Where’s Eddie?

The Edward Snowden affair continues to attract headlines. And now Where’s Eddie? cartoons and photoshops. Here’s one from the Guardian:

wheres-eddie

It’s all getting to be just like an old Cold War spat. Snowden is still in the transit lounge of Sheremetyevo airport. Putin has confirmed the fact, and taken a  swipe at the US government.

Putin appeared to lash out at US accusations that the Kremlin was harbouring a fugitive. “Any accusations against Russia are nonsense and rubbish,” Putin said.

Putin also appeared to throw his support behind Snowden as well as the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, currently holed up at Ecuador’s embassy in London.

“Assange and Snowden consider themselves human rights activists and say they are fighting for the spread of information,” Putin said. “Ask yourself this: should you hand these people over so they will be put in prison?

The Chinese did much the same.

The Chinese government has said it was gravely concerned by Snowden’s allegations that the US had hacked into many networks in Hong Kong and China, including Tsinghua University, which hosts one of the country’s internet hubs, and Chinese mobile network companies. It said it had taken the issue up with Washington.

“Not only did the US authorities not give us an explanation and apology, it instead expressed dissatisfaction at the Hong Kong special administrative region for handling things in accordance with law,” wrote Wang Xinjun, a researcher at the Academy of Military Science in the People’s Daily commentary.

“In a sense, the United States has gone from a ‘model of human rights’ to ‘an eavesdropper on personal privacy’, the ‘manipulator’ of the centralised power over the international internet, and the mad ‘invader’ of other countries’ networks,” the People’s Daily said.

The reason for the Hong Kong authorities dismissal of US extradition application has emerged. It’s more or less as I suggested.

Yuen said that Hong Kong immigration records, the documents the U.S. Justice Department provided on Snowden’s charges and U.S. correspondence showed Snowden’s middle name differently — variously James, Joseph and just the initial J — and that the U.S. did not provide his passport number, which might have helped clarify his identity.

And ZeroHedge is wondering, as I did, that the Russians may want to “debrief” Snowden:

If Obama thought dealing with Putin was next to impossible when Snowden was merely hiding in the no man’s land of the Sheremetyevo transit zone (see “U.S. steps up pressure on Russia as Snowden stays free”) he is about to really lose his grip now that the former KGB spy appears set to “debrief” the very much current NSA whistleblower, and in the process learn as much as possible about US secret spy operations on whose receiving end, for countless years, has been none other than Putin’s Russia. Pushkin poetic justice.

As Interfax reports: “Russian law enforcement authorities may detain former CIA employee Edward Snowden to establish the circumstances of his arrival in Russia, including passport details.” In other words, Russia is now willing and eager to “force” Snowden to make a faux pas just so it has every reason to end up with the 30 year old in a dark, sound proof room. And just like that Obama’s headaches are set to become much, much worse.

American readers are probably rather more clued up than I am about the affair’s impact in the USA, but there seem be harsh words flying around.

Republican senator Rand Paul attacked national intelligence director James Clapper, who earlier this month admitted to giving the “least untruthful” answer to Congress when asked about the extent of US surveillance of American citizens.

Paul told CNN: “I think it is still going to be an open question with history about how this young man is judged. I do think when history looks at this they are going to contrast the behaviour of James Clapper, our national intelligence director, with Edward Snowden. Mr Clapper lied in Congress in defiance of the law in the name of security. Mr Snowden told the truth in the name of privacy.” He said both had broken the law.

On Saturday House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi was booed by a crowd during a speech at activist meeting Netroots Nation when she said Snowden had broken the law.

Pelosi was heckled as she spoke about the need to balance privacy and security. One man yelled: “It’s not a balance, it makes us less safe.” Another shouted: “You suck!”

Nancy Pelosi is one US politician that I’ve taken note of in recent years, because she’s a San Francisco antismoker, as comments have told me here, here, here, and here. So I was interested to read more in another ZeroHedge post today.

You know it’s bad for the establishment when Nancy Pelosi gets booed and heckled by her own supporters at a progressive gathering in her home state of California.  It seems the actions of the criminals in control of these United States finally have become so absurd that the apathetic citizenry is being shaken from its long slumber.  While the process may be frustratingly slow for many of us, things are moving in the right direction at the grassroots level and the zeitgeist of the nation is changing for the better.  Once again, we must be eternally grateful for the courageous actions of Edward Snowden, as his disclosures have forced us all to honestly pick a side between freedom and fascism.  From the Associated Press:

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has disappointed some of her liberal base with her defense of the Obama administration’s classified surveillance of U.S. residents’ phone and Internet records.

