In regards to the W. Safire and other posted articles I was wondering if this applies?
ePlaya Terms of Service
*************************
Regarding Intellectual Property. You may not post, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. Without limiting the foregoing, if you believe that your work has been copied and posted on the Service in a way that constitutes infringement, please provide the Eplaya adminstator with the following information: .............................................
Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....
-
theCryptofishist
- Posts: 40312
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:28 am
- Burning Since: 2017
- Location: In Exile
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Does that include Bloggers?Diadochi04 wrote:In regards to the W. Safire and other posted articles I was wondering if this applies?
ePlaya Terms of Service
*************************
Regarding Intellectual Property. You may not post, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. Without limiting the foregoing, if you believe that your work has been copied and posted on the Service in a way that constitutes infringement, please provide the Eplaya adminstator with the following information: .............................................
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
Don Muerto
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm
Although it is questionable whether Joel is violating the letter of the ToS, I don't think he is violating the spirit of it. He is not trying to pass the works off as his own, nor is he seeking to gain financially from it, and he is not in anyway damaging the eplaya community or experience.
Safire's works are published and I believe there may be a 'fair use' of copyrighted materials that protects reposting for discussion. I am not 100% on that, but somebody who knows will probably chime in.
Regardles, I think anything that fosters discussion and debate here is good, and anything that squelches it is bad, and frankly I don't give a shit if that places me in violation of anything.
Safire's works are published and I believe there may be a 'fair use' of copyrighted materials that protects reposting for discussion. I am not 100% on that, but somebody who knows will probably chime in.
Regardles, I think anything that fosters discussion and debate here is good, and anything that squelches it is bad, and frankly I don't give a shit if that places me in violation of anything.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
-
Diadochi04
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:36 pm
-
Don Muerto
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm
If Safire were to take umbrage, his first legal step would be to issue a 'Cease and Desist' letter to the legal owner of the eplaya. Complying with this letter would involve removing the offending copyrighted material. Unless there was money being made here by the copy of his works then that is the end of the matter.
Again, I think that you are allowed to discuss copyrighted works with a fair amount of discretion, but its not an area of knowledge I am very familiar with. (where are the lawyers when you need them?)
Again, I think that you are allowed to discuss copyrighted works with a fair amount of discretion, but its not an area of knowledge I am very familiar with. (where are the lawyers when you need them?)
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
-
Don Muerto
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm
FWIW this is from a non-authoritarian source but at first blush appears to put the reposting of articles here in the clear.
FAIR USE
The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to express other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.
Fair use is usually a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use more of the work than is necessary to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.)
Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for commentary and reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, either. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
So,
Suddenly I feel really bad about being so direct and to the point in my last post. seems that no one is challenging the fact that Bush & Co are Nazi related.
Anyone do any research on Bush to deny they had anything to do with the Nazis?
Not trying to start any trouble. Just trying to do my job of enlightening those that think Bush and his folk are good for the world.
Suddenly I feel really bad about being so direct and to the point in my last post. seems that no one is challenging the fact that Bush & Co are Nazi related.
Anyone do any research on Bush to deny they had anything to do with the Nazis?
Not trying to start any trouble. Just trying to do my job of enlightening those that think Bush and his folk are good for the world.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
playing catchup here...
re; the safire thing
I suspect it's rather like radio, where technically the artists being played could get pissy about it, but what would be the point, but on the other hand, safire does have the jumbo coconut balls chutzpa to actually CHARGE people to read his propaganda, so I guess I could envision him being such an asshole as to make a fuss about it.
re; the bush thing;
are there any people who still consider bush a good man? a human being even? I have my doubts... I wouldn't worry about offending such automatons, their reason faculties have obviously burned out, so you're as likely to offend them in some way you could never forsee, like just uttering the word "butter" or "dingbat" or "shoe" or somesuch.
I suspect it's rather like radio, where technically the artists being played could get pissy about it, but what would be the point, but on the other hand, safire does have the jumbo coconut balls chutzpa to actually CHARGE people to read his propaganda, so I guess I could envision him being such an asshole as to make a fuss about it.
re; the bush thing;
are there any people who still consider bush a good man? a human being even? I have my doubts... I wouldn't worry about offending such automatons, their reason faculties have obviously burned out, so you're as likely to offend them in some way you could never forsee, like just uttering the word "butter" or "dingbat" or "shoe" or somesuch.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
[size=24]Damned if you do... damned if you don't[/size]
April 28, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Colin in the Cross-Fire
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON
Our secretary of state is catching flak from both flanks these days. Told-you-so doves and circle-the-wagons hawks are lambasting Colin Powell for his Iraq positions, as described in Bob Woodward's latest book.
The doves say: You knew that overthrowing Saddam would be too costly, yet you let yourself be used by those febrile neocons. Why didn't you storm into the Oval Office, tell the president that the Cheney-Rummy gang was crazy, and if he didn't listen — resign in protest? Where are your principles?
Hawks say: You knew Saddam was a growing threat and Iraq supported terrorists. You got your way in going to the U.N. for approval. But now, in the midst of the unexpected postwar bloodletting, you're telling Woodward that nobody asked your advice, thereby undermining the president when he needs you most. Where are your principles?
I was never a big Powell fan. My pesky criticism of his failure to finish off Saddam in the first gulf war, repeated during the general's presidential boomlet, led Powell to tell The New Yorker that "Safire is getting arrogant in his old age." (True enough, and that was a decade ago, when I was a mere sexagenarian.)
But a public figure infuriating both hard right and far left can't be all bad. And beyond that, a voice of tactical caution in a National Security Council of bold strategists is a necessary thing. George Bush knew what he was getting when he chose his secretary of state.
