Kite-flying event claims 13 livesFrom correspondents in Lahore
THIRTEEN people have been killed and more than 500 injured during an annual kite-flying festival in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore.Seven people with severe head injuries died in the city's General Hospital alone, and about 220 people were admitted with a variety of injuries including broken bones, hospital officials said. The two-day festival of Basant, marking the start of spring, began with thousands of revellers perched on rooftops. Two teenagers were killed when they fell from a roof, and two more were killed when a car hit them while they were trying to catch a stray kite, police said. A man was killed by a stray bullet, while another was electrocuted when metal wire used to fly a kite became draped over live electric lines. Officials said more than 300 injured people were taken to four other hospitals in different parts of the city.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Can I get a What What?
Oregon Lawmakers Discover Unexpected Revenue from Medical Marijuana
E-mail This Article
SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- Oregon lawmakers have discovered an unexpected source of revenue -- medical marijuana. When Oregon began its medical marijuana program six years ago, officials didn't expect it to grow so fast. Now, there are more than 10,400 registered patients who have produced a surplus of $1.1 million. Hungry to balance Oregon's lopsided budget, House legislators voted 49-10 last week to siphon $900,000 of that money to pay for other Human Services' needs. The bill now moves to the Senate. Barry Kast, the agency's assistant director for health services, said the department was left with no choice after "three years of cuts, cuts, cuts." But backers of medical marijuana say that the surplus should be poured back into the program, not Human Services. "If any of this money came from the general fund, I'd agree that some of it should be transferred back. But the medical marijuana program never cost the taxpayer a dime," said Dr. Rick Bayer, a physician who was the chief petitioner of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, which passed in 1998.
E-mail This Article
SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- Oregon lawmakers have discovered an unexpected source of revenue -- medical marijuana. When Oregon began its medical marijuana program six years ago, officials didn't expect it to grow so fast. Now, there are more than 10,400 registered patients who have produced a surplus of $1.1 million. Hungry to balance Oregon's lopsided budget, House legislators voted 49-10 last week to siphon $900,000 of that money to pay for other Human Services' needs. The bill now moves to the Senate. Barry Kast, the agency's assistant director for health services, said the department was left with no choice after "three years of cuts, cuts, cuts." But backers of medical marijuana say that the surplus should be poured back into the program, not Human Services. "If any of this money came from the general fund, I'd agree that some of it should be transferred back. But the medical marijuana program never cost the taxpayer a dime," said Dr. Rick Bayer, a physician who was the chief petitioner of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, which passed in 1998.
Amnesty
David Rivkin and Lee Casey show how dishonest Amnesty International's 2005 Report on worldwide human rights is, at least when it comes to assessing the U.S. "First and foremost," Rivkin and Casey state, "Amnesty’s report is emphatically not an honest assessment of American compliance with international law. Rather, it is an assessment of how well the United States complies with Amnesty International’s political and ideological agenda — equivalent to the grading of individual members of Congress by domestic advocacy groups."
Vice President Cheney and the Washington Post may not agree on much. But both recognize that Amnesty International cannot be taken seriously on this issue.
Vice President Cheney and the Washington Post may not agree on much. But both recognize that Amnesty International cannot be taken seriously on this issue.
The Great Unraveling
Powerline has some interesting bits on the Okrent/Krugman break-up. Worth noting as Krugman is such a lefty fav-
>>
We commented here on the end of Daniel Okrent's tenure as Public Editor of the New York Times, and the parting shots he took at Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd and William Safire. Krugman is not one to take criticism lying down (or any other way), so he replied to Okrent, which triggered a dialogue that you can read here.
Krugman's efforts to defend himself against the charge of slicing and dicing, and flat-out misrepresenting, economic data in order to support his far-left political positions are, I think, lame, but what really jumps out at me is the intensity of Okrent's apparent loathing for Krugman. Consider the following paragraphs:
This was the first he heard from me on these specific issues partly because I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed “reluctantly” to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word “reluctantly”; I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism. But I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they’re entitled doesn’t mean I or you have to like it, or think it’s good for the newspaper. Believe me -- I could go on, as could a number of readers more sophisticated about economic matters than I am. (Among these are several who, like me, generally align themselves politically with Prof. Krugman, but feel he does himself and his cause no good when he heeds the roaring approval of his acolytes and dismisses his critics as ideologically motivated.) But I don’t want to engage in an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, I’ll let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word.
I hate to do this to a decent man like my successor, Barney Calame, but I’m hereby turning the Krugman beat over to him.
Ouch. Paul Krugman is a perfect emblem of the sickness at the heart of the New York Times. Notwithstanding his protestations of affection for that once-great institution, it is hard to miss Okrent's relief at putting down his "Public Editor" shovel.
>>
We commented here on the end of Daniel Okrent's tenure as Public Editor of the New York Times, and the parting shots he took at Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd and William Safire. Krugman is not one to take criticism lying down (or any other way), so he replied to Okrent, which triggered a dialogue that you can read here.