Some of the activists attending the annual Netroots Nation political conference Saturday booed and interrupted the San Francisco Democrat when she commented on the surveillance programs carried out by the National Security Agency and revealed by a former contractor, Edward Snowden.

As she was attempting to argue that Obama’s approach to citizen surveillance was an improvement over the policies under President George W. Bush, an activist, identified by the Mercury News as Mac Perkel of Gilroy, stood up and tried loudly to question her, prompting security guards to escort him out of the convention hall.

“Leave him alone!” audience members shouted. Others yelled “Secrets and lies!,” ”No secret courts!” and “Protect the First Amendment!,” according to the Mercury News.

“We’re listening to our progressive leaders who are supposed to be on our side of the team saying it’s OK for us to get targeted” for online surveillance, said Jana Thrift of Eugene, Ore. “It’s crazy. I don’t know who Nancy Pelosi really is.”

Maybe a few of these ‘progressives’ are beginning to realise that their representatives are perhaps not quite as progressive as they thought they were. Perhaps that’s also why the Obama administration is so angry. Angry enough to get Hillary Clinton to condemn Snowden and the Chinese.

Anyway, I’m puzzled that nobody has seen Edward Snowden. There must be plenty of people passing through the transit lounge who would have seen him. Or do transit lounges have private rooms where people can stay? Or he may not be there at all. He may be going to stay in Russia.

Anyway, here’s another Where’s Eddie? cartoon, sent to me by roobeedoo. It’s from the Times, I think:

130962690__425206b

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Where’s Eddie?

  1. margo says:

    Nice, I like it. Go, Eddie, go! Tell everybody everyone’s secrets, why not.

  2. magnetic01 says:

    From Harley’s comment, previous thread:

    Parents warned they could face court for lighting up at home in front of kids
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4980962/Parents-warned-they-could-face-court-for-lighting-up-at-home-in-front-of-kids.html

    “In 1904, for example, a New York judge ordered a woman to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.”
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981129&slug=2786034

  3. magnetic01 says:

    From a Harley comment, previous thread:

    Parents warned they could face court for lighting up at home in front of kids
    http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4980962/Parents-warned-they-could-face-court-for-lighting-up-at-home-in-front-of-kids.html

    “In 1904, for example, a New York judge ordered a woman to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.”
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981129&slug=2786034

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      LOL Mag! Aint it sweet 100 years later……………….

    • beobrigitte says:

      A South Ayrshire Council spokeswoman said their “priorities are the care, safety and well-being” of kids.

      The Judicial Office for Scotland said the proceedings were held in private.

      Last month Lib Dem MSP Jim Hume launched plans to make it illegal for people to puff in cars with kids.

      Care, safety and well-being of kids is the priority of every parent. When the persecution of smokers comes to an end, this is something to discuss.

      As for the Lib Dems, they are on their way out. No voter here.

      It’s drastic… but tots are at risk

      myView by CAROL COOPER, Scottish Sun Doctor

      IT sounds a bit drastic to take a mum to court for smoking in front of her kids and one might expect the legal system to show more common sense here.

      But parents need common sense too and should put children’s needs before their own selfish habits.

      Second-hand smoke harms the delicate lining of a child’s airways and raises the risk of a huge number of conditions including cot death, asthma, pneumonia, ear infections and deafness.

      It’s even linked with life-threatening infections like meningitis and septicaemia

      Not a very good doctor! Does not appear to have paid attention to her lectures.

      Common sense dictates that it is high time to put an end to tobacco control nonsense.

      Th BBC is lamenting further cuts this government is planning to make. Perhaps common sense dictates (eventually) that this money drain of ASH et al are detrimental to the well being of any population. Slash the funding for these first!!!