Here's what convinces me of that. I was a guest at what was probably the last of the intimate dinner parties given by The Washington Post's Katharine Graham. It was in the summer of 2001, honoring Kay's pal George Shultz.
The new Bush appointees present were Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell. The former Post reporter Don Oberdorfer and I were there to ask questions, and we merrily popped away on China, Russia, Europe and the Middle East.
The Graham rules: one conversation at the one round table. And it was a "social occasion," which meant hair down, bark off and no quoting anybody. Were I, even now, to recount what was said that night, a thunderbolt from Kay on high would incinerate my computer. But the general impression I took away, and which informed subsequent columns on suitably profound background, was this:
First, Colin and Rummy came at just about every defense and foreign issue with a different mind-set. This augured permanent policy tussling — "creative tension" — at the top of the new leadership. Second, these two old pros genuinely enjoyed sparring intellectually with each other. That portended a personal civility to ameliorate the usual State-Defense institutional hostility. Third, the taciturn Condi Rice was not yet in their power league or did not trust the social-occasion rules.
That's the way policy formation in Bush's first term is playing out. Though attributing nothing to anybody, I can attest that in private conversations, Rummy and Colin have retained that personal mutual respect. This is true even as their minions snarl at one another, and as Powell's neckless deputy races after the vice president with a thermometer so as to report to Woodward about Dick Cheney's "war fever."
Powell gets his dissents heard, and wins a few. He persuaded Bush to go to the U.N. for its resolution warning Saddam of "serious consequences," which was wise. Though he doesn't zip his lip as well as a team player should when he loses, Powell loyally stays aboard to argue again another day. That moderately principled stand may get him derided by doves as a "good soldier," but it makes him a good secretary of state.
Presidents handle conflicting internal advice differently. Lincoln sought public balance, treating State's Seward and Treasury's Chase as "a pumpkin in each end of my bag." L.B.J. grimly tolerated George Ball. Nixon used Shultz to synthesize the ideas of Arthur Burns and Pat Moynihan. Carter followed Zbig Brzezinski and Cy Vance into policy paralysis.
Bush comes out well as a leader in Woodward's book because he surrounds himself with strong advisers, gives them a fair hearing, then makes up his mind and takes action. As a result, some of the best of them stick around, gaining humility with age.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company[/b]
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Colin in the Cross-Fire
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON
Our secretary of state is catching flak from both flanks these days. Told-you-so doves and circle-the-wagons hawks are lambasting Colin Powell for his Iraq positions, as described in Bob Woodward's latest book.
The doves say: You knew that overthrowing Saddam would be too costly, yet you let yourself be used by those febrile neocons. Why didn't you storm into the Oval Office, tell the president that the Cheney-Rummy gang was crazy, and if he didn't listen — resign in protest? Where are your principles?
Hawks say: You knew Saddam was a growing threat and Iraq supported terrorists. You got your way in going to the U.N. for approval. But now, in the midst of the unexpected postwar bloodletting, you're telling Woodward that nobody asked your advice, thereby undermining the president when he needs you most. Where are your principles?
I was never a big Powell fan. My pesky criticism of his failure to finish off Saddam in the first gulf war, repeated during the general's presidential boomlet, led Powell to tell The New Yorker that "Safire is getting arrogant in his old age." (True enough, and that was a decade ago, when I was a mere sexagenarian.)
But a public figure infuriating both hard right and far left can't be all bad. And beyond that, a voice of tactical caution in a National Security Council of bold strategists is a necessary thing. George Bush knew what he was getting when he chose his secretary of state.
Here's what convinces me of that. I was a guest at what was probably the last of the intimate dinner parties given by The Washington Post's Katharine Graham. It was in the summer of 2001, honoring Kay's pal George Shultz.
The new Bush appointees present were Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell. The former Post reporter Don Oberdorfer and I were there to ask questions, and we merrily popped away on China, Russia, Europe and the Middle East.
The Graham rules: one conversation at the one round table. And it was a "social occasion," which meant hair down, bark off and no quoting anybody. Were I, even now, to recount what was said that night, a thunderbolt from Kay on high would incinerate my computer. But the general impression I took away, and which informed subsequent columns on suitably profound background, was this:
First, Colin and Rummy came at just about every defense and foreign issue with a different mind-set. This augured permanent policy tussling — "creative tension" — at the top of the new leadership. Second, these two old pros genuinely enjoyed sparring intellectually with each other. That portended a personal civility to ameliorate the usual State-Defense institutional hostility. Third, the taciturn Condi Rice was not yet in their power league or did not trust the social-occasion rules.
That's the way policy formation in Bush's first term is playing out. Though attributing nothing to anybody, I can attest that in private conversations, Rummy and Colin have retained that personal mutual respect. This is true even as their minions snarl at one another, and as Powell's neckless deputy races after the vice president with a thermometer so as to report to Woodward about Dick Cheney's "war fever."
Powell gets his dissents heard, and wins a few. He persuaded Bush to go to the U.N. for its resolution warning Saddam of "serious consequences," which was wise. Though he doesn't zip his lip as well as a team player should when he loses, Powell loyally stays aboard to argue again another day. That moderately principled stand may get him derided by doves as a "good soldier," but it makes him a good secretary of state.
Presidents handle conflicting internal advice differently. Lincoln sought public balance, treating State's Seward and Treasury's Chase as "a pumpkin in each end of my bag." L.B.J. grimly tolerated George Ball. Nixon used Shultz to synthesize the ideas of Arthur Burns and Pat Moynihan. Carter followed Zbig Brzezinski and Cy Vance into policy paralysis.
