Original Post: Yahoo News
By: Marc Preel
MOSFELLSBAER, Iceland (AFP) – Anna Margret Bjoernsdottir never thought she would be forced to leave her once wealthy homeland, but after 18 months of economic upheaval she has decided to join the biggest emigration wave from Iceland in more than a century.
"I just don't see any future here. There isn't going to be any future in this country for the next 20 years, everything is going backwards," lamented the 46-year-old single mother, who plans to move to Norway in June.
The former real estate agent who lost her job when Iceland's housing market disintegrated two years ago said she feared she could soon be forced out of her large house in Mosfellsbaer, some 15 kilometres (nine miles) from Reykjavik.
"I don't want to sell it," she said, vowing to "fight to keep" the comfortable wooden dwelling she, her daughter Olavia, their cat Isolde Tinna and their dog Candit the Bandit have called home since 2004.
Bjoernsdottir is not alone in planning to leave Iceland's economic mess behind and seek a new future abroad. Most people in Reykjavik have someone in their surroundings who has already packed their bags and left.
Emigration has rapidly picked up speed since the Atlantic island nation's economy crumbled in late 2008, dragged down by the collapse of its major banks. Last year it marked the largest exodus from the country since 1887.
In 2009, more than 10,600 people left the country of fewer than 320,000 inhabitants, according to official statistics, with 4,835 more people moving away than immigrating.
Foreign workers, mainly Poles, who since the beginning of the decade had been drawn to Iceland's financial miracle, were the first to leave.
But Icelanders like Bjoernsdottir have not been far behind, most heading to the country's still prosperous Nordic neighbours, especially Norway.
"I don't think I can offer a good future to my daughter Olavia" in Iceland, Bjoernsdottir said.
Like many other Icelanders who have seen their worlds collapse since the financial turmoil began, Bjoernsdottir's predicament stems from the decision, on advice from her banker, to take up a loan in foreign currency.
Repayments on her loan, in yens and Swiss francs, became insurmountable after the Icelandic krona nose-dived following the banking sector implosion.
"My loans are twice as high as they were," she said, shaking her head in disgust. "The payments keep going higher and higher, so I have to leave, I'm forced to!"
Bjoernsdottir lost her job in real estate at the end of 2008 as the crisis hammered Iceland's economy. Since then she has picked up temporary teaching work, but that position also disappeared last September.
Analysts expect Iceland's beleaguered economy to stabilise in 2010, but gross domestic product shrank 6.5 percent last year.
Other victims of Iceland's financial woes have ended up with one foot in and the other out of the country.
Svanbjoern Einarsson, a 44-year-old father of three, says he is trapped in the country due to an unsellable house that he does not want to abandon.
Instead, the engineer has chosen to work for six-week stretches in Norway's oil capital Stavanger on the western coast, with occasional one- or two-week breaks home with his family.
"It's very difficult. When I work I forget about it, but in the evening it's very tough," he said.
Long-term, however, he acknowledged his future may be in Norway, not Iceland.
Like many of their countrymen forced into exile, both Bjoernsdottir and Einarsson blame Reykjavik for their country's plight.
"I'm so angry about this government," Bjoernsdottir said.
Iceland's first ever left-wing government came to power last year after the previous right-wing administration collapsed following a wave of protests blaming it for the state of the economy.
But the current government is now under fire over a deal to pay out massive compensation to Britain and the Netherlands for costs incurred following the fall of the online bank Icesave in October 2008.
Iceland has agreed to pay out 3.9 billion euros (5.3 billion dollars) to compensate for money the two countries paid out to 340,000 of their citizens hit by the bank's collapse.
"I had great hopes when the left-wing government was elected, that they would do something against corruption and the abusive loans, but all they do is talk about Icesave," Einarsson said.
In a March 6 referendum, more than 93 percent of Icelandic voters rejected a deal to repay Britain and the Netherlands at a high interest rate. Reykjavik has since said it will try to secure a more favourable agreement.
Bjoernsdottir was among those who voted down the deal -- and says the debacle strengthened her determination to leave Iceland.
"I don't want my daughter to have to pay for this," she said. "I just have such a bad feeling about what's happening here."
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Barack Obama orders killing [assassination] of US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki
Original Post: Telegraph.co
By: Tom Leonard
Barack Obama's administration has authorised the assassination of the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a rare move against an American citizen.
