[likability] how whitehouse contenders rank

Trouble with journalistic articles on polls is that they never give you just the stats – it has to be woven into some magic piece of prose to justify their paycheck. Here are all the stats I could glean from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, Hamden, Connecticut Likability Poll in the US, taken after the elections and then hacked about by the Washington Post:

1] New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican, 64.2
2] Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, 58.8
3] McCain, 57.7
4] Condoleezza Rice, 56.1
5] former Democratic President Bill Clinton, 55.8
6] Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, 52.7
7] New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, 51.1
8] former Democratic Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, 49.9
9] Hillary Clinton, 49
10] New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, 47.7
11] Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, 47
12] Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, 45.9
13] unlisted by article
14] former Vice President Al Gore, 44.9
15] Bush 43.8
16] Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, 43.3
17] former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, 42
18] outgoing Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist, 41.5.
19] unlisted by article
20] Kerry, 39.6

So, the Lizard Queen isn’t all that high, really. Wonder what would happen if Condi ran?

[turkey and the eu] cyprus the stumbling block

On the eve of the Pope's visit to Turkey, where Europe's fraught relations with its predominantly Muslim neighbour have been highlighted by widespread protests, the EU abandoned any hope of reaching a deal on Cyprus. The breakdown sets the scene for three weeks of intense diplomacy as the EU decides how severely Turkey should be punished for refusing to open its ports and airports to Greek Cypriot shipping.

When will they wake up? There are certain things which will never happen. One of them is Britain escaping the EU clutch, another is Turkey compromising over their occupation of northern Cyprus. Another is Wimbledon Vinnying another FA Cup. CAP is another. And US trade subsidies is yet another. They’ll have lovely lunches together and trips to the Bahamas to sort it all out but, of course, they never will. Entrenched national interest is, in the end, paramount.

[state medical] still alive after they set the octopus on me

Who was the lady who muttered: "Men are wimps?"

Just got back from my first compulsory Russian state medical and count myself very, very lucky – just a bit of blood here and there, nothing worse.

They told me there were hundreds yesterday but today there were only five ahead in the line. Miss Gestapo in her jackboots and white cap snapped, “Follow me,” and I was mortified until the hard faced women on the desk behind began to laugh and berate her for being “slishkom gromko”, too loud.

Relief was short-lived because as I was being led away for execution, the women started shouting at me. I looked around at them, bewildered and they gesticulated at my winter boots. Ah, they wanted me to take them off. “Nyet, nyet,” they cried, jabbing fingers at a pile of plastic galoshes which go over the boots.

So, to cut a long story short, all seems fine but I - do – not – not - like probes and needles and when they started attaching giant octopus suckers to all parts of the body, the wires leading to a battery, I had to draw the line. “Electro-shock, da?” I asked which was the wrong thing to ask ’cause the girl was controlling the dial and she had a wicked smile on her face.

S’pose I have an irrational fear of clinical, sterile rooms, gurneys and electrical equipment and try to give hospitals and any other remotely medical facility a wide berth. Always felt that’s where I’d end up once the 4th player finally got to me. Either there or in a Grand Temple with the Ascended Brothers. So, still alive and reporting with just a touch of rhinitis and bronchitis. Could be worse. Could be much, much worse.

By the way, we have minus 15 today and beautiful sunshine. What about you?

[they got me] bureacracy and the workplace

Well, work finally caught up plus the bureaucracy. Tomorrow I must stand around a large building in the centre of the city for about four hours during morning blogging time, along with about 2000 others, for a battery of state medical tests - blood sample, fluorograph etc., then off to work, so unless I squeeze one post in early tomorrow morning during the glass of water breakfast, it will be tomorrow afternoon before the next one. And on Blogfocus day too. Wish me luck and hope they don't come up with something nasty I've contracted.

[cia recruitment test] do you have the personality for us

Of course you want to join the CIA – who doesn’t? First a question: Which words are etched into the wall of the original building's main lobby? Check the end of the post. ….. Well, how’d you do? All right, you may now proceed:

At the CIA, the challenges of today’s fast-paced global changes present opportunities for exceptional careers. Our intelligence mission is the work of the nation — and our success depends on a network of professionals around the world.

Myth 1 - You’ll Never See Your Family and Friends Again.

The work we do may be secret, but that doesn’t mean your life will be. Because the variety of CIA careers is similar to that of any major corporation. So… your friends and family will still be part of your life.

Myth 2 - Everyone Drives a Sports Car with Machine Guns in the Tailpipes.

Car chases through the alleyways of a foreign city are common on TV, but they’re not what a CIA career is about. And, they don’t compare with the reality of being part of worldwide intelligence operations supporting a global mission.