Bush comes out well as a leader in Woodward's book because he surrounds himself with strong advisers, gives them a fair hearing, then makes up his mind and takes action. As a result, some of the best of them stick around, gaining humility with age.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company[/b]
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
And yet another opinion....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 28, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Trusting Iraqis?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
A U.S. security report earlier this year about Iraq declared: "Recently, hostile forces have attempted to lure coalition forces into ambushes by feigning injuries. . . . An Iraqi posing as a taxicab driver feigned a breakdown and detonated his vehicle when four soldiers approached, killing them all. . . .
"It is not recommended you stop your convoy to offer assistance to `wounded/injured' Iraqis."
That's a parable for our challenge in Iraq. We know we need to win over hearts and minds, but who wants to be blown up helping Iraqis who seem to be injured in car crashes?
I've been quiet on Iraq lately because it's so tempting — but rather unhelpful — to rant one more time about President Bush's folly in launching this war. It's far harder to figure out what to do now that he's gotten us chest-deep in the mire.
I'm not certain that we can make a success out of Iraq, and the question John Kerry posed in 1971 is still a fair one: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" One senses an impatient rustling as people look for the exits from Iraq.
Yet rushing out would be a mistake. If we give up on Iraq, it will collapse into civil war, leaving Iraqis worse off than they were under Saddam and turning the country with the world's second-largest oil reserves into a failed state that spawns terrorists. There are a few steps we can take that offer some hope of a turnaround for our occupation:
• Deploy 25,000 additional troops in Iraq for at least a few months to try to achieve a secure transition.
• Stick to the June 30 transition and give the Iraqis full sovereignty. The administration's plan to convey only what it calls "limited sovereignty" is a mistake, for it risks inflaming Iraqi nationalism. The only hope of getting Iraqis to behave responsibly is to give them responsibility.
• Count to one googolplex before rushing into Falluja and Najaf to wipe out the resistance. Most Iraqis know that Moktada al-Sadr is a hotheaded blowhard. But nationalism leads Iraqis to rally around anyone we go after. We have already made Mr. Sadr a hero by closing his newspaper, and our best hope for destroying him is to leave him alone, let Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani discredit him and let the shadowy Thulfiqar Army carve up his Mahdi militia.
• Dump Ahmad Chalabi and other carpetbaggers. They are American stooges who undermine the legitimacy of any government they are in. The Dawa and Sciri religious parties may agree with us less, but they have genuine support and can be the building blocks of a transitional Iraqi government. If we give them real authority, there will be a convergence of interest: Dawa and Sciri want a stable Iraq even more than we do.
• Disentangle ourselves from Ariel Sharon, that bloodstained figure embraced by President Bush as "a man of peace." By assassinating Hamas leaders and threatening to do the same to Yasir Arafat, Mr. Sharon is undermining our efforts in Iraq. Mr. Bush squandered our legitimacy in Iraq when he and Mr. Sharon chummily gave away Palestinian rights this month.
• Bring back the most professional and least political Baathist generals. Iraq's most desperate need now is for security, and we need them.
Mr. Bush is starting to move on a few of these issues, but he needs to act more decisively on each. Only then would we have some hope of stanching the sacrifice of young soldiers — those whom Wilfred Owen, the great World War I poet, unforgettably described thus: "The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;/Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,/And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds."
That poem is a reminder that humanity's ugliness has inspired its most beautiful creative works, ever since the Iliad. So, following my "name that war" contest last fall, I'm holding a competition for (short) poetry about the Iraq war or occupation.
Winners will be quoted on my blog, at www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds, and in a future column about a month from now. Send your entries via e-mail, or mail them to: Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times, 229 West 43rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10036. I'll give special consideration to poems submitted by students and by soldiers in Iraq. Unless you specify otherwise, I'll use your name. Please enclose a phone number for verification. And forget my reference to the Iliad — here, brevity rules.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
April 28, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Trusting Iraqis?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
A U.S. security report earlier this year about Iraq declared: "Recently, hostile forces have attempted to lure coalition forces into ambushes by feigning injuries. . . . An Iraqi posing as a taxicab driver feigned a breakdown and detonated his vehicle when four soldiers approached, killing them all. . . .
"It is not recommended you stop your convoy to offer assistance to `wounded/injured' Iraqis."
That's a parable for our challenge in Iraq. We know we need to win over hearts and minds, but who wants to be blown up helping Iraqis who seem to be injured in car crashes?
I've been quiet on Iraq lately because it's so tempting — but rather unhelpful — to rant one more time about President Bush's folly in launching this war. It's far harder to figure out what to do now that he's gotten us chest-deep in the mire.
I'm not certain that we can make a success out of Iraq, and the question John Kerry posed in 1971 is still a fair one: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" One senses an impatient rustling as people look for the exits from Iraq.
Yet rushing out would be a mistake. If we give up on Iraq, it will collapse into civil war, leaving Iraqis worse off than they were under Saddam and turning the country with the world's second-largest oil reserves into a failed state that spawns terrorists. There are a few steps we can take that offer some hope of a turnaround for our occupation:
• Deploy 25,000 additional troops in Iraq for at least a few months to try to achieve a secure transition.
• Stick to the June 30 transition and give the Iraqis full sovereignty. The administration's plan to convey only what it calls "limited sovereignty" is a mistake, for it risks inflaming Iraqi nationalism. The only hope of getting Iraqis to behave responsibly is to give them responsibility.
• Count to one googolplex before rushing into Falluja and Najaf to wipe out the resistance. Most Iraqis know that Moktada al-Sadr is a hotheaded blowhard. But nationalism leads Iraqis to rally around anyone we go after. We have already made Mr. Sadr a hero by closing his newspaper, and our best hope for destroying him is to leave him alone, let Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani discredit him and let the shadowy Thulfiqar Army carve up his Mahdi militia.
