Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations

I'd like to know where is Area 51 of the United Nations.

---

me@rescam.org

It doesn't exist. Neither do the other Area 51.

It doesn't exist. Neither do the other Area 51.

What about this area 51?

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Iran plans examination of Holocaust evidence

ASSOCIATED PRESS

January 16, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran announced plans yesterday for a conference to examine evidence for the Holocaust, a new step in hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's campaign against Israel.

Ahmadinejad already called the Nazis' World War II slaughter of European Jews a "myth" and said the Jewish state should be wiped off the map or moved to Germany or the United States. Those remarks prompted global condemnation. It wasn't clear when the conference would be held or who would be willing to attend it.

Iran already had raised further concern about its nuclear program – which is only for power generation, it says – when it resumed what it called "research" at its uranium-enrichment facility last week.

Meanwhile, in Washington, some U.S. senators said yesterday that the prospect of higher energy prices should not stop the world from imposing sanctions on Iran. "If the price of oil has to go up, then that's a consequence we would have to suffer," Sen. John McCain said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

Some of them also said the United States may ultimately have to undertake a military strike to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but that should be the last resort.

"That is the last option. But to say under no circumstances would we exercise a military option, that would be crazy," McCain said.

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that attacking sensitive elements of Iran's nuclear program "would dramatically delay its development."

"But that should not be an option at this point. We ought to use everything else possible keep from getting to that juncture," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Russia, China reject move to take Iran to U.N.
But Europeans plan special session of atomic energy board

By Elaine Sciolino and Alan Cowell
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

January 17, 2006

PARIS – Russia and China affirmed yesterday that Iran must resume its freeze on certain nuclear activities, but refused a call by the Americans and the Europeans for the issue to be put before the U.N. Security Council, according to the British Foreign Office and senior European officials.

In one conciliatory gesture, Russia and China agreed not to block a move by France, Britain and Germany to convene a special session early next month of the 35 nations that make up the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria, the officials said.

At that time, the nations could decide whether Iran should be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible censure.

The Russian and Chinese positions were laid out during five hours of high-level talks in London that brought together the five permanent members of the Security Council – the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain – and Germany in an effort to forge a common position after Iran's resumption last week of nuclear work at three sites.

In Moscow, President Vladimir Putin emphasized that Russia, the other European nations and the United States have "very close positions on the Iranian problem," but warned that the crisis should be resolved "without abrupt, erroneous steps."

"We must move very carefully in this area," Putin said, urging caution.

He also signaled that a Russian-led initiative to enrich Iran's uranium inside Russia under Russian control still might offer a way out of the crisis. Iran, which had seemed to reject the Russian proposal as inadequate, has expressed renewed interest in it.

"We consider it constructive and are carefully studying it," Iran's ambassador to Moscow, Gholamreza Ansari, said on Russian television. "This is a good initiative to resolve the situation. We believe that Iran and Russia should find a way out of this jointly."

In Beijing, the Chinese Foreign Ministry also emphasized the need for negotiations, not confrontation, saying in a statement, "China believes that under the current situation, all relevant sides should remain restrained and stick to solving the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations."

The rush of diplomacy reflects the growing urgency of managing the relationship with Iran.

"This was a meeting to feel each other out," said a senior official involved in the London talks. "I don't think our positions are that far apart. Everyone agrees we must agree, the question now is what will we agree on. Now is the time to start an intense negotiating process to persuade countries of the board to proceed by consensus."

Both Russia and China have close economic and military partnerships with Iran and historically have preferred engagement with Iran as a way of moderating its behavior and opposed any action in the Security Council against Iran.

China is particularly reluctant to use the Security Council against Iran, saying last week that such action could complicate the issue and harden positions. But Iran's recent behavior has eroded confidence in claims that its nuclear activities are intended for peaceful energy purposes.

Iran bans CNN after it mistranslated leader

By Nasser Karimi
ASSOCIATED PRESS

January 17, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran banned CNN from working in the country due to its mistranslation of comments made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a recent news conference.

The indefinite ban, announced yesterday on state-run television, highlighted the continuing tension between Iran and the West over Tehran's nuclear program.

In remarks Saturday, Ahmadinejad had defended Iran's right to continue nuclear research. State media have complained since the news conference that CNN translated his words as "nuclear weapons" instead of "nuclear technology" or "nuclear energy."

