Disaster movie time? In real life? Alexandra Lozovshci (INQUISITR) notes:
A large
asteroid could be headed toward us in the near future — barreling
through space on a risk trajectory that might cause it to collide with
Earth.
The news comes from the
Express,
which cites NASA sources revealing that the
space rock could end up engaged in not one, but a staggering 62
different potential impact trajectories with our planet — each of them
waiting to sling the asteroid toward Earth over the next 100 years.
Known as asteroid 2018 LF16, the space rock was last observed by our astronomers on June 16 — notes NASA’s
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) — who calculated its orbit and its potential to become a threat
to our planet. The calculations showed asteroid 2018 LF16 could collide
with our
planet on 62 different dates between now and 2117.
Not good news. But maybe not the end
of the world later. Often these end up being near misses. On the current topic, George Torbet (DIGITAL TRENDS) adds:
While big asteroids make for
dramatic news headlines and good
movie script fodder, NASA are more interested in the objects as
artifacts of the early solar system. Because they move through space and
are left relatively unchanged over long periods of time, asteroids can
be studied for clues about the formation of the
solar system around 4.6 billion years ago. Asteroids are usually formed
of debris from dramatic events like the birth or death of stars and
planets, and most of the asteroids in our solar system are remnants from
the formation of the inner planets of Mercury,
Venus, Earth, and Mars.
Also be sure to check out Kat's
"Kat's Korner: BLOOD RED ROSES, Rod Stewart's latter day classic" and "Kat's
Korner: Don't miss Diana Ross' Christmas classic" went up
Saturday. I have already ordered Diana Ross’ Christmas album from
Amazon. I can’t wait to get that. Also be sure to read C.I.’s
"Chris Hedges' AMERICA: THE FAREWELL TOUR bids adie..."
which I loved, loved,
loved! I wish she’d just do book reviews over and over and nothing
else at THE COMMON ILLS. Whether she loves the book or hates it, she
always has the best book reviews. (And, of course, she and Ava do the
best TV reviews at THIRD – their latest is “TV:
Things to ponder" and the one before was ”
TV: The Selfie.”)
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Monday, November 26, 2018. As flooding continues in Iraq, the ineffectual government stands revealed to all the world.
Jonathan Swan and Alayne Treene (AXIOS) note:
Why does this matter?
The authors argue:
Why it matters: Trump's desire to raid Iraq's oil is illegal and unworkable. But it reveals a great deal about his approach to the Middle East. Trump remains hellbent on extracting payments from Middle Eastern countries, in the form of natural resources, for the trillions of dollars America has spent since the early 2000s. Bob Woodward and others have reported on the formal steps Trump took to push his team to extract rare minerals from Afghanistan as repayment for the war. (Security concerns have stymied that effort; though Afghan's leadership was more open to Trump's pitch than Iraq's leaders have been.)
No, idiots, that doesn't cut it.
UK EXPRESS offers a summary of the article but also can't grasp reality. MEDIAITE also summarizes the article but can't actually report.
What is going on in the world these days that everyone's decided to play dumb and stupid? Oh, they're not playing?
Donald Trump proposed this as a candidate. We thought it was a stupid idea.
Candidates say many stupid things.
Donald Trump is now president. That doesn't make the proposal any smarter. It's still stupid. But he's now the government. So his comments come with a different context and I'm really not thrilled that so many asses can't do their own job. They're the ones claiming to be reporters.
The US government twice tried to get Iraq to pick up the tab recently (recently = since 2017)?
Why would that be surprising?
Did everyone hit their head and forget the past?
Lee Russ (WATCHING THE WATCHERS) June 2006:
If you can remember that far back, before the invasion of Iraq, Dick Cheney and friends were arrogantly sure that (a) the cost of the war would be minimal, and (b) Iraq's oil revenue would fund reconstruction efforts; it would virtually be a no-cost war, one that paid for itself.
In March 2008, THE NATION offered quotes from several who insisted the Iraq War would pay for itself. Here's a few they noted:
Donald Trump is now the head of the US government. Ahead of the war, various mouths in the US government told the public that Iraq would pay for reconstruction via oil. That's not what's happened. One take away on this latest development would be that Donald Trump tried to follow up on the US government's earlier promises to the American people.
I don't support the idea. But I didn't support ahead of the war.
