Norway has not been too proud of reigning near the top of the lists of the world's most expensive countries, so it is arelief of sorts that the capital Oslo is now number 15 on the list of the world's most expensive cities, where Tokyo, London and Moscow are on the top.
Of the ranked cities, Paraguay’s capital Asunción is the cheapest.
In the United States, New York is the most expensive, but the city that never sleeps is only number 12 worldwide.
It would be interesting to see this broken down to different factors. I bet the cost of an apartment is ridiculously cheap in Oslo compared to Tokyo or London, but once you want to eat, drink or drive a car, you pay through the nose.
France: 'We Surrender Forever!' French President Jacques Chirac has announced a plan for France to surrender retroactively in all of history's previous wars, and to preemptively surrender to all potential enemies in future armed conflicts.
Members of the French legislature unanimously signed the new Declaration of Capitulation. It contains language that announces France's immediate and unconditional surrender in all past and future international disputes, regardless of the circumstances.
"This will save so much time and effort," announced Chirac at a press conference in Paris. "We as French people historically have always had the same solution when threatened -- to give up. By surrendering now, we can cut back on our unnecessary military expenditures. Because we always eventually surrender anyway, we have truly been wasting this money."
However, the decision to surrender is about much more than saving money. "It is really about who we are as a people," explains French government spokesman Guy Belacque.
At least in a metaphysical way, this report is true.
PS: And in case you wonder, Napoleon was a Corsican, not French, and Zinedine Zidane is Algerian. That's my story, and I stick with it.
Nada Doumani, a spokeswoman for the ICRC, told the Guardian: "The United States defines Saddam Hussein as a prisoner of war. At the end of an occupation PoWs have to be released provided they have no penal charges against them."
What would a captured genocidal ex-dictator do without the kind souls of the ICRC?
Of course we should just let Saddam go. We wouldn't want to break human rights, would we? We have to leave that to the experts.
Slate's Jack Shafer writes such an unlikely thing as a defense of tabloid National Enquirer, and makes the following interesting remark:
And say whatever ugly things you will about the modern National Enquirer, it hasn't staged the filming of an exploding pickup truck like NBC News; it hasn't been taken by a serial liar, as was the New York Times; and it's avoided running preposterous stories about the U.S. government using nerve gas in Vietnam, as CNN did. Had Jack Kelley attempted to place his fictions in the Enquirer instead of USA Today, I'm sure the editors would have found him out.
Isn't that more of an indictment of the others than praise of the Enquirer?
Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols may be guilty of 161 counts of murder, but his jailhouse conversion to Christianity most likely saved him from the death penalty.
Whatever the merits of the case, it is good news if the Israeli government will not be distracted by a legal case in the crucial time when it is planning to disengage from the Palestinians and pull out of Gaza.
Of course, the case will still not really end with the charges being dropped, but it will make it easier for Sharon to get on with his job.
Winds of Change has a very interesting article on the alleged Libyan plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah. Currently Arab newspapers are falling over themselves condemning Qadaffi for stabbing a "brother" in the back, so obviously there are few doubts on the Arab peninsula that this plot really existed.
It also discusses the role of Abdurahman Alamoudi, one of several American Muslim leaders President Bush appeared with immediately after 9/11-01 to avoid a backlash against Muslims, and who played a role in channeling Libyan money through Syria to al-Qaeda terrorists.
The plot thickens. There are obviously countless dubious characters and groups in this game, and which side who is on when is hard to know. But anyone arguing that al-Qaeda could not possibly have worked with a secularised regime like Saddam's should rethink!
I still can't understand why Qadaffi would want to strengthen al-Qaeda's hand in Saudi Arabia. He must know he is on their target list, too, just further down.
What would happen if the Saudi royal family should fall, and radical Islamists take over Saudi Arabia? With all the havoc these terrorists are able to create with their current level of funding, one can only imagine what would happen should they lay their hands on Saudi Arabia's massive oil wealth, and also secure even safer havens in the kingdom. The west could not possibly allow this to happen. I doubt even the French would oppose an immediate military attack on Saudi Arabia, no matter how much that would lead to the true clash of civilisations.
Bush wanted the showdown with al-Qaeda to happen in Iraq, and the invasion apparently made the terrorists focus their resources there. However, it appears that for al-Qaeda, the crucial battle stands in Saudi Arabia. And the west now is in the dubious position having to rely on, and support, the immensely corrupt, incompetent and vicious Saudi regime.
In popular lore, "may you live in interesting times" is a Chinese curse. Well, we do! And it sure doesn't look like a blessing.
