Since the death of his father, Akhmad-hadji Kadyrov, in a terrorist bombing on 9 May, 28-year-old Chechen First Deputy Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov has emerged as the most powerful and the most feared man in Chechnya despite his lack of formal education and the alleged involvement of his security force in the systematic abduction, torture, and execution of Chechen civilians.

While Russian human rights activists decry Kadyrov’s reported involvement in human rights violations, he can seemingly do no wrong in the eyes of the Russian leadership, which has augmented his powers and bestowed on him one of the country’s most prestigious awards.

[And to think, I could be have emerged the most powerful and most feared man in my region by now, if I had worked as hard on it as him... ]

THE WARLORD AND THE COMMISSAR

Very interesting.....

The top 10 stories you missed in 2004

I'd seen some of these satellite photos before but there are a number of very impressive ones in this collection that I hadn't seen. Particularly the 5th one.

Tsunami - Receding waters, Kalutara Beach, Sri Lanka

peekay wrote:
] Some people believe that PY2005 (Political Year 2005) will be
] the year of Social Security in the States. Edward H. Crane of
] CATO (Libertarian "think tank") consolidates a lot of
] pro-privatization views in this piece.

Actually, this article confirms that the liberals are right, astonishingly.

In investing, typically you have a scale of choices that range from low risk, low return to high risk, high return.

This article says "The goal of Social Security reform should be to provide workers with the best possible retirement option, not simply to preserve the current system. If solvency were the only goal, that could be accomplished by raising taxes or cutting benefits, though this would be a bad deal for younger workers."

Its "Social Security" not "Federal Retirement." The goal should be to keep people from falling off the edge. It seems bizarre to me that libertarians would argue that the nanny state should help them plan for their retirement.

RE: Social Security Reform Now

Palindrome wrote:
] ] US Administration officials are preparing long-range
] ] plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists
] ] whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts
] ] in the United States or other countries, The Washington
] ] Post reported Sunday.

This is strange. Xinhua is the Chinese State Press. Sometimes its a reasonable source but particularly on things like this it should be taken with a grain of salt. Google news doesn't show broad coverage of this story, and a lot of it is coming from places that might be considered "radical" such as Al-J, or the Washington Times.

It took me a while to find the original Washington Post story, which I'm linking here. It seems to blur the questions about Pentagon detention of enemy combatants and the CIA's renditions discussed here a couple days ago.

Reuters reported that "influential senators denounced the idea as probably unconstitutional."

"It's a bad idea. So we ought to get over it and we ought to have a very careful, constitutional look at this," Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on "Fox News Sunday."

Are we really having this debate again?

Administration planning for indefinite detention without trial.

Hijexx wrote:
] Decius: It is not that easy to figure out the original poster.

Oh, I agree that this is a problem, and it will be fixed, but until then if you are going to call someone a fuckface and a homo, etc, you ought to be sure you're nailing the right person. Its hard to have sympathy for someone's confusion when they are being belligerent and personally offensive.

] As for the issue itself, I don't need to be told I am a jerk
] if I don't do this or that. I'm glad you're concerned, but
] you should have found a nicer way to convey it to others.

Clearly my post has been misunderstood, and for that I apologize. You guys are taking this way more personally and way more seriously then it was intended to be taken.

I don't work for any of these charities, I'm not associated with any cause, I have no vested interest in raising this money, and I don't really think you're a jerk if you don't donate.

This post was essentially a straight forward explanation of how I felt about this. I had been toying for several days with the idea of memeing this donations page. The problem was that when that idea popped into my head I realized that I could not, in good conscience, meme that page if I did not donate, and so I needed to decide if I wanted to do that, and I never came to a conclusion about it. When someone else memed the page it pushed the issue, and I realized that I should donate. I felt like failing to do so up to that point was poor on my part, and that feeling prompted the jerk commentary.

This was an emergency that was not predictable and is not a persistent problem, in a society where people do not have insurance. They really do need help in the form of one off financial donations. This is not a systemic problem like poverty in America, which requires long term solutions. Nor due I buy into things I've heard from several different people about how these people are responsible for their fates because they lived near the sea. There is a reasonable risk that the exact same thing will occur on the East Coast of the U.S. in the coming decades, and you don't hear people complaining that everyone in New York and New Jersey is "stupid for living near the water..." This one of the only times you'll ever see where a one off donation of $20 out of your pocket really is exactly what is needed, and really is the right way to handle the problem.

RE: Tsunami Relief

If you do not recommend this link, you are a jerk!

How could you fail to promote such a worthy cause when it only takes two clicks of your mouse? Don't be a jerk.

Once you have recommended this link, if you do not actually donate some money, you are a jerk.

How could you advocate that other people donate money when you haven't the spine for it yourself?

Don't be a jerk!

Lets put it this way... Did you donate money or time or blood after 9-11? This tragedy impacted far, far more people. Furthermore, this is South East Asia, not NYC. These people don't have effective relief infrastructure, and they don't have big life insurance plans... If the victims of 9-11 deserve your compassion, and they do, then the victims of this Tsunami do as well, and in fact they are even more in need of your help.

Don't be a jerk. Click Recommend.

Tsunami Relief

] The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was an undersea
] earthquake of moment magnitude 9.0 that struck the Indian
] Ocean off the western coast of northern Sumatra,
] Indonesia on December 26, 2004 at 00:58:50 UTC (or
] 07:58:50 local time in Jakarta and Bangkok).

Wikipedia has decent coverage of the tsunami...

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

] The San Jose Mercury News reports that "Gary Webb, a
] former Mercury News investigative reporter, author and
] legislative staffer who ignited a firestorm with his
] controversial stories, died Friday in an apparent suicide
] in his suburban Sacramento home. He was 49."
]
] The Mercury News says that "Webb, an award-winning
] journalist, was ... perhaps best known for sparking a
] national controversy with a 1996 story that contended
] supporters of a CIA-backed guerrilla army in Nicaragua
] helped trigger America's crack-cocaine epidemic in the
] 1980s.

Hacker Con circuit speaker Richard Thieme gives some personal comments on the passing of investigative journalist Gary Webb. Maybe of interest...

Richard Thieme: My Last Talk with Gary Webb

Dolemite wrote:
] How different, in your mind, is this from the thousands of
] bumper stickers on the back of cars that have a big W and then
] underneath, in small type, "The President"?

Nothing wrong there. This is pre-election marketing material, and it expresses someone's personal view. It also does it in a stylish way. I wish the Kerry stickers were as cool. In any event, this is democracy at work.

] Or even closer to a billboard, the big sign on West End (in
] Nashville) at the Republican Party HQ that has "W. _Still_ the
] President"?

Closer. Billboards are different because they don't reflect an individuals point of view, but rather the point of view of a large organization.

This is mostly the winning party gloating, which is ugly. Its unlikely that Dems would have put up similar Billboards, and I think its in poor taste. It demonstrates a lack of respect for the "other side," which is divisive, and undermines the right to vote in the sense that it seeks to admonish those who don't vote "correctly" for being "loosers." It reinforces the idea that an election is about being on the winning team rather then about expressing your political views.

Where the billboard in question (if it really exists) truely crosses the line is that it doesn't seem to refer to the election or even the office of the Presidency. It has a picture of the man, and it says "Our Leader." It puts the person above the job, and in that sense is an affort to our system. It reinforces Bush's power exclusively in a way that goes beyond being divisive and borders on intimitation.

Now, as offended as I am by both of these billboards, they have a right to put them up. And I also have the right to tell them they are sending the wrong message. And thats as far as this goes unless someone decides to change his mind. And thats how it ought to be.

RE: George W. Bush: Our leader