Myth 3 - You Have to be Superhuman in Every Way.

You don’t have to know karate or look good in a tuxedo to work at the CIA. But you must possess a deep intellect, the ability to make good decisions and a dedication to serving America through the collection of intelligence.

Myth 4 - A Glamorous Lifestyle Awaits You.

Working at the CIA doesn’t mean you’ll be jet-setting around the globe, attending parties with billionaires and showing off your Tango skills. In reality, we depend on administrative managers and staff for our operational success, at home and abroad.

Myth 5 - Hardly Anyone Ever Makes it Through the Background Check.

Because of our national security role, CIA applicants must meet specific qualifications — but, don’t worry. Getting caught smoking in high school isn’t enough to disqualify you. Your intellect, skills, experience and desire to serve the nation are most important to us.

"And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." John VIII-XXXII

[anna politkovskaya] curiouser and curiouser

Well, it gets more and more convoluted. First a western defence of Russia I wasn't expecting:

The Western reaction to Politkovskaya’s murder is quite another matter. The fact that the Kremlin is prone to shoot itself in the foot is not enough ground to portray it as an embodiment of all evil or worse, to accuse the Russian authorities as somehow being behind the killing. The people in the Kremlin are no angels and can be clumsy in their public gestures, but they are not cold-blooded murderers and they certainly are not idiots. The political and media frenzy that has engulfed the Western capitals is disgusting, and glaringly anti-Russian. It gives the impression that the West is not mourning Anna Politkovskaya but is instead trying to put Putin on trial.

Then my most rational source with military connections got back to me and a forty minute phone discussion ensued just now.

Out of it came a surprising defence of AP. Yes she was in with the warlords, yes she reported essentially the Russian misdeeds and a token number of Chechyen misdeeds to balance the books, yes she actually met Litvinenko in London to discuss strategy, yes the latter was on speaking terms with the other two, yes she was a woman driven by a sort of 'mission from above' as she saw it and it p---ed off a great many people, yes she met the terrorist leaders and was escorted around by them. And Putin's view that she was vastly more important to the west than inside the country [though of course she has her support] seems borne out by most people seeing her as "one piece in the jigsaw".

Out of all this comes the question: "And why not?" She was a reporter and that's what reporters do. Of course Basaev and company were accommodating, as she was taking a heavily anti-Putin and pro-Chechnyen line which she admits in her book "Dirty War". Of course Russian officers ran the other way when they saw her. I have a question no one's yet answered. "Why was she allowed to remain in the war zone reporting thus?" If she was subject to poisonings, beatings and so on, this is not the Russian way. Russians are not half-hearted if they turn against you with piddly little semi-poisonings and the like. The Russian way is to disappear you or send you to the gulag.

It suggests to me that either she was not nearly as great an adversary as the West likes to make out or else someone was making these clumsy attempts for publicity. Even the average Britisher will admit the KGB were at least efficient. So that's another twist. Out of it all, I look back at my previous posts and stand by them. Through Moscow and military eyes she was certainly a traitor, failing to adequately present the Chechyen leadership as a breeding ground for terrorism which all sources I've seen agree on. Through Western eyes she was a fearless heroine. I can't see that we can get much further now, really I don't.

Here and here are two more articles on her, both critical and supportive. Naturally you'll dwell on the part you wish to.

[anna politkovskaya] where lies the truth

I’ve been asked a perfectly reasonable thing: “Show why your negative assessment of Anna Politkovskaya and on what basis you're convinced that all was not straightforward with her.” It comes down to sources in the end:

1] politkovskaya’s own words
2] journalistic reportage on her
3] feelings of the ordinary person over here
4] statements by the Kremlin
5] certain sources close to the action

Source 2 currently floods the internet and the vast majority is derived from a small number of journalistic sources and/or based on AP’s words. 1 and 2 are the basis of most of your opinions.

My sources were 3 to 5. For a start then, we have the problem of agreed sources. I don’t mind saying that after reading a swathe of material today from sources 1 and 2, I began to have serious doubts. Then I went to work and thee asked all and sundry, which brought up this result:

3] The ordinary person’s opinion is not so reliable. Many today weren’t even fully aware of the major players, let alone who was who. I’ve cited the ‘ordinary Russian’ in earlier posts but it’s fairly clear now that they are in the same boat as most of you and don’t really know.

4] The Kremlin itself. Well, they're unequivocal – she was a known cohort of Basaev and was a spy. She was acting in the best interests of the terrorist warlords. Right, so not much for'rader.