The Yemen-based al-Awlaki has been linked to the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt in December to blow up a Detroit-bound jet by a man wearing explosives in his underpants.
The decision to add him to the US hit list required a National Security Council review because of his citizenship.
Officials said US intelligence had argued that the cleric now posed a direct threat to America, an al-Qaeda recruiter who had graduated from encouraging attacks to active involvement in them.
Al-Awlaki, 38, became famous last year after it emerged he had communicated extensively by email with Major Nidal Hasan, the army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.
The cleric, who allegedly had ties with the 9/11 hijackers, later praised the Fort Hood killings and said Muslims should only serve in the US military if they intended to carry out similar attacks.
He has also been linked to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian student accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound jet last Christmas with explosives in his underwear.
Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico and spent years as an imam in the US before moving to the Yemen, where he is believed to remain in hiding.
Members of the George W Bush administration have said they believe it never approved any American for a targeted killing.
However, officials now argue privately that Americans who side with the country's enemies are not ultimately "entitled to special protections".
In February, Dennis Blair, the director of US national intelligence, confirmed that its security agencies had the authority, having obtained specific permission, to kill American citizens if they posed a direct threat to the United States.
On Tuesday, Jane Harman, the Democrat chairman of the House homeland security subcommittee, said Al-Awlaki was "probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No 1 in terms of threat against us."
My Comments Wow, and there we have it. Barack Obama who's so careful to avoid any aggression or insult to the Muslim world is now utilizing assassination. ASSASSINATION I have to admit I'm shocked. He can't even us harsh language (except against Burma and Isreal) but now he's going to use assassination. I'm going to keep using that word to impress the seriousness of the fact. The U.S. doesn't use assassination, Obama accused Bush of being a torturer and he's going to had a man assassinated.
He hasn't even authorized the assassination of Bin Laden. Surely by now we have him in custody right? Right?
By: Tom Leonard
Barack Obama's administration has authorised the assassination of the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a rare move against an American citizen.
The Yemen-based al-Awlaki has been linked to the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt in December to blow up a Detroit-bound jet by a man wearing explosives in his underpants.
The decision to add him to the US hit list required a National Security Council review because of his citizenship.
Officials said US intelligence had argued that the cleric now posed a direct threat to America, an al-Qaeda recruiter who had graduated from encouraging attacks to active involvement in them.
Al-Awlaki, 38, became famous last year after it emerged he had communicated extensively by email with Major Nidal Hasan, the army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.
The cleric, who allegedly had ties with the 9/11 hijackers, later praised the Fort Hood killings and said Muslims should only serve in the US military if they intended to carry out similar attacks.
He has also been linked to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian student accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound jet last Christmas with explosives in his underwear.
Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico and spent years as an imam in the US before moving to the Yemen, where he is believed to remain in hiding.
Members of the George W Bush administration have said they believe it never approved any American for a targeted killing.
However, officials now argue privately that Americans who side with the country's enemies are not ultimately "entitled to special protections".
In February, Dennis Blair, the director of US national intelligence, confirmed that its security agencies had the authority, having obtained specific permission, to kill American citizens if they posed a direct threat to the United States.
On Tuesday, Jane Harman, the Democrat chairman of the House homeland security subcommittee, said Al-Awlaki was "probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No 1 in terms of threat against us."
My Comments Wow, and there we have it. Barack Obama who's so careful to avoid any aggression or insult to the Muslim world is now utilizing assassination. ASSASSINATION I have to admit I'm shocked. He can't even us harsh language (except against Burma and Isreal) but now he's going to use assassination. I'm going to keep using that word to impress the seriousness of the fact. The U.S. doesn't use assassination, Obama accused Bush of being a torturer and he's going to had a man assassinated.
He hasn't even authorized the assassination of Bin Laden. Surely by now we have him in custody right? Right?
Obama's census-form choice: 'Black'
Original Post: LA Times
By: Oscar Avila
An individual's responses to census questions are confidential, but one of President Obama's answers on the 10-question form adds more fodder to the ongoing conversation about how America sees itself.
After media inquiries, the White House confirmed that Obama checked only the racial box that says: "Black, African Am., or Negro," the Associated Press reported.
Advertisement
Obama could have checked more than one racial box, given that his father was an African from Kenya and his mother was a white woman from Kansas. He could have checked "white" as well, or even "some other race" and written in "multiracial."