"Due to mistranslation of the words of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his press conference, activities of the American CNN in Tehran are banned until further notice," said a Culture and Islamic Guidance Ministry statement read on state-run television.

CNN acknowledged the mistake in its U.S. broadcast.

"CNN quoted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying that Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons," the network said in its report of the ban. "In fact he said that Iran has the right to nuclear energy."

The network added that it had apologized.

CNN told viewers it had not been officially notified about the ban.

Mohammad Hossein Khoshvaght, director-general of foreign press and media at the ministry, told The Associated Press that the ban followed a review of "past activities of CNN," not limited to Saturday's speech. He did not elaborate.

CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour has been reporting from Iran for the last week. Khoshvaght said she was scheduled to leave today even before the ban was announced.

A CNN spokesperson did not immediately return a call yesterday to the network's Atlanta headquarters seeking comment.

The CNN ban marks the second time in a year that Iran has acted against an international broadcaster. In April, Iran suspended the nationwide operations of Arab TV network Al-Jazeera, accusing it of inflaming violent protests by the Arab minority in its southwest.

Al-Jazeera has not yet been allowed to return to Iran.

Iran bans CNN after it mistranslated leader

The latest news (here) is that Iran has accepted CNN's apology and let them in again into Iran.

Europeans won't talk with Iran
Bid to restart nuclear discussions is spurned

By Elaine Sciolino
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

January 18, 2006

PARIS – In an apparent effort to win international support and avoid censure by the U.N. Security Council, Iran yesterday proposed a resumption of nuclear talks with the Europeans, a move that was immediately rejected by Britain as "vacuous."

The proposal came eight days after Iran resumed nuclear work at three sites in violation of an agreement 16 months ago with France, Germany and Britain that froze most of Iran's nuclear activities. The resumption prompted the European trio to declare the talks dead and call for the Security Council to pass judgment on Iran.

In a letter yesterday, Javad Vaeedi, deputy head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, emphasized Iran's determination to "continue its full cooperation" with the International Atomic Energy Agency, adding that Iran "spares no effort in removing any ambiguity on its peaceful nuclear activities through dialogue and negotiation," according to a copy of the letter obtained by The New York Times.

Expressing appreciation for the Europeans, it added that Iran "considers dialogue and negotiation as the best course of action" and "is prepared to make the process a success."

But the letter, addressed to the three foreign ministries and sent through their missions in Vienna, gave no indication that Iran would resume the freeze on its conversion, enrichment and reprocessing of uranium as required by the agreement.

"It is unacceptable," said a German official, who described the letter as "a lot of nice words without any concrete offer."

Indeed, Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's representative to the international nuclear agency in Vienna, said in a telephone interview from Vienna, Austria, that Iran's decision to resume nuclear fuel research was "legal and irreversible."

He added: "We are ready to negotiate with the Europeans and the Russians. It is now their turn to understand us."

He called it unfair that Iran's scientists had not been able to conduct their nuclear research under the freeze, saying, "The philosophy of telling scientists not to think and research is contrary to human rights principles and the United Nations Charter."

The letter came on a day of intense diplomacy in several capitals.

The United States and the Europeans have begun to lobby some of the 35 nations that make up the decision-making board of the international nuclear agency to support their position that the Iranian nuclear crisis should be dealt with by the Security Council. The board will consider the issue in a special session starting Feb. 2.

France, Germany and Britain began drafting a resolution for consideration by the board that calls on Mohamed ElBaradei, the international agency's director, to send a report about Iran's history of deception and lack of full cooperation with the agency to the Security Council, according to two European officials.

The officials described the outlines of the draft on condition of anonymity because of normal diplomatic rules.

Fundamentalism and nuclear bombs

TRUDY RUBIN
THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER

January 18, 2006

It's bad enough when Christian fundamentalists back Israel in hopes that Armageddon will soon engulf the Holy Land and bring on the second coming.

But at least Christian revivalists aren't pursuing their dream with nuclear weapons. The millions who read Tim De La Haye's "Left Behind" novels aren't rushing to Jerusalem to precipitate the Rapture.

It's far more unsettling when an Iranian leader who says Israel should be wiped off the map starts talking of "end times" – and is seeking nuclear weapons. The millennial obsession of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, gives added urgency to U.S. and European efforts to prevent Iran from building the bomb.

