SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (735662)8/29/2013 11:27:59 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1582684
 
Nothing that happens to Zimmerman will bring back Martin. There is no winning in this situation.



To: i-node who wrote (735662)8/29/2013 11:28:31 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 1582684
 

AP SOURCES: INTELLIGENCE ON WEAPONS NO 'SLAM DUNK'

BY KIMBERLY DOZIER AND MATT APUZZO
ASSOCIATED PRESS

(it was all bullshit)



AP Photo/Uncredited
POLITICS VIDEO
[iframe src="http://embed.newsinc.com/Thumbnail/iframe.html?cid=10204&f=AP&sitesection=ap_us&parent=ndn_sliding_launcher_1&type=slider" height="250" width="300" frameborder="no" scrolling="no" noresize="" marginwidth="0px" marginheight="0px"][/iframe]

[iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/15786418/Hosted1_customer/AP/rectangle_0" name="google_ads_iframe_/15786418/Hosted1_customer/AP/rectangle_0" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" style="border-width: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;"][/iframe]
DOCUMENTS
COMPLAINT AGAINST BEN-AMI KADISH (APRIL 22, 2008)
LATEST INTELLIGENCE NEWS
AP SOURCES: INTELLIGENCE ON WEAPONS NO 'SLAM DUNK' NYPD DESIGNATES MOSQUES AS TERRORISM ORGANIZATIONS

EU OFFICIAL: GREECE MAY GET ANOTHER $13.36 BILLION

EX-EPA OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH STEALING NEARLY $900K

HALF OF US SAYS RACIAL EQUALITY NOT YET A REALITY

GREECE TO DILUTE PROTECTION AGAINST HOME SEIZURES

GREEK BAILOUT TALK RUFFLES GERMAN ELECTION

AP-NORC POLL: RACE, INCOME DIVIDE VIEWS OF SCHOOLS

HOW THE AP-NORC CENTER POLL WAS CONDUCTED

DOCUMENTS
INDICTMENT OF MONZER AL-KASSAR
LATEST SYRIA NEWS
A LOOK AT SYRIA DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE WORLD SYRIA SHOWS DEFIANCE; UN TEAM TOURS NEAR DAMASCUS

A LOOK AT CHEMICAL WEAPONS SYRIA MAY POSSESS

AP INTERVIEW: LEBANON FM WARNS OVER SYRIA STRIKE

IRAN TO WORK WITH RUSSIA TO STOP STRIKE ON SYRIA

BUY AP PHOTO REPRINTS


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture - a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" - intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture. Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides said.

The complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House's full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later. Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, or allies' concerns would affect their plans.

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as U.S. rhetoric builds. That lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2 1/2-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country's chemical weapons supplies, according to one senior U.S. intelligence official and three other U.S. officials briefed on the intelligence shared by the White House as reason to strike Syria's military complex. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the Syrian issue publicly.

U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad's forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.

In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are "undeniable," U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.

Ideally, the White House seeks intelligence that links the attack directly to Assad or someone in his inner circle to rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the military decided to use chemical weapons without Assad's authorization. Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government's control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.

The U.S. has devoted only a few hundred operatives, between intelligence officers and soldiers, to the Syrian mission, with CIA and Pentagon resources already stretched by the counterterrorism missions in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the continuing missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.

The quest for added intelligence to bolster the White House's case for a strike against Assad's military infrastructure was the issue that delayed the release of the U.S. intelligence community's report, which had been expected Tuesday.

The uncertainty calls into question the statements by Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden.

"We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons," Kerry said. "We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place."

On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said it didn't really matter whether the administration knew those details with total certainty.

"We ultimately, of course, hold President Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime against his own people, regardless of where the command and control lies," Harf said.

The CIA, the Pentagon and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Still, many U.S. lawmakers believe there is reasonable certainty Assad's government was responsible and are pressing the White House to go ahead with an armed response.

"Based on available intelligence, there can be no doubt the Assad regime is responsible for using chemical weapons on the Syrian people," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Short of putting troops on the ground, I believe a meaningful military response is appropriate."

Others, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed serious concern with the expected military strike.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday that all the evidence points in one direction.

"There is no evidence that any opposition group in Syria has the capability let alone the desire to launch such a large-scale chemical attack," Hague told British broadcaster Sky News.

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament to debate the issue Thursday.

---

Associated Press writers Bradley Klapper, Julie Pace and Lara Jakes contributed to this report.

---




To: i-node who wrote (735662)8/29/2013 11:38:25 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 1582684
 
Obama is in a political bind after he brushed off Syria with "I have a lot of golf to play, so don't bother me unless..........uh ...syria uses nerve gas" and then 'what the fukk they used nerve gas...oh shit..how can I play golf now...lets see we will fire a shot across the bow in a few days...whew what time is my tee time"

now those few days are up...." well we really don't know who fired it........FORE"

what a fukking leader



To: i-node who wrote (735662)8/29/2013 12:29:27 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1582684
 
Zimmerman's Wife: Marriage Is on the Rocks

GEORGE DIDN'T SHOW UP FOR SHELLIE'S SENTENCING

By Kevin Spak, Newser Staff
newser.com
Posted Aug 29, 2013 10:34 AM CDT

(NEWSER) – George Zimmerman is in the dog house with … well, about half of America, but you can now count wife Shellie among that half. In a wide-ranging interview, Shellie tells an ABC News freelancer that she and George are going through marital problems, and that she's "going to have to think" about whether they'll remain married. She says she felt "very much alone" when George didn't show up for her sentencing yesterday.

