b – I have written previously about LNG contract headlines, which inflate the real impact of any such contract (70b$ over 30 years is only 2.3b$/y, which is not really much; signing a MoU or MoI (memorandum of understanding or memorandum of intention) is not the same as an actual contract, and even a contract does not mean much if it is conditioned by things unlikely to happen. Iranian LNG projects are nowhere near reality, announcements to the cotnrary notwithstanding. They don’t have the technology; if they contract it out, they are not offering good enough terms for the likely investors; buy it, they don’t have the financing or the ability to lead the project.
Another headline you might consider would be about the Ukrainian elections – I’ll try to write more about it later.

Posted by: Jérôme | Nov 2 2004 15:17 utc | 3

Gee, Spengler just proves once again he’s just a fascist fraud. I mean, not even MEMRI would dare to come with that kind of crap when the transcript is all over Arab media (and apparently fully translated by Al-Jazeera). He’s just showing his worst nightmares, or maybe his wet dream.
Muslims being a majority in Europe won’t happpen. Ever. Marks my words. People who think so are link Rummy’s “Old Europe”. Well, bad news for all these idiots, Europe may be seemingly as sleepy as the US before Pearl Harbor, but European nations are still unbeaten for sheer ruthlessness and violence when it comes to waging war, and the last time isn’t so long ago that all has been forgotten. And the recent rise of fascist-leaning parties is another big hint. If some were stupid enough to push a Muslim take-over, I would bet my money that the Europeans would rather mass-murder the entire Muslim population of the continent rather than letting it happening; I’d rather fear what kind of monster such a genocidal Europe would be than fear a Sharia-ruled Europe. But this is something neither OBL nor Bushco’s neo-cons seem to understand, probably because OBL is too deeply into Islamic history, and Bushco not even into their own American history, and even less into others’ histories.
China: What I really wonder is, which source is the one we should most rely on, there, the former Foreign Minister, or the mere Spokesman? Which ones is really letting out the inner circle’s opinion, which ones sends codewords? Not that I have the answer, my knowledge of Beijingology being severely limited.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Nov 2 2004 15:44 utc | 5

Bin Laden caused US deficits, took US jobs

bin Laden said: “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy,” … bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al-Qaida about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, … “Every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs,” he said. … U.S. intelligence officials confirmed Monday the transcript made public Monday was a complete one, CNN reported.

So here you have it, the deficits are necessary, because the US has to spend a million times more than bin Laden. He confessed it himself. (what tax cuts?) And if you lost your job, you know who to blame for it.
Funny how he needs to quote British _estimates_, like he would not have his own cost data. And it is also reassuring that intelligence officials are the ones confirming the completeness of the transcript. (At which point will they openly authorize it? 😉 )

Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Nov 2 2004 16:48 utc | 7

Slightly OT, but a link to a science writer who actually WRITES interesting science for the layman. He’s Chet Raymo, ex-science columnist for the Boston Globe and professor emetrius at Stonehill College. I was disappointed when he quit his regular Globe column a few years ago, and was glad to discover his personal website.
Anyway, the column excerpted below is commentary on America’s global role – and seemed most germane to the ongoing threads here; however, I encourage anyone casually interested in science (or not) to poke around and read his essays and blog entries.
From How to Spend $500 Billion on Security, by Chet Raymo.
A few facts:
— Almost half of the world’s population lives on less than two dollars a day.
— Despite a global food surplus, nearly a billion people are malnourished.
— One hundred million children are denied primary education.
— One third of the people of the poor world die of preventable conditions: infectious diseases, childbirth complications, malnutrition, unsafe water.
— A citizen of the United States consumes, on average, 88 times as much energy as a citizen of Bangladesh.
How do we in the rich nations react to these facts? Many of us profess to rue global inequalities of health, wealth and education. We vaguely hope someone is doing something about it. After all, isn’t that what foreign aid is all about? Isn’t that what the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are supposed to be doing — lifting the poor out of their misery, sharing things around?
Well, not exactly. The United States provides a smaller proportion of its national wealth in the form of aid than any other rich nation — a mere 0.1 percent of our gross domestic product. That means you and I sacrifice one cent out of every $10 of our wealth to alleviate global inequality. We take good care of our own, however. In 2002, U. S. taxpayers gave $3.9 billion to just 25,000 American cotton farmers, or three times the entire aid budget for Africa.

Posted by: ego | Nov 2 2004 18:24 utc | 9

thx fr the essentials, ego

Posted by: Blackie | Nov 2 2004 18:36 utc | 11

Hannah- yes, mega-churches exist, and have, in the south at least, since the 1970s. They are located in suburbs, for the most part, and have gyms (so believers don’t have to go to those heathen YMCAs?), many have schools attached that use textbooks that are approved because they are ideologically correct (in science, for instance).
They have social programs with events for almost every night of the week, plus they sponsor “alternatives” to school proms and Halloween and other “non-believer” and potentially “dangerous” events.
They have lots and lots of money, and they are the religious equivalent of suburban gated communities…except you can come in without passing inspection by a security guard. Or maybe they’re the equivalent of Jim Jones’ compound…
They allow children to grow up going to the church, attending school there, attending social events there, then these children can go to a religious college, like Falwell’s.
In other words, people can grow up in America and never have their beliefs challenged in any significant way. And they can raise their children just like they were raised.
Now do you understand why Bush has a base?

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 2 2004 21:24 utc | 13

From Chet Raymo’s science blog mentioned above:
—————————————————————
Let me offer some techno advice to whoever is the next president of the United States.
While we spend hundreds of billions of dollars stirring up a hornet’s nest of hatred in Iraq, Al Qaeda is quitely preparing a “dirty” bomb for delivery to a U. S. port by container ship. The bomb will consist of a container full of conventional explosives, liberally salted with non-weapons-grade uranium and/or plutonium acquired from North Korea, Iran, or, most likely, the former U.S.S.R. Not a mushroom cloud, but our very own Chernobyl.
This is called “Making America Safer.”
—————————————————————
A distinct possibility in my mind, and – if so – a bleak vindication of Kerry’s position of Bush’s failure to look to our own shores first. Unfortunately – it’d probably wipe out a few thousand NY or Mass liberals, and still leave the heartland cowering behind the skirts of Der Leader to protect them from the terror of it all.
Arrrgghhhhhhhhhhhhh…..
ego

Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 3 2004 15:18 utc | 15

@10:18 – acquired from North Korea, Iran, or, most likely, the former U.S.S.R.
No, most likely from the US. Enough there and not really guarded. Antrax anyone?
—
Outside View: Challenging Islam is risky on the death of Theo van Gogh

Posted by: b | Nov 3 2004 15:43 utc | 17

What to do about the growing influence of religion in the US?
My suggestion, a little radical, is to tear down the wall of Church-State separation, thus ensuring a general, cynical regard for religion as a tool of government manipulation and oppression. State-funded churches and parochial schools? Bring ’em on, the sooner the better. Make religion a part of the resented, unrespected Establishment, on par with the IRS, US Congress, and publically-funded Academia. No surer way to kill the spirit and appeal of a counterculture than to invite it in to the Official Order of Things.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 4 2004 14:58 utc | 19