• Dump Ahmad Chalabi and other carpetbaggers. They are American stooges who undermine the legitimacy of any government they are in. The Dawa and Sciri religious parties may agree with us less, but they have genuine support and can be the building blocks of a transitional Iraqi government. If we give them real authority, there will be a convergence of interest: Dawa and Sciri want a stable Iraq even more than we do.
• Disentangle ourselves from Ariel Sharon, that bloodstained figure embraced by President Bush as "a man of peace." By assassinating Hamas leaders and threatening to do the same to Yasir Arafat, Mr. Sharon is undermining our efforts in Iraq. Mr. Bush squandered our legitimacy in Iraq when he and Mr. Sharon chummily gave away Palestinian rights this month.
• Bring back the most professional and least political Baathist generals. Iraq's most desperate need now is for security, and we need them.
Mr. Bush is starting to move on a few of these issues, but he needs to act more decisively on each. Only then would we have some hope of stanching the sacrifice of young soldiers — those whom Wilfred Owen, the great World War I poet, unforgettably described thus: "The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall;/Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,/And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds."
That poem is a reminder that humanity's ugliness has inspired its most beautiful creative works, ever since the Iliad. So, following my "name that war" contest last fall, I'm holding a competition for (short) poetry about the Iraq war or occupation.
Winners will be quoted on my blog, at www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds, and in a future column about a month from now. Send your entries via e-mail, or mail them to: Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times, 229 West 43rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10036. I'll give special consideration to poems submitted by students and by soldiers in Iraq. Unless you specify otherwise, I'll use your name. Please enclose a phone number for verification. And forget my reference to the Iliad — here, brevity rules.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
actually, they have no beef. They are compensated with publishing royalties. Odd thing is force, if you and I and joel and de facto wanted to go into a studio a re-record every beatles tune on the planet and then play it on the radio there is nothing to stop us. The original holders of the copyright would be entitled to the publishing royalites (collected primarily by ASCAAP and BMI) when the songs were played but we would collect for every unit sold (less a minor fee).I suspect it's rather like radio, where technically the artists being played could get pissy about it
-
Don Muerto
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm
Here is a Gallup poll of some Iraqis: POLL
I thought this might help inform some of our discussions regarding the invasion and occupation.
I thought this might help inform some of our discussions regarding the invasion and occupation.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Hey Joel, how about posting real news articles instead of opinion/editorial colums. I'd perfer real facts rather than someones "opinion" of facts.
IMHO, discussing facts are thought provoking excersize, discussing opinions is mental masturbation.
Or, perhaps, you could post more of your own opinions rather than someone elses opinion.
---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)
IMHO, discussing facts are thought provoking excersize, discussing opinions is mental masturbation.
Or, perhaps, you could post more of your own opinions rather than someone elses opinion.
---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)
Nothing but good taste and a dislike for causing pain in my fellow man- at least on my part. One of my super powers is the ability to stop a party cold by trying to sing kareoke with my Addam's Family Lurch-like voice...stuart wrote:actually, they have no beef. They are compensated with publishing royalties. Odd thing is force, if you and I and joel and de facto wanted to go into a studio a re-record every beatles tune on the planet and then play it on the radio there is nothing to stop us.I suspect it's rather like radio, where technically the artists being played could get pissy about it
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
in a word... no.rodent wrote:Hey Joel, how about posting real news articles instead of opinion/editorial colums.
Or, perhaps, you could post more of your own opinions rather than someone elses opinion.
---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
A ringing endorsement for Kerry, I think...
April 29, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Guns and Peanut Butter
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
So let's see. What's our swell choice here?
A guy who mimed being a fighter pilot on a carrier versus a guy who mimed throwing his medals over a fence?
An incumbent who sticks with the wrong decisions based on the wrong facts versus a challenger who seems unable to stick to one side of any decision, right or wrong?
A Republican who's a world-class optimist, despite making the world more dangerous and virulently anti-American, versus a Democrat who looks like a world-weary loner, even as he pledges to make the world safer and more pro-American?
A president who can't go anywhere without his vice president to give him the answers versus a candidate who can't go anywhere without his campaign butler/buddy to give him peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?
Bush campaign strategists don't seem worried that every positive development the administration predicted would happen if we invaded Iraq has soured into the opposite.
As an article on Monday in The Times noted about the growing ranks of angry Muslims: "The call to jihad is rising in the streets of Europe, and is being answered."
Communing with the Higher Father and the Almighty, President Bush has either stumbled into a Holy War or swaggered into one.
In their new book, "The Bushes," Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, who interviewed many Bushes, including the president's father and his brother Jeb, quote one unnamed relative as saying that W. sees the war on terror "as a religious war": "He doesn't have a P.C. view of this war. His view of this is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know."
Bush strategists seem to believe that the worse Mr. Bush makes things, the better off he is, because nervous Americans will cling to the obstinate president they know over the vacillating challenger they don't know.
Senator Kerry's talent for turning a winning proposition into a losing one is disturbingly reminiscent of Al Gore, who somehow managed to lose an election he won. So is Mr. Kerry's sometimes supercilious manner, and his habit of exacerbating a small thing with an answer that is not quite straight.
When the senator was asked last week whether he owned a gas-scarfing Chevy Suburban S.U.V., he replied, "I don't own an S.U.V.," only to have to admit, when pressed further by reporters, that his wife owns the S.U.V. "The family has it," he said lamely. "I don't have it."
The White House pounds Mr. Kerry for not playing straight on small-bore stuff, even as they don't play straight on huge-bore stuff.
The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, pronounced the administration "in denial" yesterday, after hearing Condi Rice's briefing for House Democratic lawmakers.
"This is an administration that told us that our troops would be welcomed with roses," Representative Pelosi said. "Instead, it's rocket-propelled grenades. This is an administration that told us that the Iraqi government would be able to pay for its own reconstruction, and soon. And now it's costing nearly $200 billion to the American people."