The feckless press that's so applauded today by airheads like Meryl Streep? They're the ones who sold the war. As just the three quotes above convey, this notion was floated publicly and floated repeatedly. And the press wasn't shocked by it. It wasn't awed by it. It thought the plan was perfectly normal. And those of us who spoke out were the crazies. Forgive me for not wanting to wash the blood of the press that sold the war today because they finally found a sense of outrage after Donald Trump was elected president.
Here's a little more context that actual journalists should be conveying but they aren't: All the prime ministers since Saddam Hussein -- including the current one -- were little cowards who fled Iraq and lived outside Iraq for years and years. How did they spend those years? Begging the US to invade. Cowards who fled then begged another country to invade.
They don't serve the Iraqi people. But they sure do enrich their own pockets. From that point of view, it can be argued that the government of Iraq should be paying.
For years, during the early years of the Iraq War, Iraq Veterans Against the War would insist that right now there needed to be reparations paid to the Iraqi government. I would argue against it here. Because I'm opposed to reparations? No, because the government was corrupt and not representing the people of Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki was one of the biggest thieves but he was far from the only thief of Baghdad.
Handing millions over to a crooked government is not reparations.
And if we're going to get offended by Trump today (and I agree we should) let's note that he's just following on the promises the US government made before he was a part of it. And let's especially note that the US press rolled over in real time, never treated the promises made by Bully Boy Bush and his administration as outrageous -- though they were outrageous.
Speaking of things that were treated as normal by the press, the death of David Kelly.
Jonathan Swan and Alayne Treene (AXIOS) note:
President Trump twice raised
to the Iraqi prime minister the idea of repaying America for its wars
with Iraqi oil, a highly controversial ask that runs afoul of
international norms and logic, according to sources with direct
knowledge.
Trump appears to have finally given up
on this idea, but until now it hasn't been revealed that as president
he's raised the concept twice with Iraq's prime minister and brought it
up separately in the Situation Room with his national security team.
Why does this matter?
The authors argue:
Why it matters: Trump's desire to raid Iraq's oil is illegal and unworkable. But it reveals a great deal about his approach to the Middle East. Trump remains hellbent on extracting payments from Middle Eastern countries, in the form of natural resources, for the trillions of dollars America has spent since the early 2000s. Bob Woodward and others have reported on the formal steps Trump took to push his team to extract rare minerals from Afghanistan as repayment for the war. (Security concerns have stymied that effort; though Afghan's leadership was more open to Trump's pitch than Iraq's leaders have been.)
No, idiots, that doesn't cut it.
UK EXPRESS offers a summary of the article but also can't grasp reality. MEDIAITE also summarizes the article but can't actually report.
What is going on in the world these days that everyone's decided to play dumb and stupid? Oh, they're not playing?
Donald Trump proposed this as a candidate. We thought it was a stupid idea.
Candidates say many stupid things.
Donald Trump is now president. That doesn't make the proposal any smarter. It's still stupid. But he's now the government. So his comments come with a different context and I'm really not thrilled that so many asses can't do their own job. They're the ones claiming to be reporters.
The US government twice tried to get Iraq to pick up the tab recently (recently = since 2017)?
Why would that be surprising?
Did everyone hit their head and forget the past?
Lee Russ (WATCHING THE WATCHERS) June 2006:
If you can remember that far back, before the invasion of Iraq, Dick Cheney and friends were arrogantly sure that (a) the cost of the war would be minimal, and (b) Iraq's oil revenue would fund reconstruction efforts; it would virtually be a no-cost war, one that paid for itself.
In March 2008, THE NATION offered quotes from several who insisted the Iraq War would pay for itself. Here's a few they noted:
“Iraq has tremendous resources that belong
to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has
to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.”
Ari Fleischer
White House press secretary
February 18, 2003
White House press secretary
February 18, 2003
“When it comes to reconstruction, before
we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of
the Iraqi government and the international community.”
Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
March 27, 2003
Secretary of Defense
March 27, 2003
“There is a lot of money to pay for this
that doesn’t have to be US taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets
of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really
finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”
Paul Wolfowitz
Deputy Secretary of Defense
testifying before the defense subcommittee
of the House Appropriations Committee
March 27, 2003
Deputy Secretary of Defense
testifying before the defense subcommittee
of the House Appropriations Committee
March 27, 2003
Donald Trump is now the head of the US government. Ahead of the war, various mouths in the US government told the public that Iraq would pay for reconstruction via oil. That's not what's happened. One take away on this latest development would be that Donald Trump tried to follow up on the US government's earlier promises to the American people.
I don't support the idea. But I didn't support ahead of the war.
