter.  Apparently nobody ever told her that it's a really bad idea to shoot your mouth off about your employer in an exit interview--all it does is create a reputation for being a troublemaker.  As if clocking a policeman on Capitol Hill for failing to recognize her without her congressional lapel pin and calling for a federal investigation into Tupac Shakur's death hadn't already established her as a lunatic, she had to go do this on her way out the door.