She added: "And it was expressed by the national security adviser now that yes, there was disappointment — disappointment? — about the Iraqi security forces not being able to secure the region that they were assigned to. And this is the judgment that the American people have placed their confidence in?"
Mr. Kerry errs on the side of giving the answer he thinks people want to hear, even as Mr. Bush errs on the side of giving the answer he expects people to accept as true.
When the president was asked yesterday by a reporter whether it would take an all-out military offensive to put down the violence in Falluja, and whether this would impede the transfer of power on June 30, he was reassuring, despite news of the aerial bombardment of Falluja by U.S. gunships and the 70-ton battle tanks being rushed in to aid marines in the escalating fight.
"Most of Falluja is returning to normal," the president said, presumably defining normal as flattened.
Anyway, is that 10 minutes to normal, as Karen Hughes would say? Or 10 years to normal? And what on earth is normal, when you're talking about Iraq chaos theory?
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Guns and Peanut Butter
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
So let's see. What's our swell choice here?
A guy who mimed being a fighter pilot on a carrier versus a guy who mimed throwing his medals over a fence?
An incumbent who sticks with the wrong decisions based on the wrong facts versus a challenger who seems unable to stick to one side of any decision, right or wrong?
A Republican who's a world-class optimist, despite making the world more dangerous and virulently anti-American, versus a Democrat who looks like a world-weary loner, even as he pledges to make the world safer and more pro-American?
A president who can't go anywhere without his vice president to give him the answers versus a candidate who can't go anywhere without his campaign butler/buddy to give him peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?
Bush campaign strategists don't seem worried that every positive development the administration predicted would happen if we invaded Iraq has soured into the opposite.
As an article on Monday in The Times noted about the growing ranks of angry Muslims: "The call to jihad is rising in the streets of Europe, and is being answered."
Communing with the Higher Father and the Almighty, President Bush has either stumbled into a Holy War or swaggered into one.
In their new book, "The Bushes," Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, who interviewed many Bushes, including the president's father and his brother Jeb, quote one unnamed relative as saying that W. sees the war on terror "as a religious war": "He doesn't have a P.C. view of this war. His view of this is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know."
Bush strategists seem to believe that the worse Mr. Bush makes things, the better off he is, because nervous Americans will cling to the obstinate president they know over the vacillating challenger they don't know.
Senator Kerry's talent for turning a winning proposition into a losing one is disturbingly reminiscent of Al Gore, who somehow managed to lose an election he won. So is Mr. Kerry's sometimes supercilious manner, and his habit of exacerbating a small thing with an answer that is not quite straight.
When the senator was asked last week whether he owned a gas-scarfing Chevy Suburban S.U.V., he replied, "I don't own an S.U.V.," only to have to admit, when pressed further by reporters, that his wife owns the S.U.V. "The family has it," he said lamely. "I don't have it."
The White House pounds Mr. Kerry for not playing straight on small-bore stuff, even as they don't play straight on huge-bore stuff.
The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, pronounced the administration "in denial" yesterday, after hearing Condi Rice's briefing for House Democratic lawmakers.
"This is an administration that told us that our troops would be welcomed with roses," Representative Pelosi said. "Instead, it's rocket-propelled grenades. This is an administration that told us that the Iraqi government would be able to pay for its own reconstruction, and soon. And now it's costing nearly $200 billion to the American people."
She added: "And it was expressed by the national security adviser now that yes, there was disappointment — disappointment? — about the Iraqi security forces not being able to secure the region that they were assigned to. And this is the judgment that the American people have placed their confidence in?"
Mr. Kerry errs on the side of giving the answer he thinks people want to hear, even as Mr. Bush errs on the side of giving the answer he expects people to accept as true.
When the president was asked yesterday by a reporter whether it would take an all-out military offensive to put down the violence in Falluja, and whether this would impede the transfer of power on June 30, he was reassuring, despite news of the aerial bombardment of Falluja by U.S. gunships and the 70-ton battle tanks being rushed in to aid marines in the escalating fight.
"Most of Falluja is returning to normal," the president said, presumably defining normal as flattened.
Anyway, is that 10 minutes to normal, as Karen Hughes would say? Or 10 years to normal? And what on earth is normal, when you're talking about Iraq chaos theory?
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
hmmmmmmmm.....
April 29, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Jumping Out of Sick Bay
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
TOKYO
So I come to Tokyo to get away from it all, and what do I discover but more bad news for the John Kerry campaign. Not only does the U.S. economy appear to be headed for at least a burst of recovery around election time, but so does the world's second-largest economy, Japan, which should also help buoy the U.S. recovery. It's more evidence, to me, that Mr. Kerry may have to run in the most difficult of all environments, and exactly the opposite of the one Democrats had hoped for: an environment where the U.S. economy is rebounding, and Iraq is reeling.
As I lie awake in my Tokyo hotel, jet-lagged out of my mind and having my Bill Murray "Lost in Translation" moment, I am clicking back and forth between CNBC and CNN on the television. All the news on CNBC seems to be about how Asia's economies are now on fire, and all the news on CNN seems to be about how America's Humvees in Iraq are now on fire.
Maybe that will change in the months ahead, and maybe American voters will develop a different reaction to those contrasting images, should they continue. But for the moment, judging from many polls, it seems that Mr. Bush is being rewarded for the economy's tentative recovery more than he is being punished for Iraq's troubling slide. I'm sure the Kerry camp was hoping for the opposite — a stable Iraq and a slumping economy that would start to recover only after November — because it would play much more to Mr. Kerry's strength with voters. But, for a lot of reasons, that doesn't seem to be what's happening, and the Kerry folks had better start positioning their candidate for the world we're in.