The feckless press that's so applauded today by airheads like Meryl Streep? They're the ones who sold the war. As just the three quotes above convey, this notion was floated publicly and floated repeatedly. And the press wasn't shocked by it. It wasn't awed by it. It thought the plan was perfectly normal. And those of us who spoke out were the crazies. Forgive me for not wanting to wash the blood of the press that sold the war today because they finally found a sense of outrage after Donald Trump was elected president.
Here's a little more context that actual journalists should be conveying but they aren't: All the prime ministers since Saddam Hussein -- including the current one -- were little cowards who fled Iraq and lived outside Iraq for years and years. How did they spend those years? Begging the US to invade. Cowards who fled then begged another country to invade.
They don't serve the Iraqi people. But they sure do enrich their own pockets. From that point of view, it can be argued that the government of Iraq should be paying.
For years, during the early years of the Iraq War, Iraq Veterans Against the War would insist that right now there needed to be reparations paid to the Iraqi government. I would argue against it here. Because I'm opposed to reparations? No, because the government was corrupt and not representing the people of Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki was one of the biggest thieves but he was far from the only thief of Baghdad.
Handing millions over to a crooked government is not reparations.
And if we're going to get offended by Trump today (and I agree we should) let's note that he's just following on the promises the US government made before he was a part of it. And let's especially note that the US press rolled over in real time, never treated the promises made by Bully Boy Bush and his administration as outrageous -- though they were outrageous.
Speaking of things that were treated as normal by the press, the death of David Kelly.
“I believe the state narrative on this strange death to be organised falsehood. You don’t lock up the truth for 70 years in the National Archive. I aim to get to the heart of this...” #KillingKelly by George Galloway — Kickstarter #Iraq #Blair #DeepState
In Iraq today, still proof that the government does not represent the people.
Heavy rainfall in Iraq kills at least 21, displaces thousands aje.io/sed3j
For days now, there has been flooding in northern Iraq. AFP reports, "At least 21 people have died and tens of thousands displaced by heavy rains that have battered Iraq over two days, the health ministry and United Nations said on Sunday. Women and children were among the dead, health ministry spokesman Seif al-Badr told AFP. Some had drowned, but others had died in car accidents, were electrocuted, or were trapped when their houses collapsed." Rescuing people is not an easy task and we should all be asking why that is? ALJAZEERA explains:
In Mosul, the heavy storms submerged two floating bridges along the Tigris river, which bisects the city.
They were the only way to move between Mosul's eastern and western halves, after all its bridges were bombed during last year's months-long operation to retake the city from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) armed group.
Mosul's bridges were destroying by bombings last year. Last year. 2017. We have one more full month left in 2018. And those bridges haven't been reconstructed? And who bombed them because if the answer has been these floating bridges, it's probably Iraq and/or the US-led coalition that bombed the bridges.
Nearly a year without bridges being rebuilt. And we're supposed to pretend that the Iraqi government works for the Iraqi people?
#السيول_في_العراق
#Floods_in_Iraq! The suffering of my people continues !!!
Is it enough for Iraq? Occupation, injustice, ignorance, sectarianism, corruption and poverty ???
Torrential #Rainfall caused severe #floods across #Iraq , displaced thousands & killed & injured many. Some 10,000 people in Salah al-Din & 15,000 in Ninewa governorates need assistance, including thousands of families living in IDP camps reliefweb.int/sites/reliefwe…
Competing visions for the future of #Iraq have manifested themselves through violent, sectarian conflict over the Iraqi state & its resources, have been used by political elites to deflect attention away from poor governance & corruption brookings.edu/wp-content/upl… by @RanjAlaaldin
Meanwhile . . .
The U.S. govt is offering a reward of up to $3M for info leading to the arrest and/or conviction of an Iranian national who allegedly illegally acquired technology used in roadside bombs against U.S. & coalition forces in Iraq from 2008 through 2010. fbi.gov/audio-reposito…
Kat's "Kat's Korner: BLOOD RED ROSES, Rod Stewart's latter day classic" and "Kat's Korner: Don't miss Diana Ross' Christmas classic" went up Saturday. Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Unfriend" went up last night. New content at THIRD:
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: This middle finger may be for you
- TV: Things to ponder
- John Stauber has a pop quiz
- NPR doesn't know music and it doesn't do correctio...
- 10 Christmas movies not to miss
- Tweet of the week
- Don't lie to Barbra!
- Read a book?
- Song of the week
- This edition's playlist
- Highlights