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    HOW TO MAKE SYMBOLS WITH KEYBOARD

    Alt + 0153….. ™… trademark symbol
    Alt + 0169…. ©…. copyright symbol
    Alt + 0174….. ®….registered ­ trademark symbol
    Alt + 0176 …°……degree symbol
    Alt + 0177 …±….plus-or ­-minus sign
    Alt + 0182 …¶…..paragr­aph mark
    Alt + 0190 …¾….fractio­n, three-fourths
    Alt + 0215 ….×…..multi­plication sign
    Alt + 0162…¢….the ­ cent sign
    Alt + 0161…..¡….. ­.upside down exclamation point
    Alt + 0191…..¿….. ­upside down question mark
    Alt + 1…….☺….smiley face
    Alt + 2 ……☻…..black smiley face
    Alt + 15…..☼…..sun
    Alt + 12……♀…..female sign
    Alt + 11…..♂……m­ale sign
    Alt + 6…….♠…..spade
    Alt + 5…….♣…… ­Club
    Alt + 3…….♥…… ­Heart
    Alt + 4…….♦…… ­Diamond
    Alt + 13……♪…..e­ighth note
    Alt + 14……♫…… ­beamed eighth note
    Alt + 8721…. ∑…. N-ary summation (auto sum)
    Alt + 251…..√…..square root check mark
    Alt + 8236…..∞….. ­infinity
    Alt + 24…….↑….. ­up arrow
    Alt + 25……↓…… ­down arrow
    Alt + 26…..→…..r­ght arrow
    Alt + 27……←…..l­eft arrow
    Alt + 18…..↕……u­p/down arrow
    Alt + 29……↔…lef­t right arrow

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    ♠ It works!

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    You never know where you will find an ally!

    Smoking bans kill freedom (Scott Beaulier)
    Down here in Troy, city officials have been pushing forward with a city-wide “Smoke Free Air Ordinance of 2013.” The stated rationale is to make Troy a healthier city, but there’s a more hidden motive lurking behind the scenes: Some city council members don’t like the idea of hookah bars coming to Troy, and a smoking ban can stomp out the hookahs once and for all.

    The ban here in Troy, and elsewhere, is bad public policy, and, I’m writing as someone who hates smoking and often walks out of restaurants and bars at the first whiff of smoke.

    The bans are bad policy because they substitute the blunt instrument of regulation in a setting where the market can do just fine at sorting different options for consumers: Restaurants wanting to cater to smokers should be allowed to exist right alongside restaurants wanting to be smoke free (and restaurants wanting to have a mix of smoking/non-smoking).

    The bans eliminate a certain amount of dynamism and economic freedom from cities, and they also lead to a lot of frustration for businesses who have adapted to the current “rules of the game.” In Troy, for example, some restaurants have installed expensive fans and added walls to separate smoking sections from non-smoking. Such investments, while sunk, are not cheap; yet, the restaurant’s attempt to address consumer desires and differentiate their restaurant from others will be all for naught if our ban goes through. What a waste! If the benefits to restaurant owners and consumers are large enough from eliminating smoking, they will have a strong profit incentive to follow through and eliminate smoking voluntarily.

    In addition to being wasteful, a number of academic studies have pointed out the silliness of bans. While many people, for example, worry about the second-hand smoke effects on bartenders from serving in smoking restaurants, labor economists have also found bartenders in smoky restaurants are better paid. In other words, they receive a compensating wage differential for taking on the added risks and costs of serving smokers!

    Bans also have resulted in some serious unintended, undesirable effects. Back in 2008, economists Scott Adams and Chad Cotti looked at the variation in smoke-free bar laws across the US, and they found an increase in alcohol related traffic fatalities following smoking bans. Why would smoking bans cause traffic fatalities? Adams and Cotti provide two explanations: (1) Smokers drive longer distances to bordering jurisdictions where smoking is allowed in bars; and (2) smokers driving longer distances within their jurisdiction to bars where smoking is still allowed through outdoor seating or some other non-compliance.

    There’s a large literature on the costs drunk drivers impose on society per mile driven. Smoking bans increase the miles driven by drunk drivers, and they, therefore, impose a significant indirect cost on the rest of us.

    Smoking bans contribute to increased fires. The counterintuitive result, which was discovered by Emory University economist, Sara Markowtiz, can be explained as follows: “Even when bans are effective in reducing smoking, if the reduction is mostly among the safe smokers and the remaining smokers act more carelessly, then we could easily see an increase in fires.” Smokers going outside to smoke and being careless with their cigarettes would be an example; others staying home, lighting up in their houses, and burning their couches would be another.