I wish I had some smart advice. Alas, all I have is information. Even through my jet lag, I can see that the sick man of Asia, otherwise known as the Japanese economy, just jumped out of bed and is now running laps around the hospital. Everyone in the neighborhood is watching, wondering whether the sick man has really gotten healthy or just an injection of Chinese steroids and will soon stumble again — as happened before, in the 1990's. No one in the neighborhood is quite sure, even the sick man himself, but everyone is enjoying the show, especially the sick man.
There is evidence to suggest that, maybe, this Japanese recovery is real, is not just based on government spending and will last longer than previous wind sprints. I went to a briefing that Wal-Mart put on with its Japanese partner, Seiyu, a local store chain, about opening the first Wal-Mart-like big-box stores in Japan. No one ever believed that Japan's rigid, small-shop economy would tolerate a discount big-box approach like Wal-Mart's, where wholesalers get squeezed and everything from employees' pens to paper gets rationed.
But Japanese consumers, many so spooked by their faltering banks that they stuffed money in their mattresses, seem to be suddenly spending again — their confidence bolstered by recent bank restructurings and better leadership from the Japanese central bank. The Nikkei 225 stock average jumped 47 percent in the fiscal year that ended on March 31.
Because Japan (much more than the U.S.) has been able to hold onto a sophisticated manufacturing base — like high-end steel, machine tools, cutting-edge electronics and industrial robots — it's been exporting like crazy to China's start-up factories. This year, Japan's trade with China surpassed its trade with the U.S.
"Two-thirds of the reason for [Japan's] recovery is China," says the Japanese management consultant Kenichi Ohmae. China, and new Japanese plants in China, are sucking in so many Japanese exports there aren't enough ships to bring them over fast enough. China is literally dragging Japan out of its slump.
"There is [also] much more attention [in Japan] to restructuring than there was in the past," adds Jeffrey Young, Tokyo economist for Nikko Citigroup. "Companies are improving their efficiencies." And Japan's workers have proved more adaptable, in hard times, than commonly believed.
The big test is: Can Japan continue to grow, based on domestic consumer-led demand, if and when the overheating Chinese economy starts to cool? Domestic wages and productivity are still lagging. And how does Japan deal with its huge fiscal deficit and still-weak banks, which will probably require more taxes from an aging, shrinking work force to sort out?
Only when we see that will we know whether the sick man has it in him to do anything more than run laps around the hospital.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Jumping Out of Sick Bay
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
TOKYO
So I come to Tokyo to get away from it all, and what do I discover but more bad news for the John Kerry campaign. Not only does the U.S. economy appear to be headed for at least a burst of recovery around election time, but so does the world's second-largest economy, Japan, which should also help buoy the U.S. recovery. It's more evidence, to me, that Mr. Kerry may have to run in the most difficult of all environments, and exactly the opposite of the one Democrats had hoped for: an environment where the U.S. economy is rebounding, and Iraq is reeling.
As I lie awake in my Tokyo hotel, jet-lagged out of my mind and having my Bill Murray "Lost in Translation" moment, I am clicking back and forth between CNBC and CNN on the television. All the news on CNBC seems to be about how Asia's economies are now on fire, and all the news on CNN seems to be about how America's Humvees in Iraq are now on fire.
Maybe that will change in the months ahead, and maybe American voters will develop a different reaction to those contrasting images, should they continue. But for the moment, judging from many polls, it seems that Mr. Bush is being rewarded for the economy's tentative recovery more than he is being punished for Iraq's troubling slide. I'm sure the Kerry camp was hoping for the opposite — a stable Iraq and a slumping economy that would start to recover only after November — because it would play much more to Mr. Kerry's strength with voters. But, for a lot of reasons, that doesn't seem to be what's happening, and the Kerry folks had better start positioning their candidate for the world we're in.
I wish I had some smart advice. Alas, all I have is information. Even through my jet lag, I can see that the sick man of Asia, otherwise known as the Japanese economy, just jumped out of bed and is now running laps around the hospital. Everyone in the neighborhood is watching, wondering whether the sick man has really gotten healthy or just an injection of Chinese steroids and will soon stumble again — as happened before, in the 1990's. No one in the neighborhood is quite sure, even the sick man himself, but everyone is enjoying the show, especially the sick man.
There is evidence to suggest that, maybe, this Japanese recovery is real, is not just based on government spending and will last longer than previous wind sprints. I went to a briefing that Wal-Mart put on with its Japanese partner, Seiyu, a local store chain, about opening the first Wal-Mart-like big-box stores in Japan. No one ever believed that Japan's rigid, small-shop economy would tolerate a discount big-box approach like Wal-Mart's, where wholesalers get squeezed and everything from employees' pens to paper gets rationed.
But Japanese consumers, many so spooked by their faltering banks that they stuffed money in their mattresses, seem to be suddenly spending again — their confidence bolstered by recent bank restructurings and better leadership from the Japanese central bank. The Nikkei 225 stock average jumped 47 percent in the fiscal year that ended on March 31.
Because Japan (much more than the U.S.) has been able to hold onto a sophisticated manufacturing base — like high-end steel, machine tools, cutting-edge electronics and industrial robots — it's been exporting like crazy to China's start-up factories. This year, Japan's trade with China surpassed its trade with the U.S.
"Two-thirds of the reason for [Japan's] recovery is China," says the Japanese management consultant Kenichi Ohmae. China, and new Japanese plants in China, are sucking in so many Japanese exports there aren't enough ships to bring them over fast enough. China is literally dragging Japan out of its slump.
"There is [also] much more attention [in Japan] to restructuring than there was in the past," adds Jeffrey Young, Tokyo economist for Nikko Citigroup. "Companies are improving their efficiencies." And Japan's workers have proved more adaptable, in hard times, than commonly believed.