Obama's internal struggle over his racial identity was a theme in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father." But it is a struggle faced by other Americans, and it is an element in the country's efforts to come to terms with race relations.
The news quickly made the rounds among not only political commentators but citizens with mixed racial ancestry. Some second-guessed Obama's choice while others said there are no right or wrong answers to that question.
Michelle Hughes, president of the Chicago Biracial Family Network, said she received several e-mails from surprised friends within moments of Obama's decision being made public.
"I think everybody is entitled to self-identify. If he chooses to self-identify as African American, that's his right," she said. "That being said, I think that the multiracial community feels a sense of disappointment that he refuses to identify with us.
"I think his choice will have political, social and cultural ramifications."
Rich Benjamin, the African American author of the book "Searching for Whitopia," chimed in by e-mail to say that Obama's public choice is a vivid example of America's complicated racial dynamics.
"Given our growing racial diversity and intermixed populations, led by a mutt-style President, why bother to consider race at all? Isn't race an anachronism? Not at all," wrote Benjamin, a senior fellow at Demos, a New York think tank.
"Taking our human inventory, including race, allows us to uncover incredibly useful lessons about ourselves as a country."
By: Oscar Avila
An individual's responses to census questions are confidential, but one of President Obama's answers on the 10-question form adds more fodder to the ongoing conversation about how America sees itself.
After media inquiries, the White House confirmed that Obama checked only the racial box that says: "Black, African Am., or Negro," the Associated Press reported.
Advertisement
Obama could have checked more than one racial box, given that his father was an African from Kenya and his mother was a white woman from Kansas. He could have checked "white" as well, or even "some other race" and written in "multiracial."
Obama's internal struggle over his racial identity was a theme in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father." But it is a struggle faced by other Americans, and it is an element in the country's efforts to come to terms with race relations.
The news quickly made the rounds among not only political commentators but citizens with mixed racial ancestry. Some second-guessed Obama's choice while others said there are no right or wrong answers to that question.
Michelle Hughes, president of the Chicago Biracial Family Network, said she received several e-mails from surprised friends within moments of Obama's decision being made public.
"I think everybody is entitled to self-identify. If he chooses to self-identify as African American, that's his right," she said. "That being said, I think that the multiracial community feels a sense of disappointment that he refuses to identify with us.
"I think his choice will have political, social and cultural ramifications."
Rich Benjamin, the African American author of the book "Searching for Whitopia," chimed in by e-mail to say that Obama's public choice is a vivid example of America's complicated racial dynamics.
"Given our growing racial diversity and intermixed populations, led by a mutt-style President, why bother to consider race at all? Isn't race an anachronism? Not at all," wrote Benjamin, a senior fellow at Demos, a New York think tank.
"Taking our human inventory, including race, allows us to uncover incredibly useful lessons about ourselves as a country."
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Che Guevara was a racist terrorist murdering thug
I'm sick of people walking around with his image on his shirt when you know they have no idea who this sick individual really is. You don't see Hitler shirts worn around campuses do you? Yes, that is a fair comparison. Both were narcissistic megalomaniac sociopaths with delusions of grandeur one was just a bit more successful in his pursuits.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Phil Hare (Democrat) doesn't care about the Constitution
Bingo! That sums it up. Phil Hare doesn't care about the Constitution as long as he can do whatever he wants. This is probably the most un-American thing I've ever heard a Representative who's taken an oath to uphold the Constitution say. Including Obama's comments about it's flaws and blind spots.
Salt is a bigger threat than terroris?
I thought Democrats were the party of freedom. I thought Democrats stood up for individual rights. Apparently the American people are so stupid, so unmindful of their own bodies that we need the Government to protect us from salt in restaurants. What about keep your laws off my body?
Sex-change drugs a right, judge says
Original Post: JS Online
By: Bruce Vielmetti
A federal judge has struck down a Wisconsin law that prohibits prison inmates from getting hormone therapy to treat gender identity disorder.
U.S. District Judge Charles N. Clevert Jr., who presided over a civil trial challenging the law in 2007, issued a ruling late Wednesday and declared the statute unconstitutional on several grounds. Clevert's order indicated a longer memorandum decision would follow.
In early 2006, Clevert had issued a preliminary injunction to allow the hormone therapy to continue.
