Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (213)	9/7/2006 12:00:08 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

How about a McHummer with your happy meal? ronaldmchummer.com

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (213)	9/7/2006 12:36:41 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Need help reading, Sidney? I made an exception for SOLAR. BUT have you ever thought about how much TOXIC WASTE is generated making those solar cells? Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. BTW, there IS no possibility of shortage of silicon. SAND is silicon dioxide. Most rocks contain large amounts of silicon compounds. ISOLATING the silicon in a pure form, then doping it properly is trickier and more expensive and where all that toxic waste is generated. In the Earth's crust The order of abundance is oxygen (almost 50%), silicon (over 20%), aluminium, iron, magnesium, calcium, sodium, potassium. These are all the sorts of elements that rocks are mostly made out of. In the Earth as a whole Because of the core and the mantle, iron, nickel, and magnesium, become more important, but oxygen silicon, aluminium et al remain major overall constituents madsci.org

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (213)	9/7/2006 6:25:53 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Fugitives extradited to USA from Mexico Press Releases 06 Recent Extradition And Arrest Of Two “Top-Ten” Fugitives Proves Importance Of U.S.-Mexico Law Enforcement Cooperation Statement by Ambassador Antonio O. Garza, Jr. Mexico City, “Working together, Mexican and U.S. law enforcement authorities this week are bringing to justice two criminals who have appeared on U.S. ‘Ten Most Wanted’ lists. Today, authorities are extraditing Ruben Hernandez Martinez to the United States from Mexico. Hernandez Martinez is an exceptionally dangerous criminal who fled the United States to Mexico, and will now account for the heinous crimes he allegedly committed against the people of Tennessee. Mexican authorities arrested Hernandez Martinez in May 2002, and prosecuted him on weapons charges. He is wanted in the United States on charges connected to a series of home invasions, sexual assaults, and burglaries that occurred between 1997 and 1998 in Nashville, Tennessee. He unsuccessfully appealed the Mexican government decision to extradite him. He has appeared on the FBI’s “Top 10 Most Wanted” list of dangerous fugitives and was also profiled twice on the popular television show “America’s Most Wanted.” Pedro Castorena, arrested Saturday in Guadalajara, is a Top-Ten fugitive wanted by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE). A federal grand jury in Denver, Colorado, indicted Castorena in July 2005 on charges of conspiracy, fraud, misuse of visas, and money laundering. He was carrying two fake Mexican identity documents when Mexican police in Guadalajara arrested him. The United States will request the extradition of Castorena, who will have to defend himself against charges that he assisted known criminals in obtaining false identification documents and that he defrauded thousands of unsuspecting migrants, whose otherwise good faith efforts to travel or emigrate to the United States have been rendered difficult or impossible to achieve, due to the use of phony visas, passports, and similar documents. The Mexican government has extradited or deported 53 fugitives to the United States this year, and more will follow in the months ahead. This successful cooperation between our two governments again demonstrates how together we will work relentlessly to hold fugitives accountable for their crimes.” mexico.usembassy.gov

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (213)	10/13/2006 3:17:24 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

LONDON - Is Tony Blair losing control? His army chief's brazen declaration that British troops should soon leave Iraq is the latest evidence that the once-formidable prime minister — who rode out a fierce party rebellion just last month — may be rapidly losing his political clout. The catalyst is clearly the Iraq war, which is seen across Britain as a tragic mistake. But Blair's influence also has suffered because of his close ties to President Bush, who is deeply unpopular in Britain, and in recent months over his support of Bush's stand that Israel should not be forced into a premature cease-fire in Lebanon. Blair struggled Friday to stamp out the furor following Gen. Richard Dannatt's statement that the presence of British troops is provoking violence in Iraq, not preventing it. The opposition Conservative party — which has branded Blair a lame duck leader since he announced last month that he would resign within a year — said the army chief's comments were further proof that the Labour leader's authority was waning. Dannatt later tried to tone down his remarks — saying he wanted a gradual pullout over the next few years — but he did not back away from them entirely. And it was too late to quell the debate set off by comments that not long ago would have seemed almost inconceivable. "The general is just saying what millions of people in this country know to be true from simply reading the papers and watching the news," said John Rees, a co-founder of the Stop the War Coalition. "He better than anybody knows that the British army isn't in a position to sustain this," Rees said. "It's chaos in Iraq." Dannatt gave a series of interviews Friday and issued a statement clarifying the remarks he originally made to the Daily Mail newspaper, which were dominating the British media. "The mere fact that we are still in some places (in Iraq) exacerbates violence from those who want to destabilize Iraqi democracy," his statement said. "But that is not a reason for us to leave. I am on record publicly saying we're standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Americans," he said. "I'm a soldier — we don't do surrender, we don't pull down white flags. We will remain in southern Iraq until the job is done. We're going to see this through." Blair, in Scotland brokering talks between Northern Ireland's Catholic and Protestant political parties, said the Daily Mail had twisted Dannatt's words and taken them out of context. The prime minister said he agreed with what he saw as the general's real message — that British troops should leave areas of Iraq as soon as local forces were able to take over security, and would be unwelcome if they stayed beyond that time. British troops have so far left two provinces in the country's south. "What he is saying about wanting British forces out of Iraq is precisely the same as we're all saying," Blair told reporters. "Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq — when the job is done." Liam Fox, defense spokesman for the opposition Conservative Party — whose recent surge in the polls has made it a real threat to Blair's Labour Party — said the government should be as candid as Dannatt was about Iraq. "What is surprising is the timing and outspoken nature of the (Dannatt) interview, which occurs at a time when the prime minister's authority seems to be ebbing away," the Tory said in a statement. The Daily Mail, which released its interview on its Web site Thursday night, quoted Dannatt as saying that while Iraqis might have welcomed coalition forces following the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the good will has since evaporated. The British military should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems," he reportedly said. British and American planning for postwar Iraq was poor, he added — "probably based more on optimism than sound planning." The criticism follows months of political trouble for Blair, whose government has been damaged by a war that was unpopular from the beginning and has grown more so as the violence grinds on. A rebellion in the Labour Party trying to oust Blair forced his reluctant announcement last month that he will resign within a year. Former Home Secretary David Blunkett also claimed in memoirs excerpted this week that Treasury chief Gordon Brown — who seems likely to take over the party, and the government, when Blair steps down — privately opposed the war until shortly before it began, when he decided to back Blair.