4-Oct-13 World View -- Russia evacuates Libya embassy

[John]

4-Oct-13 World View -- Russia evacuates diplomats from Libya after embassy attack

President Obama 'jawbones' the stock market down

** 4-Oct-13 World View -- Russia evacuates diplomats from Libya after embassy attack
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e131004


Contents:
Series of giant hornet attacks in China kill 41, injure thousands
Libyans attack Russian embassy to avenge attack by Russian woman
President Obama 'jawbones' the stock market down
Obamacare web sites keep crashing because they're too popular?


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, China, Vespa mandarinia,
Libya, Russia, Tunisia,
Barack Obama, Herbert Hoover, John Harwood

[NoOneImportant]

Interesting Moscow Times article. The article alluded to the fact that the woman who precipitated the unrest was a Russian who moved to Libya in 2011, with some connection to Gadhafi. She killed a Libyan yesterday, and stabbed the guy's mother also 'cause she was angry because the guy had fought against Gadhafi.

What was even more interesting was that later in the article they alluded to Libya being imminently split up into 3 separate countries.

[Anon]

Doubtless Russia is all in favor of anything that gets past the fact that the US is actually fairly popular in Libya.

Giant hornets have been in the central KY regions since the late 70's. Nobody seems to know what type they are, however they are NOT the much darker Cicada wasp.

The news is badly misreporting the true nature of the shutdown. It is not a fracas between two parties that are in disagreement, it's an attempt to rewrite law outside the means for doing such in the Constitution. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says there should be a law requiring two votes on the budget, which is what the debt ceiling does, and there is certainly nothing that says or implies that laws can be passed or repealed in some manner outside the normal process of passing a bill and sending it to the Senate. The Constitution assumes that a party that loses an election accepts this in good grace and moves forward. That's in no way what is happening here. This is stating that the Constitutionally mandated duty of the House to fund the budget can be refused. That's simply not in the Constitution anywhere. This has happened before, (not by the same process, but halting progress by the party that lost the election certainly has happened before), and the results have never been pretty, the resultant upheavals have affected the US for generations.