In Wednesday's order, Clevert found that the law amounts to "deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs' serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment," because it denies hormone therapy without regard to those needs or doctors' judgments. He found the law unconstitutional on its face and also in violation of the inmates' rights to equal protection.
"We're very excited about it," said Laurence Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, which represented the three named plaintiffs in the case. Lambda Legal, a national advocacy group, was also part of the plaintiffs' legal team.
"There have been other states with policies similar in ways to this and that were generally struck down or settled, but this was the first one with a statute passed by a legislature," Dupuis said.
Another ACLU attorney on the case, John Knight, called the decision common sense.
"The court's ruling doesn't require inmates to receive hormones or surgery for sex reassignment," Knight said. "It simply means that doctors are the ones who make the decisions about treatment."
He estimated that fewer than a dozen inmates are affected.
State lawmakers passed the Sex Change Prevention Act in 2005 in reaction to the case of a Wisconsin inmate who had been receiving the hormones for years, but sued when the Department of Corrections would not pay for sex-change surgery. Similar challenges were mounted in other states.
Though Clevert's ruling doesn't address surgery, Dupuis said he thinks the ruling supports the principle that any medical care in prisons must be based on medical judgment, which means the surgery would at least be theoretically possible.
But Dupuis said the case has broader implications.
"It's important to transgendered inmates, but also for other people in the system who have conditions that are unpopular and on which politicians might think they could make hay," he said.
State Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin), a co-sponsor of the Sex Change Prevention Act, said he expects Clevert's ruling will be appealed.
"There's no way the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment actually requires that taxpayers fund sex change operations for prisoners," he said.
Rep. Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford), another sponsor of the law, called Clevert's ruling "a travesty of justice" that should be appealed immediately.
"This ruling puts a higher priority on helping inmate Tommy become Tammy than protecting the pocketbooks of law abiding citizens," Suder said.
Bill Cosh, speaking for the Department of Justice, said the agency is reviewing the matter for possible appeal.
By: Bruce Vielmetti
A federal judge has struck down a Wisconsin law that prohibits prison inmates from getting hormone therapy to treat gender identity disorder.
U.S. District Judge Charles N. Clevert Jr., who presided over a civil trial challenging the law in 2007, issued a ruling late Wednesday and declared the statute unconstitutional on several grounds. Clevert's order indicated a longer memorandum decision would follow.
In early 2006, Clevert had issued a preliminary injunction to allow the hormone therapy to continue.
In Wednesday's order, Clevert found that the law amounts to "deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs' serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment," because it denies hormone therapy without regard to those needs or doctors' judgments. He found the law unconstitutional on its face and also in violation of the inmates' rights to equal protection.
"We're very excited about it," said Laurence Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, which represented the three named plaintiffs in the case. Lambda Legal, a national advocacy group, was also part of the plaintiffs' legal team.
"There have been other states with policies similar in ways to this and that were generally struck down or settled, but this was the first one with a statute passed by a legislature," Dupuis said.
Another ACLU attorney on the case, John Knight, called the decision common sense.
"The court's ruling doesn't require inmates to receive hormones or surgery for sex reassignment," Knight said. "It simply means that doctors are the ones who make the decisions about treatment."
He estimated that fewer than a dozen inmates are affected.
State lawmakers passed the Sex Change Prevention Act in 2005 in reaction to the case of a Wisconsin inmate who had been receiving the hormones for years, but sued when the Department of Corrections would not pay for sex-change surgery. Similar challenges were mounted in other states.
Though Clevert's ruling doesn't address surgery, Dupuis said he thinks the ruling supports the principle that any medical care in prisons must be based on medical judgment, which means the surgery would at least be theoretically possible.
But Dupuis said the case has broader implications.
"It's important to transgendered inmates, but also for other people in the system who have conditions that are unpopular and on which politicians might think they could make hay," he said.
State Rep. Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin), a co-sponsor of the Sex Change Prevention Act, said he expects Clevert's ruling will be appealed.
"There's no way the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment actually requires that taxpayers fund sex change operations for prisoners," he said.
Rep. Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford), another sponsor of the law, called Clevert's ruling "a travesty of justice" that should be appealed immediately.
"This ruling puts a higher priority on helping inmate Tommy become Tammy than protecting the pocketbooks of law abiding citizens," Suder said.
Bill Cosh, speaking for the Department of Justice, said the agency is reviewing the matter for possible appeal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)