Asked if she wanted him there, she replied, "I always want my husband's support." But the problems didn't begin then—Shellie revealed that she and her husband got in a fight the night before he killed Trayvon Martin, a fight serious enough that she'd left home to stay elsewhere. But the trial hasn't helped. "It's difficult to communicate with your spouse when you're under so much scrutiny," she said. Asked if George has a temper, she replied, "Not going to answer that."



To: i-node who wrote (735662)8/29/2013 12:53:52 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1582684
 
The Magical World Where McDonald's Pays $15 an Hour? It's Australia

Even in countries with a high minimum wage, the golden arches manage to turn a profit. Here's how.

Jordan Weissmann
Aug 5 2013, 2:26 PM ET

Last week, fast-food workers around the United States yet again walked off the job to protest their low pay and demand a wage hike to $15 an hour, about double what many of them earn today. In doing so, they added another symbolic chapter to an eight-month-old campaign of one-day strikes that, so far, has yielded lots of news coverage, but not much in terms of tangible results.

So there's a certain irony that in Australia, where the minimum wage for full-time adult workers already comes out to about $14.50 an hour, McDonald's staffers were busy scoring an actual raise. On July 24, the country's Fair Work Commission approved a new labor agreement between the company and its employees guaranteeing them up to a 15 percent pay increase by 2017.

And here's the kicker: Many Australian McDonald's workers were already making more than the minimum to begin with.

The land down under is, of course, not the only high-wage country in the world where McDonald's does lucrative business. The company actually earns more revenue out of Europe than than it does from the United States. France, with its roughly $12.00 hourly minimum, has more than 1,200 locations. (Australia has about 900).

So how exactly do McDonald's and other chains manage to turn a profit abroad while paying an hourly wage their American workers can only fantasize about while picketing? Part of the answer, as you might expect, boils down to higher prices. Academic estimates have suggested that, worldwide, worker pay accounts for at least 45 percent of a Big Mac's cost. In the United States, industry analysts tend to peg the figure a bit lower -- labor might make up anywhere from about a quarter of all expenses at your average franchise to about a third.* But generally speaking, in countries where pay is higher, so is the cost of two all beef patties, as shown in the chart below by Princeton economist Orley Ashenfelter. Note Western Europe way up there in the upper-right hand corner, with its high McWages and high Big Mac prices.



That said, not every extra dollar of worker compensation seems to get passed onto the consumer. Again, take Australia. According to the The Economist, Aussies have paid anywhere from 6 cents to 70 cents extra for their Big Macs compared to Americans over the past two years, a 1 percent to 17 percent premium. If you were to simply double the cost of labor at your average U.S. Mickey D's and tack it onto the price of a sandwich, you'd expect customers to be paying at least a dollar more.

Why don't they?

To start, some Australians actually make less than the adult minimum wage. The country allows lower pay for teenagers, and the labor deal McDonald's struck with its employees currently pays 16-year-olds roughly US$8-an-hour, not altogether different from what they'd make in the states. In an email, Greg Bamber, a professor at Australia's Monash University who has studied labor relations in the country's fast food industry, told me that as a result, McDonald's relies heavily on young workers in Australia. It's a specific quirk of the country's wage system. But it goes to show that even in generally high-pay countries, restaurants try to save on labor where they can.

It's also possible that McDonald's keeps its prices down overseas by squeezing more productivity out of its workers. Researchers studying the impact of minimum wage increases on American fast food chains in the Deep South have foundthat while restaurants mostly cope by their raising prices, they also respond by handing their employees more responsibility. It stands to reason that in places like Europe and Australia, managers have found ways to get more mileage out of their staff as well.

Or if not, they've at least managed to replace a few of them with computers. As Michael Schaefer, an analyst with Euromonitor International, told me, fast food franchises in Europe have been some of the earliest adopters of touchscreen kiosks that let customers order without a cashier. As always, the peril of making employees more expensive is that machines become cheaper in comparison.

Finally, McDonald's has also helped its bottom line abroad by experimenting with higher margin menu items while trying to court more affluent customers. Way back in 1993, for instance, Australia became home to the first McCafe coffee shops, which sell highly profitable espresso drinks. During the last decade, meanwhile, the company gave its European restaurants a designer make-over and began offering more localized menus meant to draw a higher spending crowd.

So if President Obama waved a magic wand tomorrow and raised the minimum wage to $10 or $15, does this all mean that U.S. fast food chains would be able to cope? "Were that to happen overnight, it would be a hugely traumatic process," Schaefer told me. After all, virtually every fast food franchise in the country would have to rethink its business model as their profits evaporated. But as the international market shows, the models are out there. It would certainly mean more expensive burgers. It would almost definitely mean fewer workers, as restaurants found ways to streamline their staffs, either through better management or technology. And it might mean fewer chains catering to the bottom of the market.

But in some people's eyes, it might also be worth it.

___________________________
*Ron I'm Not Him Paul, president of the food industry consulting firm Technomic, told me that as a rule of thumb fast food franchises assume labor will make up 30-to-35 percent of their expenses. As Columbia Journalism Review's Ryan Chittum noted last week, McDonald' s reports that worker pay makes up about 30 percent of expenses at its corporate-owned restaurants. He also dug up a handy chart from Janney Capital Markets, which estimates that labor makes up 26 percent of all expenses for an average McDonald's franchisee.

theatlantic.com