In a speech at the United Nations in September, Ahmadinejad urged the Lord "to hasten the emergence of ... the promised one," the Shiite Muslim equivalent of the Messiah. He is said to be obsessed with the Mahdaviat (the belief in the second coming of the 12th Shiite imam, known as the Mahdi, who has been in hiding for more than 1,000 years).

In a December article called "Waiting for the Rapture in Iran," The Christian Science Monitor's Scott Peterson writes that Ahmadinejad has earmarked $17 million for the Jamkaran mosque, supposedly built on the Mahdi's orders. "Officials deny rumors," says Peterson, "that Ahmadinejad ... secretly tasked the Tehran city council ... to prepare a suitable route for the Mahdi's return" when he was mayor. Others say the rumors are true.

The Iranian's combination of devotion and inflammatory threats against Israel highlights the danger of a potential Iranian bomb.

Tehran claims its nuclear program is intended for peaceful energy purposes. However, most experts believe the program Iran conducted for years in secret is meant to create the capacity for building weapons. This week Iran restarted uranium enrichment facilities that had been sealed during negotiations with the European Union over ending the program.

These talks have hit a wall; the United States and the Europeans are now urging that Iran be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. Russia and China cast doubt this week that they will back sanctions that could undercut lucrative energy contracts with Iran. Iran says it will continue its "peaceful" program whether or not sanctions are imposed.

Yet it is essential that the Bush team continue its diplomatic efforts to convince the Russians and Chinese that an Iranian bomb would endanger them all.

Some will note that it's logical for Iran to seek nuclear weapons when America has been threatening Tehran with "regime change." The ayatollahs notice that no one talks of ousting North Korean President Kim Jong Il now that he has nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration nourished illusions that the Iraq war would provoke the toppling of the theocracy in Tehran. Instead, the chaos in Iraq has convinced the mullahs that the United States is weakened in the region. The White House seems to have realized that Iran's regime is not going to fall any time soon.

Past White House errors, however, don't disprove the threat presented by an Iran with nuclear weapons. Tehran would be unlikely to hand these weapons over to terrorists. But, says Judith Yaphe, an Iran expert at National Defense University, Iran's possession of those weapons could embolden radical Islamist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which are aided by Tehran.

"The bomb would also reinforce Iranian attitudes of superiority and hegemony in the Mideast region," says Yaphe. A true believer like Ahmadinejad who is yearning for the "end times" might miscalculate in his threats or his sponsorship of surrogate attacks against Israel. No one is certain whether he would be reigned in, or encouraged, by Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

If Shiite Iran got the bomb, Sunni Saudi Arabia and Egypt might be provoked to do likewise. The regional risks – both political and environmental – are daunting. Any hopes of curbing the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide would die.

The dangers don't end there. Ahmadinejad's recklessness could provoke Israel, or the Bush administration, to try air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. But because much of the effort is believed to be hidden underground, most experts believe bombs could only delay, not end the program. Air strikes would provoke Iran to unleash more violence in the region against Israel and inside Iraq. No one can foresee where open war among Iran, Israel, and the United States would lead.

Russia and China need to consider the threat to Mideast oil and stability that such open strife would trigger. They need to think beyond immediate profits. Otherwise, Ahmadinejad's dreams of the End of Days might conceivably come true.

---

Account frozen...

Keep racism out of debate on serious issues

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

January 19, 2006

Don't get us wrong. We're pleased New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has apologized for what he says were "totally inappropriate" remarks about how New Orleans should be "chocolate" (meaning majority African-American) because "it's the way God wants it to be." He also said God was angry at the United States, as evidenced by Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters.

Nagin said later that his comments about God stemmed from a private conversation he had with a minister. But he acknowledged, "I need to be more sensitive and more aware of what I'm saying."

That would be a good thing. This isn't the mayor's first brush with offensive rhetoric. In October, Nagin raised eyebrows around the country when he shared with a New Orleans business group his concern that the city was being "overrun by Mexican workers." Whereas before Katrina New Orleans was just 3 percent Hispanic, demographers now say the Hispanic population – post Katrina – could be 15 or 20 percent.

