Free Republic

My wife and I went through exactly the same, almost 10 years ago. Quite a few medical offices are STRONGLY biased in favor of abortion for indications of Downs.

We had the same error in test results too, and I think a DELIBERATE mistake as to the date of pregnancy, which gives a false positive on AFP test. The doctors told us we were wrong about the date of pregnancy - they insisted we were wrong. And we knew for a fact that we were not.

We told 'em to stuff it - the extra tests, the attitude, and the business. We fired the doctor. We hired a midwife - had the baby at the Catholic hospital.

Sure. Why not? The test isn't "consistency," is it?
Pathetic (but entertaining) performance all around.

http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole1.htm
http://www.cargolaw.com/2000nightmare_cole.html

Aden, Yemen is where the Cole was attacked.

This one is fun too: http://varifrank.com/archives/2006/02/thank_you_for_f_1.php

So, let me get this straight - While the entire US political-wonk class is frothing out the mouth over the sale of "port dock concessions to the United Arab Emirates" in a fashion I havent seen since the great "Flouride Wars of the 1950's", it turns out that "Emirates Air" and its subsidiary "Emirates Sky Cargo" has Passenger and Cargo Terminal Space at JFK.

I think it's the annual budget process.

By Richard Cowan - Reuters
Thursday, March 9, 2006; 5:47 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate Budget Committee narrowly approved a fiscal 2007 budget plan on Thursday that would substantially hike defense funding and provoke another confrontation over whether to open a protected area of Alaska to oil and gas drilling.

On a partisan 11-10 vote, the committee sent the budget to the Senate floor, where debate could begin on Monday. The budget blueprint is nonbinding but it does shape congressional spending decisions.

Senators craft FY07 budget with big defense tab

Some vague background at ...

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/Reconciliationfacts.htm
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic

Should be more than a few good battles in all that. ANWR, and something referred to as "paygo," which I take as a euphamism for raising taxes - because Congress is incapable of killing or significantly reducing any programs.

Yup. In between, Lugar brought up and passed on a voice vote H.R.1053, dealing with trade with the Ukraine. S.632 on the same subject was postponed indefinitely.

McConnell passed S.Res. 396 and S.Res. 397, and advised that the first vote next week will be at 5:30 PM on Monday, Nomination at Calendar No. 520, Leo Maury Gordon to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade.

Seems the ethics and lobbying bill just died on the vine. It's hanging out there just like the asbestos bill is - failed cloture, and can't get UC to proceed to vote on the matter.

I missed the number of the budget bill, but that will be the subject on Monday. There are a few Senate bills that include the word "Budget," including the line item veto bill. Not to say that what the Senate plans to take up on Monday is a Senate bill - just as likely it is a House bill.

McConnel also noted a need to raise the debt ceiling soon, and that there would be a number of late nights next week, before the Senate takes off for its March recess.

Yup. I saw that shortly after it was posted.

So my statement, to which you seemed to take issue, that Rush made a mistake in announcing the Dubai was divesting itself of all holdings in this country was indeed a goof on his part.

I already conceded that my comment to you was based on Limbaugh's replay of Warner, and no more.

If you consider pointing out Rush's mistake was legal parsing, you've taken legal parsing to an entirely new level.

Bye.

I was listening when he played Warner's speech verbatim. I mentally tuned out after that.

If he admitted making a mistake, it's a safe bet that he made a mistake. I'd be nuts to argue with that.

He made it sound like Dubai was divesting itself of all American investments. And you do know that's not true or correct, right?

No, I don't know what the details of their present and proposed interests are. And in your last (post 534), you didn't use the general "Dubai," which constitutes a nation state, you used the more specific term, "Dubai Ports." Those are two different inquiries.

Anyway, in either case, I don't know the extent or location of their ownership or management interests that touch "in" the US. I assume that the nation state has numerous interests, including a port at JFK in New York, and that DPW has none, other than perhaps equity or bond ownership.

OTOH, now that I think of it, DPW may have equity interests in any number of crane, stevedoring, real estate, or other matters that are physically located in the US.

I dunno. I figured being "Ports World" that their expertise and interests relate to ports.

Ahem. Rush announced that Dubai Ports was divesting itself of all their investments in America. I don't think that's what Warner read, is it?

Oh. I didn't realize you had already reached the point of legal parsing. In that case, I am sure you are right - the two statments -- Limbaugh's and Bilkey's (read by Warner) -- are not identical.

It'd be interesting to read the transcripts of both to show the differences, but I think at the level of general discussion, a detailed review is premature.

Actually, I was doubled up so far in deep belly laughter that I plum lost sight of apprising the world of that fact!

"Moot" - but yes, it is. It didn't deserve the level of urgency it got, at any rate. Excitement breeds mistakes.

Frist is reluctant to bring up ethics and lobbying today, because the DEMs are bound and determined to use the opportunity to bring up the ports deal. Action in IRAN is still some time distant. The administration hasn't been making the sorts of noises it was in the year prior to taking on Iraq.

He's lost control of the process. As long as Schumer and the DEMs insist on controlling the order of business by offering port amendments in whatever bill is up creates an unmanageable situation.

No cloture. Well, maybe that was the plan all along, need an excuse to not complete ethics and lobbying reform ;-)

I think it turns a profit. My point was that no US Company will buy it unless they think THEY can turn a profit at it.

Business 101.

Just by way of example, 100% of companies in Mexico MUST be Mexican owned and controlled. No problem for US companies to establish operations there that return profits to the US Corporation.

A possibility, or a number of regional or local LLCs.

You honestly think Halliburton or some other company would buy this operation if it was not a profit center?

As a matter of fact, yes - except Chapt. S is not a good choice ;-)

Limbaugh just played Warner's reading of the DPW press release, and it sounds as though DPW will have a hand in setting up a business structure of some sort. I don't see the interests being "sold" lock stock and barrel to some "American company" that already exists.

He just replayed Warner's statement, WORD FOR WORD. He can't make a mistake doing that.