Mike M.:

YY. Why did you switch from choo-choos?

I will not be railroaded into a response.

Foreign Policy: The Top Ten Stories You Missed in 2006:

United States Funds the Taliban

The Taliban’s resurgence brought the ongoing war in Afghanistan back onto the front pages in 2006. From record opium production to suicide bombings, the outlook has only grown dimmer in the past 12 months. What you probably didn’t hear is that some of the money the United States is spending to combat theresurgence of the Taliban is winding up in the hands of . . . the Taliban.

As recently as November, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting revealed that villagers in Afghanistan’s war-torn south were handing over U.S. cash meant for reconstruction projects to Taliban fighters, who then use the money to purchase weapons, cell phones, and explosives. As part of an effort to stimulate economic development in the country, the United States had committed $43.5 million for reconstruction as of September. One Canadian officer charged with helping to distribute cash said that “millions” has already gone missing in the five years since coalition troops arrived. Why? According to the report, local mullahs have urged residents to fight the foreign occupation and hand over the money in the hopes of gaining back the security they’ve lost. Others say it’s simple extortion from Taliban thugs. Either way, the United States may inadvertently be aiding the enemy in a fight that will almost certainly become more costly in the year ahead.

Crooks and Liars » 2006 » December » 15

Talk Left: In July he said: So I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of the next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home.

Lieberman, visiting Iraq today with Republicans McCain, Graham and Collins, reportedly said today: “We need more, not less, troops,” Lieberman said. There really is no less principled person in politics today than Joe Lieberman.

powered by performancing firefox

Poynter Online – Romenesko:

LAT started describing Iraq situation as “civil war” last month
Los Angeles Times
NBC is the first television network to officially adopt the term “civil war,” while the Los Angeles Times was the first major news outlet to formally adopt the description when it began to refer to the hostilities as a civil war in October — “without public fanfare,” the paper notes. Times foreign editor Marjorie Miller says: “For some time now we believe it has been a fairly simple call: Inside one country you have different armed groups fighting with each other. That is the definition of a civil war.”
/> NYT will use “civil war,” but “sparingly and carefully,” says Keller (BG)
/> J-prof: NBC move “a defining and negative moment” in Iraq war (USAT)
/> Washington Post doesn’t have a policy on “civil war,” says Downie (E&P)
Posted at 8:25:00 AM

Why McDonald’s Isn’t Free of Trans Fat:

Why McDonald’s Isn’t Free of Trans Fat
Public opinion is swinging against the use of the artery-clogging fat. But it’s hard for some companies to give up the habit

by Pallavi Gogoi

On Dec. 5, New York City’s Board of Health voted to ban the use of artery-clogging trans fats at restaurants, a major victory for health activists who have been fighting for healthier foods. Restaurants will have to stop using frying oils with trans fats by July, 2007, and eliminate trans fats from all foods by July, 2008. “New Yorkers overwhelmingly favor action to get artificial trans fat out of their restaurants,” says Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Frieden.

Companies such as McDonald’s (MCD) are expected to comply with the city’s vote by converting their restaurants in New York. The fast-food giant already has demonstrated that it can eliminate trans fats when required. In Denmark, the company switched the oil it uses to make French fries to one that doesn’t have any trans fat. And just last month, the food giant vowed to use the healthier oil in 6,300 other restaurants in Europe.

CNN.com – Transcripts:

Let’s turn to our senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield — Jeff.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: Wolf, the political community has gone predictably hysterical over Senator Barack Obama’s presidential flirtation.

So, in the spirit of retched excess, let’s take a look not at what he’s saying, but at another crucially vital matter: what he is wearing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GREENFIELD (voice-over): The senator was in New Hampshire over the weekend, sporting what’s getting to be the classic Obama look. Call it business casual, a jacket, a collared shirt, but no tie.

It is a look the senator seems to favor. And why not? It is dressy enough to suggest seriousness of purpose, but without the stuffiness of a tie, much less a suit. There is a comfort level here that reflects one of Obama’s strongest political assets, a sense that he is comfortable in his own skin, that he knows who he is.

If you want a striking contrast, check out Senator John Kerry as he campaigned back in 2004. He often appeared without a tie, but clad in a blazer, the kind of casual look you see at country clubs and lawn parties in the Hamptons and other toned (ph) locations.

When President Bush wanted in casual mode, he skipped the jacket entirely. Third-generation Skull and Bones at Yale? Don’t be silly. Nobody here but us Texas ranchers.

You can think of Bush’s apparel as a kind of homage to Ronald Reagan. He may have spent much of his life in Hollywood, but the brush-cutting ranch hand was the image his followers loved, just as the Kennedy sea ferry look provided a striking contrast with, say, Richard Nixon, who apparently couldn’t even set out on a beach walk without that “I wish I had spent more time at the office” look.

But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of “GQ” to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable.

And maybe that’s not the comparison a possible presidential contender really wants to evoke.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GREENFIELD: Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread. Or is that threads? — Wolf.