Apparently, Nagin spends a lot of time thinking about demographics and what his city will look like once it is rebuilt. Hence, his latest remarks – tactlessly uttered on the national holiday set aside to celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King – about how New Orleans will, one day, again be majority African-American. The city was more than 65 percent black before Hurricane Katrina displaced about three-fourths of its population.

You would think any talk about "chocolate" would be appetizing. But not when the word is used in a racial context by a mayor with a history of shooting from the lip in ways that are offensive and irresponsible. When that happens, it's not at all appealing. In fact, it can be quite nauseating.

While noting that many African-Americans are worried they're being shut out of the rebuilding effort, Nagin insists he wants "everyone to be welcome in New Orleans – black, white, Asian, everybody."

He'll have to back up those words with actions. He can start by holding his tongue the next time he gets the urge to carelessly toss around divisive race rhetoric to score political points with black voters. When white politicians do the same thing to score points with white voters – À la Trent Lott – we criticize them. Now we must criticize Nagin.

And, while we're at it, we also have to criticize Sen. Hillary Clinton – who used the Martin Luther King holiday to inform a mostly black audience in Harlem that Republicans were running the House of Representatives "like a plantation." Clinton has not apologized for her remarks, which were almost as offensive as Nagin's.

Unfortunately, this is a familiar game in American politics. But it's also an ugly and dangerous one, no matter who's playing. If politicians want to drum up popular support for their policy positions or style of leadership, let them make that case to voters. But let's not have any more of this cheap and slimy political theater where elected officials use racial code – and sometimes, unvarnished racism – to push people's buttons.

---

Account frozen...

'offensive rhetoric'


Why do people get so offended over a God they say they don't believe in?

Heck, I've been witness to the devil working in the hearts of those who refuse to obey my God for years now, and quite frankly, I find it to be rather entertaining despite the repetitive offensive rhetoric...

Inner peace... Is surely a wonderful thing... ;)

A few words on the subject...

---

Ayatollah says Iran doesn't fear uproar over nuclear goals

By Nazila Fathi
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

January 19, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran – The rest of the world cannot deter the will of the Iranian people to pursue its nuclear program, the country's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said yesterday, the official IRNA news agency reported.

"The West knows very well that we are not seeking to build nuclear weapons," Khamenei said in a meeting with Tajikistan's president, Emomali Rakhmonov. "Nuclear weapons are against our political and economic interests and our Islamic beliefs. Therefore, the Islamic Republic will not fear the uproar and will continue the path of scientific progress relying on its principles, and the world cannot influence the will of our people."

The comments were the first by Khamenei reported publicly since last week, when Iran defied an agreement with Britain, France and Germany and broke internationally monitored seals at its nuclear site in Natanz to resume research activities. The three countries have begun drafting a resolution to submit to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency, that calls for Iran to be referred to the Security Council for possible punitive actions.

Iran has warned that if the case is sent to the Security Council, Iran will retaliate by banning U.N. inspectors from visiting its sites and resuming the sensitive work of enriching uranium. Iran says it wants to enrich uranium to low levels to produce fuel for its nuclear power plants.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused European leaders of trying to deprive Iran of peaceful technology. "We are asking they step down from their ivory towers and act with a little logic," Ahmadinejad said. "Who are you to deprive us from fulfilling our goals?"

Russia and China, both of which have a veto on the Security Council, are among Iran's allies and Iran is hopeful that they will oppose sanctions. Russia has helped Iran build its first nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr.

Eat Paint, Get Rich
Welcome to Wisconsin!

BY MAUREEN MARTIN
Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

GREEN LAKE, Wis.--In 2004, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranked Wisconsin one of the top 10 states for its fair litigation atmosphere. Unfortunately two forces converged in 2005 to destroy all that.

First, the balance of power in the closely divided Wisconsin Supreme Court shifted after Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle appointed a liberal to a vacant seat on the bench. The reconstituted court quickly handed down several rulings that alarmed the business and medical communities. Second, while the Republican-controlled state Legislature passed a number of bills to temper the effects of these rulings, the governor vetoed three such measures in the past few months, and Republicans don't have the votes to override these vetoes.

On Jan. 6, Gov. Doyle vetoed a bill that would have held manufacturers liable for damages caused only by products they'd made, in most cases. Without the bill, manufacturers that once produced lead paint, for example, can be held liable in Wisconsin for virtually any lead poisoning--a plaintiff doesn't need to prove that the paint was made by the manufacturer, or even that his lead poisoning was caused by paint, as opposed to, say, lead-contaminated soil or lead pipes.