Krugman's efforts to defend himself against the charge of slicing and dicing, and flat-out misrepresenting, economic data in order to support his far-left political positions are, I think, lame, but what really jumps out at me is the intensity of Okrent's apparent loathing for Krugman. Consider the following paragraphs:
This was the first he heard from me on these specific issues partly because I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed “reluctantly” to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word “reluctantly”; I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism. But I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they’re entitled doesn’t mean I or you have to like it, or think it’s good for the newspaper. Believe me -- I could go on, as could a number of readers more sophisticated about economic matters than I am. (Among these are several who, like me, generally align themselves politically with Prof. Krugman, but feel he does himself and his cause no good when he heeds the roaring approval of his acolytes and dismisses his critics as ideologically motivated.) But I don’t want to engage in an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, I’ll let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word.
I hate to do this to a decent man like my successor, Barney Calame, but I’m hereby turning the Krugman beat over to him.
Ouch. Paul Krugman is a perfect emblem of the sickness at the heart of the New York Times. Notwithstanding his protestations of affection for that once-great institution, it is hard to miss Okrent's relief at putting down his "Public Editor" shovel.
Kiss my Dutch D*ck!
Dutch Voters Reject EU Constitution
By ARTHUR MAXThe Associated PressWednesday, June 1, 2005; 6:18 PM
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- Dutch voters worried about social benefits and immigration overwhelmingly rejected the European Union constitution Wednesday in what could be a knockout blow for a charter meant to create a power rivaling the United States.
With four-fifths of the votes counted, the charter was losing 62 percent to 39 percent, an even worse defeat than the 55 percent "no" vote delivered in a French referendum Sunday.
"Naturally, I'm very disappointed," Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said in conceding defeat in his campaign for ratification and promised the government would respect the results.
The charter was designed to provide such trappings of statehood as a flag, a president and an anthem on what has largely been an economic bloc while creating a more integrated political entity of 450 million people with a bigger economy than America's.
But the idea has proved increasingly polarizing, with opponents worrying about loss of national control and identity to a strengthened EU bureaucracy at the heart of a superstate.
Nine EU states have ratified, but the charter needs approval from all 25 states to take effect in late 2006, and the "no" vote in both France and the Netherlands - founding members of the bloc -was a clear message that European integration has gone awry.
Uh oh, why don't citizens want to turn their fate over to unelected elites in Brussels? Don't they know what's good for them?
By ARTHUR MAXThe Associated PressWednesday, June 1, 2005; 6:18 PM
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- Dutch voters worried about social benefits and immigration overwhelmingly rejected the European Union constitution Wednesday in what could be a knockout blow for a charter meant to create a power rivaling the United States.
With four-fifths of the votes counted, the charter was losing 62 percent to 39 percent, an even worse defeat than the 55 percent "no" vote delivered in a French referendum Sunday.
"Naturally, I'm very disappointed," Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said in conceding defeat in his campaign for ratification and promised the government would respect the results.
The charter was designed to provide such trappings of statehood as a flag, a president and an anthem on what has largely been an economic bloc while creating a more integrated political entity of 450 million people with a bigger economy than America's.
But the idea has proved increasingly polarizing, with opponents worrying about loss of national control and identity to a strengthened EU bureaucracy at the heart of a superstate.
Nine EU states have ratified, but the charter needs approval from all 25 states to take effect in late 2006, and the "no" vote in both France and the Netherlands - founding members of the bloc -was a clear message that European integration has gone awry.
Uh oh, why don't citizens want to turn their fate over to unelected elites in Brussels? Don't they know what's good for them?
Zerzan
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
For Immediate Release CONTACT: Brookly McLaughlin
May 27, 2005 (202) 622-1996
Statement of Treasury Secretary John W. Snow on Resignation of Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Gregory Zerzan. The Treasury is preparing to bid farewell to a highly valued member of its team. Gregory Zerzan has served in Treasury's Office of Domestic Finance since March of 2003, first as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Policy and currently as Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions. His expertise and contributions on legislative and policy matters involving financial institutions have been invaluable, and he has been a highly effective leader within the Office of Domestic Finance, as well as among the Treasury management team. Greg's sharp mind and engaging personality will be missed by his colleagues and staff, and I speak on behalf of the Department in saying we wish him the very best in his future endeavors.
For Immediate Release CONTACT: Brookly McLaughlin
May 27, 2005 (202) 622-1996
Statement of Treasury Secretary John W. Snow on Resignation of Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Gregory Zerzan. The Treasury is preparing to bid farewell to a highly valued member of its team. Gregory Zerzan has served in Treasury's Office of Domestic Finance since March of 2003, first as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Policy and currently as Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions. His expertise and contributions on legislative and policy matters involving financial institutions have been invaluable, and he has been a highly effective leader within the Office of Domestic Finance, as well as among the Treasury management team. Greg's sharp mind and engaging personality will be missed by his colleagues and staff, and I speak on behalf of the Department in saying we wish him the very best in his future endeavors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
On Francisco Franco
On Francisco Franco written by Charles Few Americans know much about Francisco Franco, leader of the winning side in the Spanish C...