The big test is: Can Japan continue to grow, based on domestic consumer-led demand, if and when the overheating Chinese economy starts to cool? Domestic wages and productivity are still lagging. And how does Japan deal with its huge fiscal deficit and still-weak banks, which will probably require more taxes from an aging, shrinking work force to sort out?
Only when we see that will we know whether the sick man has it in him to do anything more than run laps around the hospital.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
and yet another opinion....
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/prin ... 256.column
A surprise running mate for Kerry: Calling Colin Powell
Clarence Page
April 28, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Who will be Sen. John Kerry's running mate? Speculation runs rampant these days. I have a suggestion: Colin Powell.
Yes, I know Powell is a Republican. But judging by Kerry's buddy-buddy relationship with Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, Kerry seems like an equal-opportunity employer.
McCain fed speculation that he might get Kerry's vice presidential nod back on March 10 by saying, "Obviously, I would entertain it." McCain said this with a twinkle in his eye, as if he enjoyed giving paroxysms to Team Bush after the hard time they gave him in the 2000 presidential primaries.
But more recently he has backed off the Kerry speculation. "No, no and no," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on April 11. "I'm a Republican," he declared, endorsing Bush's re-election.
Nevertheless, as Republicans go, McCain sometimes has been a more effective surrogate for his fellow Vietnam veteran than Kerry's own spin doctors have been. McCain has often criticized Bush policies and actually called Kerry his "friend" in public, which is anathema to many in the GOP's conservative wing.
Last Sunday, McCain was asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" about a fellow Republican who called Kerry "Hanoi John" for Kerry's anti-war activities three decade ago. McCain, who served time in the "Hanoi Hilton" as a prisoner of war, said, "I'd like to see us put the war that was over more than 30 years ago behind us."
Both Bush and Kerry served honorably, McCain said, and "I wish we could move forward and face the challenges that lie ahead of us."
Well said.
And now is the time for Kerry to reach out to swing and undecided voters. Too few know who he is. To seize the public's imagination, Kerry needs bold gestures that distinguish him not only from Bush but also from the loony-liberal, "flip-flopper" image with which Team Bush is trying to smear him.
And Kerry has to do it while running against an incumbent who, thanks to his mighty pulpit, can't scratch his head without igniting a firing squad of news cameras.
Which is why I say that if Kerry likes John McCain he should love Colin Powell.
Kerry choosing Powell could be the biggest blockbuster running mate decision since Republican Abraham Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson, a pro-states' rights Democrat, in 1864.
Like McCain, Powell is a Vietnam veteran with strong national-security credentials and a famously independent streak, a quality that appeals to independent voters.
Plus he brings a bonus to the table: He is one of America's most respected people in the polls, across political lines. Liberals in Kerry's own party might go into cardiac arrest with McCain on the ticket, but fewer would do so with Powell.
On the hot-button wedge issues, for example, Powell is an outspoken supporter of affirmative action who also leans in favor of abortion rights and gun control. Members of his own party have accused him of being a Democrat in disguise. As the old saying goes, the dubious joy of navigating the middle of the road is that you get hit from both sides.
Of course, Powell as Kerry's running mate would require the cooperation of Colin Powell. And he might go for it, provided Kerry makes a simple offer: In a Kerry administration, Powell would be able to do what he wanted to do under Bush. "Think of it, Colin," Kerry could say. "This time you can actually be consulted and get your agenda done without [Vice President Dick] Cheney or [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld or any of the rest of their unilateralist cronies getting in your way."
By all accounts, the notion might be one that Powell, like McCain, would be willing to "entertain." In Bob Woodward's new book, "Plan of Attack," Powell comes off as a very reluctant warrior who supported Bush's war in Iraq in spite of misgivings about the wisdom of the conflict and the chaotic violence with Shiites and Sunnis that has followed.
To do it, Powell had to cast aside his famous "Powell Doctrine," which calls for clear goals, overwhelming military force and a clearly stated exit strategy. Thus the leading voice for the lessons that we all should have learned in Vietnam was muzzled.
So maybe Powell might like the idea of actually being listened to. Bush is reported to have asked Powell to be his running mate in 2000, but Powell turned him down. He preferred secretary of state. Maybe he would settle for a Cabinet post if Kerry offered it, but let that be Powell's decision.
Either way, Kerry should take him to dinner. It might not lead to much, but they'll have a good meal. They'll also have fun watching all of the gossip they would stir up.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
A surprise running mate for Kerry: Calling Colin Powell
Clarence Page
April 28, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Who will be Sen. John Kerry's running mate? Speculation runs rampant these days. I have a suggestion: Colin Powell.
Yes, I know Powell is a Republican. But judging by Kerry's buddy-buddy relationship with Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, Kerry seems like an equal-opportunity employer.
McCain fed speculation that he might get Kerry's vice presidential nod back on March 10 by saying, "Obviously, I would entertain it." McCain said this with a twinkle in his eye, as if he enjoyed giving paroxysms to Team Bush after the hard time they gave him in the 2000 presidential primaries.
But more recently he has backed off the Kerry speculation. "No, no and no," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on April 11. "I'm a Republican," he declared, endorsing Bush's re-election.
Nevertheless, as Republicans go, McCain sometimes has been a more effective surrogate for his fellow Vietnam veteran than Kerry's own spin doctors have been. McCain has often criticized Bush policies and actually called Kerry his "friend" in public, which is anathema to many in the GOP's conservative wing.
Last Sunday, McCain was asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" about a fellow Republican who called Kerry "Hanoi John" for Kerry's anti-war activities three decade ago. McCain, who served time in the "Hanoi Hilton" as a prisoner of war, said, "I'd like to see us put the war that was over more than 30 years ago behind us."