Clearly, the only thing to do now was to go back to my own two contacts who’ve been reliable in the past and double check. This was for my own benefit really, to be sure myself before I even thought of posting anything. So I prepared a question:

“There are a number of people in the West who have been challenged my assertion that Anna Politkovskaya was not the innocent she appeared to be and I need to support what I've written. I’m not asking for details at this point but can you tell me – is there anything at all in the story of her collaboration with Basayev and others?”

Then I put in the phone calls. The first was silent at the other end, then wanted to know about how I’d use this and after I’d explained, he answered the question: “Konyeshno”, which is Russian for “of course”. So, I phoned the second, couldn’t immediately reach him but eventually did. He hobnobs with many who were and still are on the ground in Chechnya and he was less forthcoming. All I could get was that he’d meet me on Thursday morning to “talk about the woman”.

So we have an impasse, at least until Thursday. Now, even if my sources do enough to convince me, how much I’ll be permitted to put on record [remember the Chatham House situation] is anyone’s guess. Personally, the "Konyeshno" was too quick and categorical to allow me to graciously bow out and it seems that there is very much something in the assertion. But till Thursday, unfortunately, it must wait.

[woodpecker] not a bird which plays the haarp

The Woodpecker

Recently I ran a post on the strange humming sound which appeared to be in and around Auckland, New Zealand and how they were having trouble identifying it. UK Daily Pundit, though, had the answer: It's the woodpecker grid.

What he was referring to, of course, was this: It has been established that the former Soviet Union (fSU) developed and boasted of weather modification technology during the 1960's and 70's with deployment against the United States coming in 1976 with the audible arrival of the woodpecker grid. They have called it the Geophysical Weapon. These weather operations continue to this day. But is the fSU the ONLY superpower that have developed this technology? The short answer is no, but they were the first.

The writer was quite right – they were not the only superpower to indulge in a bit of weather modification. One other power, whom I won’t name, also did this, in these programs:

# Project Argus (1958)

# Project Starfish (1962)

# SPS: Solar Power Satellite Project (1968)

# Saturn V Rocket (1975)

# SPS Military Implications (1978)

# Orbit Maneuvering System (1981)

# Innovative Shuttle Experiments (1985)

# Mighty Oaks (1986)

# ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency). Aug. 11, 1987

# Desert Storm (1991) EMP used

# High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, HAARP (1993)

# Poker Flat Rocket Launch (1968 to Present)

So that’s where the matter was left until I received the following message from New Zealand, which shows that the hum is not only in and around Auckland, as first thought, but more widespread. The bona fides of the writer seem to add weight to this.

Please read his comment here ...

[house of scandal] l'affaire de l'appartement gaymard

You’ve no doubt already seen the article by Gene Weingarten here, concerning the tete-a-tete between the French Agriculture Minister and himself. Well, by chance I stumbled on a tawdry scandal attached to the former and thought it best to publish it, you know. My little contribution to gutter journalism.

Now, before you take a quick glance, see that it’s written in French and look away mumbling and grumbling, stop a moment. You did four years of French at school , didn’t you? Anyway, written French is far easier than spoken and words like ‘l'affaire’, ‘58 894 euros’, ‘remboursement’ and ‘accepte son chèque’ are good indicators of a juicy tale. And it’s only one paragraph [well – two actually]. So read on, Francophiles :

Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

L'affaire de l'appartement Gaymard concerne le ministre de l'économie français Hervé Gaymard et de sa femme Clara, depuis l'annonce par le Canard enchaîné le 15 février 2005, que le couple était logé, avec ses huit enfants, dans un luxueux duplex de 600 m² payé 14 400 euros par mois par l'État. Elle aboutira à la démission de Hervé Gaymard de son poste de Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie le 25 février 2005.

En septembre 2005, il a reversé à l'État français une somme de 58 894 euros en remboursement des frais engagés pour cet appartement comprenant notamment les deux mois de loyers payés (14 400 euros mensuels), le montant des travaux effectués (31 800 euros) et les frais d'aménagement. Le 19 septembre 2005, le quotidien Libération a pris acte de ce remboursement en signalant qu'"hormis sa promesse, rien ne l'obligeait à rembourser. La location avait été avalisée par le directeur de cabinet de Jean-Pierre Raffarin et, du point de vue du droit, on peut même se demander à quel titre le Trésor public accepte son chèque" .

[happy monandæg] day of the moon

Despite disagreements, despite the workload we have on our hands this week, despite the previous posts so far, on which one kind soul commented: 'Bit heavy for Monday morning isn't it?', despite any negative vibes, it's going to be a wonderful day and a good lunch. Go to it rightly and may scallops rock yer tadger.