"These vetoes will negate all of these legislative efforts and will make Wisconsin the litigation capital of America," said Ted Kanavas, a state senator who chairs the committee aimed at economic development in Wisconsin.

Gov. Doyle is also running for re-election this year in what is widely expected to be a tight race. His two GOP opponents have both said they'd sign liability-reform bills if elected. The stage is set for a showdown. If Gov. Doyle triumphs, the only true winners will be lawyers.
Three key legal issues are at stake in this election as a result of the governor's vetoes. The first relates to the admissibility of expert testimony in court. Under Wisconsin law, such testimony is admissible even when the judge believes it is unreliable. Juries determine on their own whether to consider such testimony. In other words, junk science is fully admissible in Wisconsin. That policy--created by the courts, corrected by a bill, but retained by Gov. Doyle's veto--enables a researcher in an obesity case against a fast-food restaurant to say that, based on a single study of rat behavior, cheeseburgers are as addictive as heroin to humans.

Then there is the case of caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. Injured plaintiffs can always recover all of their actual damages, but for the past 10 years, a Wisconsin statute has capped noneconomic damages (such as pain and suffering) at $350,000, indexed to inflation.

Wisconsin's insurance commissioner concluded in early 2005 that these caps have been successful in meeting the legislative goals of making malpractice insurance "available and affordable" and creating a "stable medical malpractice environment and the availability of health care in Wisconsin." As a result, Wisconsin has been one of only six states judged by the American Medical Association not to be in a medical malpractice crisis.
But in July, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down those caps, substituting its judgment for that of the Legislature by arguing the caps didn't meet the objectives of the legislation. The Legislature restored the caps, but Gov. Doyle vetoed that, too.

The product-liability veto, though, caused the most consternation in business circles. It started with the case of J. Steven Thomas, who claimed to have eaten paint chips containing lead pigment in the early 1990s. At that time, he lived in rental housing built in the early 1900s, when the use of lead-based paint was common. Wisconsin did not ban lead-based paint until 1980.

Mr. Thomas, who had already recovered about $324,000 from his landlords' insurers nevertheless sued seven lead pigment manufacturers for more damages. The case was brought despite his admission that he could not identify which companies manufactured the lead pigment used in the paint he allegedly ingested, and that he could not even identify whether any of the seven defendants ever manufactured the pigments involved.

Historically, plaintiffs in personal injury cases have almost always had to prove a specific product manufactured by a specific defendant actually caused an injury. But the Wisconsin Supreme Court did away with this rule in another July 2005 opinion written by a liberal Doyle appointee, which held that Mr. Thomas could prevail if he could prove that the defendants manufactured and marketed lead pigments, even if the pigments were not in the paint chips he allegedly ate. The premise for this liability is that the defendants participated in the industry that contributed to the risk to the plaintiff.

"The end result of the majority opinion," argued one dissenting justice, is that "the defendants . . . can be held liable for a product they may or may not have produced, which may or may not have caused the plaintiff's injuries, based on conduct that may have occurred over 100 years ago when some of the defendants were not even part of the relevant market." Another dissenter wrote that the case "created a remedy for lead paint poisoning so sweeping and draconian that it will be nearly impossible for paint companies to defend themselves or, frankly, for plaintiffs to lose."

More lead cases are virtually certain to come, as the out-of-state trial bar descends upon Wisconsin. The Thomas case was spearheaded by the firm of Motley Rice LLC, based on the East Coast and well known for its nationwide representation of plaintiffs in cases involving lead and tobacco.
Finally, as if it could get any worse, nothing in the ruling limits the "risk contribution" theory to lead pigment. It could, arguably, apply to any product. So it was no surprise when a Chicago plaintiffs' firm recently filed a case against 13 Wisconsin companies alleging that a client died from asbestos exposure, but not necessarily from asbestos manufactured by any of the 13 named defendants.

Welcome to Wisconsin!

Ms. Martin, an attorney, is senior fellow for legal affairs for the Heartland Institute.

--------------------

Anyone who has ever sold anything to anyone in Wisconsin: declare bankruptcy now and save you, your children, and your children's children from baseless lawsuits!

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

|- CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED -|



|- CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED - CLOSED -|