    Beyond the unintended consequence discussed above, there’s a more fundamental reason to be against smoking bans: The bans are an attack on freedom, and embracing freedom means tolerating decisions and production we sometimes don’t like. For me, putting freedom first means I have to live in a society where the Kardashians are part of most news broadcasts and where my grocery store is filled with many unhealthy items I’d never buy. And, as a nonsmoker, my commitment to freedom also means I have to put up with some restaurants–places I choose not to eat or drink in–still allowing smoking. Just as I’d hate for someone to come along and force the nonsmoking restaurants I visit to mandate smoking, as a believer in freedom I’m not comfortable with the obverse scenario either.

    Freedom is the ideal, and somehow in cases involving health and safety, the principle of freedom gets cast aside in favor of doing something. The losers of these actions aren’t just the smokers–it’s all of us who want a little more diversity and richness in society.

    Scott Beaulier is Chair of the Economics and Finance Division and Director of the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University. Email Scott at sbeaulier@troy.edu. Follow the Johnson Center on Facebook and Twitter (@Johnson_Center)
    http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2013/06/post_60.html

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Australias head nazi has been deposed

    Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard ousted in party vote

    CANBERRA, Australia – Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been ousted as Labor Party leader by her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, in vote of party lawmakers hoping to avoid a huge defeat in upcoming elections.

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canadian+Press+News+Alert+Australian+Julia+Gillard+ousted/8580364/story.html

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      CANBERRA, Australia – Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been ousted as Labor Party leader by her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, in vote of party lawmakers hoping to avoid a huge defeat in upcoming elections.

      The ballot took place on Wednesday three years and two days after Gillard ousted Rudd in a similar internal government showdown.

      It makes him leader of the party, but not prime minister.

      Party official Chris Hayes says Gillard lost 57 votes to 45.

      Rudd will likely have to demonstrate that he can command a majority of lawmakers in the House of Representatives before the governor-general makes him prime minister.

      If he cannot, opposition leader Tony Abbott could be asked to form a government or the elections could be moved up from September to August.

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Some anti-cigarette ads can trigger desire to smoke: Study

    A new study finds that some anti-cigarette messages in public service announcements have an unintended result: They trigger viewers’ desire to smoke.

    The findings were published in the most recent issue of Media Psychology.

    Certain “scenes portraying smoking objects or behaviors can be helpful by making antismoking PSAs more relevant and engaging the target audience,” write the study’s authors, Sungkyoung Lee, Ph.D., and Joseph N. Cappella, Ph.D., of the Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

    “However, inclusion of such images can [sometimes] distract viewers from processing audio and non-cue visuals, which are often the most important content audiences need to take away.”

    The key, the authors write, is whether the anti-smoking message is powerful enough to capture the viewer’s attention. In such cases, the images of smokers will reinforce the notion that cigarettes are harmful. But when the anti-smoking message is “weak,” these images can have the opposite effect.

    For instance, a PSA released in March 2012 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that showed a former smoker adjusting to life with a tracheotomy was one of the most powerful television ads that year. Another memorable series of PSAs was released by the Canadian government in March, which compared smoking with “public farting.”

    “Such PSAs have shown to be effective in influencing the target audience’s awareness, knowledge and beliefs relating to smoking behavior, which in turn increase antismoking intention and behavior change,” write the study’s authors.

    In weaker PSAs, the visual “cues” of individuals smoking will override the viewer’s ability to “encode and remember antismoking arguments,” they add, as such cues play a pivotal role in the relapse behaviors of former substance abusers.

    Or, as Adweek puts it, the wrong kind of anti-drug ad will “make you want to take drugs.”

    The creative minds behind anti-smoking ads know that visual cues are key. The variable in the equation is just making sure that the message is strong enough to outweigh the potential trigger for a craving. The risk vs. reward scenario is said to be similar to using a joke or memorable sexy image to sell an unrelated product, like a car or clothing. If the joke is too good, people will remember only the funny ad, not what the company is trying to sell.

    “In theory, the core content of a message can be placed in either the audio or video channel, or both,” Lee and Cappella write in their study’s conclusion. “Our findings suggest that the audio channel is an efficient modality for delivering the core arguments of a message, especially when the arguments are strong.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/many-anticigarette-ads-actually-trigger-desire-smoke-study-210054610.html

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    alt + 29 ↔ hold down the alt and then hit the plus sign then 29 then release the alt and it will appear

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    slow day I cant find a fight ANYWHERE!

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.