Both Bush and Kerry served honorably, McCain said, and "I wish we could move forward and face the challenges that lie ahead of us."
Well said.
And now is the time for Kerry to reach out to swing and undecided voters. Too few know who he is. To seize the public's imagination, Kerry needs bold gestures that distinguish him not only from Bush but also from the loony-liberal, "flip-flopper" image with which Team Bush is trying to smear him.
And Kerry has to do it while running against an incumbent who, thanks to his mighty pulpit, can't scratch his head without igniting a firing squad of news cameras.
Which is why I say that if Kerry likes John McCain he should love Colin Powell.
Kerry choosing Powell could be the biggest blockbuster running mate decision since Republican Abraham Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson, a pro-states' rights Democrat, in 1864.
Like McCain, Powell is a Vietnam veteran with strong national-security credentials and a famously independent streak, a quality that appeals to independent voters.
Plus he brings a bonus to the table: He is one of America's most respected people in the polls, across political lines. Liberals in Kerry's own party might go into cardiac arrest with McCain on the ticket, but fewer would do so with Powell.
On the hot-button wedge issues, for example, Powell is an outspoken supporter of affirmative action who also leans in favor of abortion rights and gun control. Members of his own party have accused him of being a Democrat in disguise. As the old saying goes, the dubious joy of navigating the middle of the road is that you get hit from both sides.
Of course, Powell as Kerry's running mate would require the cooperation of Colin Powell. And he might go for it, provided Kerry makes a simple offer: In a Kerry administration, Powell would be able to do what he wanted to do under Bush. "Think of it, Colin," Kerry could say. "This time you can actually be consulted and get your agenda done without [Vice President Dick] Cheney or [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld or any of the rest of their unilateralist cronies getting in your way."
By all accounts, the notion might be one that Powell, like McCain, would be willing to "entertain." In Bob Woodward's new book, "Plan of Attack," Powell comes off as a very reluctant warrior who supported Bush's war in Iraq in spite of misgivings about the wisdom of the conflict and the chaotic violence with Shiites and Sunnis that has followed.
To do it, Powell had to cast aside his famous "Powell Doctrine," which calls for clear goals, overwhelming military force and a clearly stated exit strategy. Thus the leading voice for the lessons that we all should have learned in Vietnam was muzzled.
So maybe Powell might like the idea of actually being listened to. Bush is reported to have asked Powell to be his running mate in 2000, but Powell turned him down. He preferred secretary of state. Maybe he would settle for a Cabinet post if Kerry offered it, but let that be Powell's decision.
Either way, Kerry should take him to dinner. It might not lead to much, but they'll have a good meal. They'll also have fun watching all of the gossip they would stir up.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
I cannot for the life of me figure out why people have such a hard time recognizing the fact that Bush is not an intellectual, or why anyone would put any kind of faith into this administration. What is so hard in recognizing when something is not working?McCain fed speculation that he might get Kerry's vice presidential nod back on March 10 by saying, "Obviously, I would entertain it." McCain said this with a twinkle in his eye, as if he enjoyed giving paroxysms to Team Bush after the hard time they gave him in the 2000 presidential primaries.
But more recently he has backed off the Kerry speculation. "No, no and no," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on April 11. "I'm a Republican," he declared, endorsing Bush's re-election.
I like McCain. Anyone that listens to NIN and has the sense of humor that he has is a-ok with me. But what is the deal with the love for Bush?
As far as Powell goes, MHO, he's an idiot, always has been, always will be. I said it to my folks years ago and they were pissed. So was my brother. My folks gave my brother powells book for Christmas then, and my brother followed powell through to the first gulf war.
People give powell more credit than he deservers.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
It's news to me....
German tabloid welcomes EU nudes
Fri Apr 30, 5:51 AM ET
http://www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/index.html
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany's top-selling Bild newspaper has welcomed the 10 new members to the European Union in its own special fashion -- with pictures of 10 scantily clad young women from the countries in question.
Continental Europe's biggest daily with 12 million readers, famous for its popular page one pictures of naked women, found 10 women in the new EU member states aged 18 and 25 to pose with little or no clothing to mark the EU enlargement to 25 nations.
"The new EU women are so sexy," wrote Bild in a headline over pictures of the nearly nude blondes, brunettes and red-haired women. "Hello, new neighbours!"
Bild published pictures of Polish ice cream vendor Anka, Czech customs inspector Stania, Hungarian hairdresser Victoria, Slovak nurse Jana, Lithuanian student Eliska, Latvian police officer Buba, Slovenian secretary Franziska, Estonian post worker Ekaterina, Carmela of Cyprus and Mona from Malta.
Exploitation of women? Yeah, I think so, how about you?
Fri Apr 30, 5:51 AM ET
http://www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/index.html
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany's top-selling Bild newspaper has welcomed the 10 new members to the European Union in its own special fashion -- with pictures of 10 scantily clad young women from the countries in question.
Continental Europe's biggest daily with 12 million readers, famous for its popular page one pictures of naked women, found 10 women in the new EU member states aged 18 and 25 to pose with little or no clothing to mark the EU enlargement to 25 nations.
"The new EU women are so sexy," wrote Bild in a headline over pictures of the nearly nude blondes, brunettes and red-haired women. "Hello, new neighbours!"
Bild published pictures of Polish ice cream vendor Anka, Czech customs inspector Stania, Hungarian hairdresser Victoria, Slovak nurse Jana, Lithuanian student Eliska, Latvian police officer Buba, Slovenian secretary Franziska, Estonian post worker Ekaterina, Carmela of Cyprus and Mona from Malta.
Exploitation of women? Yeah, I think so, how about you?
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
Don Muerto
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:28 pm
-
Rob the Wop
- Posts: 1814
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:06 pm
- Location: Furbackistan, OR
- Contact: