:=8D

Don't ferget u can always e-mail the MooCow with cowments at MooCowMoo@aol.com!!!


The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years.

Published: 07 January 2007

So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.

And Iraq's oil reserves, the third largest in the world, with an estimated 115 billion barrels waiting to be extracted, are a prize worth having. As Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil.

Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.
PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Opec.

Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome," said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."
Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil.

On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.

"The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

That suggestion came to nothing. In May 2003, just after President Bush declared major combat operations at an end, under a banner boasting "Mission Accomplished", Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

That exception aside, however, the often-stated aim of the US and Britain was that Iraq's oil money would be used to pay for reconstruction. In July 2003, for example, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, insisted: "We have not taken one drop of Iraqi oil for US purposes, or for coalition purposes. Quite the contrary... It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary at the time of the war and now head of the World Bank, told Congress: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

But this optimism has proved unjustified. Since the invasion, Iraqi oil production has dropped off dramatically. The country is now producing about two million barrels per day. That is down from a pre-war peak of 3.5 million barrels. Not only is Iraq's whole oil infrastructure creaking under the effects of years of sanctions, insurgents have constantly attacked pipelines, so that the only steady flow of exports is through the Shia-dominated south of the country.
Worsening sectarian violence and gangsterism have driven most of the educated élite out of the country for safety, depriving the oil industry of the Iraqi experts and administrators it desperately needs.

And even the present stunted operation is rife with corruption and smuggling. The Oil Ministry's inspector-general recently reported that a tanker driver who paid $500 in bribes to police patrols to take oil over the western or northern border would still make a profit on the shipment of $8,400.

"In the present state, it would be crazy to pump in more money, just to be stolen," said Greg Muttitt. "It's another reason not to bring in $20bn of foreign money now."
Before the war, Mr Bush endorsed claims that Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. But the shortage of revenues afterwards has silenced him on this point. More recently he has argued that oil should be used as a means to unify the country, "so the people have faith in central government", as he put it last summer.

But in a country more dependent than almost any other on oil - it accounts for 70 per cent of the economy - control of the assets has proved a recipe for endless wrangling. Most of the oil reserves are in areas controlled by the Kurds and Shias, heightening the fears of the Sunnis that their loss of power with the fall of Saddam is about to be compounded by economic deprivation.
The Kurds in particular have been eager to press ahead, and even signed some small PSA deals on their own last year, setting off a struggle with Baghdad. These issues now appear to have been resolved, however: a revenue-sharing agreement based on population was reached some months ago, and sources have told the IoS that regional oil companies will be set up to handle the PSA deals envisaged by the new law.

The Independent on Sunday has obtained a copy of an early draft which was circulated to oil companies in July. It is understood there have been no significant changes made in the final draft. The terms outlined to govern future PSAs are generous: according to the draft, they could be fixed for at least 30 years. The revelation will raise Iraqi fears that oil companies will be able to exploit its weak state by securing favourable terms that cannot be changed in future.
Iraq's sovereign right to manage its own natural resources could also be threatened by the provision in the draft that any disputes with a foreign company must ultimately be settled by international, rather than Iraqi, arbitration.

In the July draft obtained by The Independent on Sunday, legislators recognise the controversy over this, annotating the relevant paragraph with the note, "Some countries do not accept arbitration between a commercial enterprise and themselves on the basis of sovereignty of the state."

It is not clear whether this clause has been retained in the final draft.
Under the chapter entitled "Fiscal Regime", the draft spells out that foreign companies have no restrictions on taking their profits out of the country, and are not subject to any tax when doing this.

"A Foreign Person may repatriate its exports proceeds [in accordance with the foreign exchange regulations in force at the time]." Shares in oil projects can also be sold to other foreign companies: "It may freely transfer shares pertaining to any non-Iraqi partners." The final draft outlines general terms for production sharing agreements, including a standard 12.5 per cent royalty tax for companies.

It is also understood that once companies have recouped their costs from developing the oil field, they are allowed to keep 20 per cent of the profits, with the rest going to the government. According to analysts and oil company executives, this is because Iraq is so dangerous, but Dr Muhammad-Ali Zainy, a senior economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, said: "Twenty per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement, once all the costs have been recouped, is a large amount." In more stable countries, 10 per cent would be the norm.
While the costs are being recovered, companies will be able to recoup 60 to 70 per cent of revenue; 40 per cent is more usual. David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources, an Aim-listed oil company focused on Iraq, said: "They are reasonable rates of return, and take account of the bad security situation in Iraq. The government needs people, technology and capital to develop its oil reserves. It has got to come up with terms which are good enough to attract companies. The major companies tend to be conservative."

Dr Zainy, an Iraqi who has recently visited the country, said: "It's very dangerous ... although the security situation is far better in the north." Even taking that into account, however, he believed that "for a company to take 20 per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement once all the costs have been recouped is large".

He pointed to the example of Total, which agreed terms with Saddam Hussein before the second Iraq war to develop a huge field. Although the contract was never signed, the French company would only have kept 10 per cent of the profits once the company had recovered its costs.
And while the company was recovering its costs, it is understood it agreed to take only 40 per cent of the profits, the Iraqi government receiving the rest.

Production sharing agreements of more than 30 years are unusual, and more commonly used for challenging regions like the Amazon where it can take up to a decade to start production. Iraq, in contrast, is one of the cheapest and easiest places in the world to drill for and produce oil. Many fields have already been discovered, and are waiting to be developed.
Analysts estimate that despite the size of Iraq's reserves - the third largest in the world - only 2,300 wells have been drilled in total, fewer than in the North Sea.

Confirmation of the generous terms - widely feared by international non government organisations and Iraqis alike - have prompted some to draw parallels with the production-sharing agreements Russia signed in the 1990s, when it was bankrupt and in chaos.
At the time Shell was able to sign very favourable terms to develop oil and gas reserves off the coast of Sakhalin island in the far east of Russia. But at the end of last year, after months of thinly veiled threats from the environment regulator, the Anglo-Dutch company was forced to give Russian state-owned gas giant Gazprom a share in the project.

Although most other oil experts endorsed the view that PSAs would be needed to kick-start exports from Iraq, Mr Muttitt disagreed. "The most commonly mentioned target has been for Iraq to increase production to 6 million barrels a day by 2015 or so," he said. "Iraq has estimated that it would need $20bn to $25bn of investment over the next five or six years, roughly $4bn to $5bn a year. But even last year, according to reports, the Oil Ministry had between $3bn and $4bn it couldn't invest. The shortfall is around $1bn a year, and that could easily be made up if the security situation improved.

"PSAs have a cost in sovereignty and future revenues. It is not true at all that this is the only way to do it." Technical services agreements, of the type common in countries which have a state-run oil corporation, would be all that was necessary.


James Paul of Global Policy Forum, another advocacy group, said: "The US and the UK have been pressing hard on this. It's pretty clear that this is one of their main goals in Iraq." The Iraqi authorities, he said, were "a government under occupation, and it is highly influenced by that. The US has a lot of leverage... Iraq is in no condition right now to go ahead and do this."
Mr Paul added: "It is relatively easy to get the oil in Iraq. It is nowhere near as complicated as the North Sea. There are super giant fields that are completely mapped, [and] there is absolutely no exploration cost and no risk. So the argument that these agreements are needed to hedge risk is specious."

One point on which all agree, however, is that only small, maverick oil companies are likely to risk any activity in Iraq in the foreseeable future. "Production over the next year in Iraq is probably going to fall rather than go up," said Kevin Norrish, an oil analyst from Barclays. "The whole thing is held together by a shoestring; it's desperate."

An oil industry executive agreed, saying: "All the majors will be in Iraq, but they won't start work for years. Even Lukoil [of Russia], the Chinese and Total [of France] are not in a rush to endanger themselves. It's now very hard for US and allied companies because of the disastrous war."

Mr Muttitt echoed warnings that unfavourable deals done now could unravel a few years down the line, just when Iraq might become peaceful enough for development of its oil resources to become attractive. The seeds could be sown for a future struggle over natural resources which has led to decades of suspicion of Western motives in countries such as Iran.
Iraqi trade union leaders who met recently in Jordan suggested that the legislation would cause uproar once its terms became known among ordinary Iraqis.

"The Iraqi people refuse to allow the future of their oil to be decided behind closed doors," their statement said. "The occupier seeks and wishes to secure... energy resources at a time when the Iraqi people are seeking to determine their own future, while still under conditions of occupation."

The resentment implied in their words is ominous, and not only for oil company executives in London or Houston. The perception that Iraq's wealth is being carved up among foreigners can only add further fuel to the flames of the insurgency, defeating the purpose of sending more American troops to a country already described in a US intelligence report as a cause célèbre for terrorism.

America protects its fuel supplies - and contracts

Despite US and British denials that oil was a war aim, American troops were detailed to secure oil facilities as they fought their way to Baghdad in 2003. And while former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld shrugged off the orgy of looting after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, the Oil Ministry - alone of all the seats of power in the Iraqi capital - was under American guard.
Halliburton, the firm that Dick Cheney used to run, was among US-based multinationals that won most of the reconstruction deals - one of its workers is pictured, tackling an oil fire. British firms won some contracts, mainly in security. But constant violence has crippled rebuilding operations. Bechtel, another US giant, has pulled out, saying it could not make a profit on work in Iraq.

In just 40 pages, Iraq is locked into sharing its oil with foreign investors for the next 30 years
A 40-page document leaked to the 'IoS' sets out the legal framework for the Iraqi government to sign production- sharing agreement contracts with foreign companies to develop its vast oil reserves.

The paper lays the groundwork for profit-sharing partnerships between the Iraqi government and international oil companies. It also lays out the basis for co-operation between Iraq's federal government and its regional authorities to develop oil fields.

The document adds that oil companies will enjoy contracts to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years, and stresses that Iraq needs foreign investment for the "quick and substantial funding of reconstruction and modernisation projects".

It concludes that the proposed hydrocarbon law is of "great importance to the whole nation as well as to all investors in the sector" and that the proceeds from foreign investment in Iraq's oilfields would, in the long term, decrease dependence on oil and gas revenues.

The role of oil in Iraq's fortunes

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves - 10 per cent of the world total. There are 71 discovered oilfields, of which only 24 have been developed. Oil accounts for 70 per cent of Iraq's GDP and 95 per cent of government revenue. Iraq's oil would be recovered under a production sharing agreement (PSA) with the private sector. These are used in only 12 per cent of world oil reserves and apply in none of the other major Middle Eastern oil-producing countries. In some countries such as Russia, where they were signed at a time of political upheaval, politicians are now regretting them.

The $50bn bonanza for US companies piecing a broken Iraq together

The task of rebuilding a shattered Iraq has gone mainly to US companies.
As well as contractors to restore the infrastructure, such as its water, electricity and gas networks, a huge number of companies have found lucrative work supporting the ongoing coalition military presence in the country. Other companies have won contracts to restore Iraq's media; its schools and hospitals; its financial services industry; and, of course, its oil industry.

In May 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), part of the US Department of Defence, created the Project Management Office in Baghdad to oversee Iraq's reconstruction.
In June 2004 the CPA was dissolved and the Iraqi interim government took power. But the US maintained its grip on allocating contracts to private companies. The management of reconstruction projects was transferred to the Iraq Reconstruction and Management Office, a division of the US Department of State, and the Project and Contracting Office, in the Department of Defence.

The largest beneficiary of reconstruction work in Iraq has been KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), a division of US giant Halliburton, which to date has secured contracts in Iraq worth $13bn (£7bn), including an uncontested $7bn contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. Other companies benefiting from Iraq contracts include Bechtel, the giant US conglomerate, BearingPoint, the consultant group that advised on the drawing up of Iraq's new oil legislation, and General Electric. According to the US-based Centre for Public Integrity, 150-plus US companies have won contracts in Iraq worth over $50bn.
30,000 Number of Kellogg, Brown and Root employees in Iraq.

36 The number of interrogators employed by Caci, a US company, that have worked in the Abu Ghraib prison since August 2003.

$12.1bn UN's estimate of the cost of rebuilding Iraq's electricity network.

$2 trillion Estimated cost of the Iraq war to the US, according to the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

- posted by The MooCow @ 2:05 PM 0 comments

 
Wholesome, Fun Democratic Activities... ;=8)
:=8D

Don't ferget u can always e-mail the MooCow with cowments at MooCowMoo@aol.com!!!

These guys are supposed to run a democracy? Heck, they can't even hang their dissidents properly! However do they expect to be like us?
:=8/



BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A journalist who saw videotape of the Monday hangings of Saddam Hussein's half-brother and the dictator's former chief judge has described how one of the men was decapitated.

New York Times reporter John F. Burns told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Monday evening that Barzan Hassan's head "just snapped off," because he was apparently given too much rope and fell too far -- about eight feet -- for a man of his medium build and weight.

The hangman's calculations -- a grim science governing the weight of the condemned and how much rope is necessary to kill quickly -- were apparently wrong, Burns said
He said: "Two deeply frightened men in orange jumpsuits, Guantanamo-style, standing on the trapdoor, black hoods over their heads as they intoned the prayer of death.
"As ... they dropped the eight feet allowed by the coiled rope his head just snapped off, just like that, in an instant."

Burns was among a small group of reporters, which did not include CNN, who were invited to watch a videotape of the two side-by-side hangings.
The hangings happened at about 3 a.m. Monday, said Basam Ridha, spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's office.

After the men dropped, Burns said, the videotape shows Hassan "lying face down -- [a] headless pool of blood accumulating around his neck."
Hassan's head was still in the black hood that covered his face before he fell through the trapdoor, according to Burns.

"It seems what happened was that the Iraqi officials who had worked so hard to get this one right just got it wrong," he said.

Burns said the decapitation appeared to be accidental and the execution of the second man, Awad Bandar, appeared to be properly conducted.

"It only goes to show that, you know, when things go wrong, they go very badly wrong in Iraq," said Burns, who has covered the region for many years.

The Iraqi government previously released a silent video of Saddam Hussein's December 30 execution, that ends before the actual hanging.

However, unauthorized mobile phone video showed Hussein's hanging and included audio of Shiite guards taunting the Sunni ex-dictator on the gallows.
That video sparked widespread outrage and suggestions the execution was a sectarian lynching.
There was no audio on the videotape of Monday's executions, Burns said.

Iraqi officials were motivated to show the videotape to reporters because they are "absolutely determined," Burns said, that the video not get on the Internet and "be replayed a million times, especially across the Middle East."

The video will not be released to the public, Ridha said.

Compared to the approximately 25 people who witnessed Hussein's hanging, only about 10-12 people saw Monday's executions, said Burns.
Everyone in the room was required to sign an agreement promising not to engage in taunting the condemned men or recording the execution, said Ridha, who was a witness.

"It was not like a very pretty scene," said Ridha, who called the decapitation "an act of God."
According to their wishes, Hassan and Bandar were buried around 8:30 p.m. Monday near Hussein's grave in Owja, Iraq, a local government spokesman told CNN.
The men were executed for their roles in the killings of 148 men and boys after a 1982 assassination attempt on Hussein in Dujail, Iraq.

Meanwhile, Iraqi Sunnis reacted with anger to the decapitation, and some Shiites expressed shock at the way the hanging was conducted, according to wire reports.
'Very apologetic'
Describing Monday's execution, Ridha said the two men, dressed in their orange prisoner uniforms, "looked very surprised" that they were actually going to be hanged.
They "were very apologetic," asking that they not be put to death, he said. "They asked God for forgiveness," he said.

Hoods were placed over their heads, unlike Hussein, who asked not to be given a hood when he was hanged on the same gallows, Ridha said.

The two were sentenced to death in November.
Their death sentences were upheld by an Iraqi appeals court in December but delayed amid the controversy surrounding Hussein's execution.

CNN's Arwa Damon and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.

Here's the proper way top hang intellectuals, preverts, and out-spoken dissenters:


Hanging is the suspension of a person by a cord wrapped around the neck, causing death. Throughout history it has been used as a form of capital punishment in various forms. The method used in Iraq is modeled on the 19th-century method of execution used in Britain, which formed the Iraqi state after World War I.

Four types of drop have been used in hanging: the short drop, suspension, standard and long drop. In all but the last, subjects can remain conscious for minutes and eventually die of strangulation and/or loss of blood to the brain.

The 19th-century long drop through a trap door is intended to be more humane, generating enough force from the tightening of the rope and the twisting of the noose knot under the jaw to break the neck. A calculation is made based on the convict's weight, height and build of the drop needed to break the neck. The distance is typically 1.5-2.5 metres (5-9 feet).

When the neck breaks and severs the spine, the subject immediately loses consciousness. Brain death follows in minutes. But if the drop is too short, the subject can be strangled. If it is too long, the subject can be decapitated.

Copyright 2007 Reuters.

Nothing worse than a messy execution. Makes the state look bad, like they don't care. All the best democracies have humane hangings, after all...

:=8/
- posted by The MooCow @ 1:50 PM 0 comments

 
New Web Page!!!! :=8D
:=8D

Don't ferget u can always e-mail the MooCow with cowments at MooCowMoo@aol.com!!!

Yep, its true: the MooCow has a new stomping ground at Yahoo. Check it out:
www.moocowmoo.org/index.html
- posted by The MooCow @ 6:44 PM 0 comments

 
COW ESCAPES DEATH - PART III

:=8D

Don't ferget u can always e-mail the MooCow with cowments at MooCowMoo@aol.com!!!


When good things happen to good cows..

SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) - A cow that escaped last week from a Montana slaughterhouse, leading workers and police on a six-hour chase, will be spared following a wave of popular support, officials said on Tuesday. Del Morris, manager of Mickey's Packing Plant in Great Falls, said he decided to let the cow live the instant he saw it cross the Missouri River through Great Falls.Town residents will now decide through a telephone poll whether the cow will remain a resident of Montana, where it will live out its life on pastureland surrounding the packing plant, or be shipped to an animal sanctuary in Seattle.Morris said the heifer he calls Molly and her escape effort attained celebrity status with television and news organizations requesting interviews and calls pouring in from across the country and overseas."I've been around cattle all my life and it's just totally amazing," Morris said, adding that it is a rare cow that escapes slaughter. "I watched her do things that are just not possible for a cow."

Save that cow!!!:=8D
- posted by The MooCow @ 6:47 PM 0 comments

 
COWS RULE! COWS RULE!! :=8)

:=8D

Don't ferget u can always e-mail the MooCow with cowments at MooCowMoo@aol.com!!!
- posted by The MooCow @ 8:33 PM 1 comments

 
COW ESCAPED DEATH : PART II :=8D
:=8D

Don't ferget u can always e-mail the MooCow with cowments at MooCowMoo@aol.com!!! Escaped Cow May Not Be Doomed After All
By Associated Press
document.write(getElapsed("20060109T045256Z"));
Sun Jan 8, 11:52 PMUPDATED 20 HOURS 10 MINUTES AGO
GREAT FALLS, Mont. - A spirited cow that jumped a slaughterhouse gate and evaded capture for six hours has drawn clemency pleas and may not be doomed after all.
Appeals to spare the life of the 1,200-pound heifer came from across the nation after she fled Mickey's Packing Plant on Thursday. She had several near-death experiences before walking into a makeshift pen and then a stock trailer.
She was nearly struck by road and rail traffic, she almost drowned while crossing the Missouri River and she refused to be subdued by three tranquilizer darts.
The manager of Mickey's Packing Plant said the animal he dubbed "Molly B." probably will be spared the killing floor. Employees at Mickey's voted 10-1 to keep her alive.
"At this point, I have no desire to slaughter her," manager Del Morris said. "If the owner insists, I'll have to tell him to take her somewhere else."
Morris said the owner is willing to sell Molly B., who remained at the packing plant after her capture, but wants more than the estimated $1,140 she is worth slaughtered. Morris declined to specify the new price, saying he wanted to confirm it Monday.
"We've had a lot of people show a lot of interest in the animal and its welfare," he said. "I don't think it's over. I think as days go by we'll be getting more calls."
Marie Bednar of Virginia Beach, Va., read the cow's story on a vegan Web site.
"That's not a dumb animal," Bednar said. "I hope it opens some peoples' eyes."
Francis James, a member of the board for Pig's Peace Animal Sanctuary in Stanwood, Wash., said there are "definitely people in Seattle wanting to buy the cow. Hopefully we can find the cow a home here in Seattle."
Another sanctuary, Pasado's Safe Haven in Sultan, Wash., also is interested in giving Molly B. a home.
"We're just interested in her ending up someplace safe," volunteer Larry Brothers said.
Missoula resident Annie Garde said she, too, wants to save the heifer.
"If they want to take up a collection to pay someone to keep the cow alive, I'd be more than happy to contribute," Garde said. "I probably won't become a vegetarian because of it, but it probably deserves to live. When one breaks out of the pack, it's so touching."
- posted by The MooCow @ 8:28 PM 0 comments

 
Cow Esapes Death!!! :=8O
:=8D

Don't ferget u can always e-mail the MooCow with cowments at MooCowMoo@aol.com!!! Cow
Cow Escapes Meat Plant, Dodges SUV, Train
By Associated Press
document.write(getElapsed("20060107T033208Z"));
2 hours agoUPDATED 1 HOUR 37 MINUTES AGO
GREAT FALLS, Mont. - A cow that escaped a slaughterhouse dodged vehicles, ran in front of a train, braved the icy Missouri River and took three tranquilizer darts before being recaptured six hours later. News of the heifer's adventures prompted a number of people to offer to buy the animal.
The black, 1,200 pound heifer jumped a gate at the packing plant at around 5 a.m. Thursday and apparently wandered through residential areas. Police received reports at about 9:30 a.m. that it was in the middle of a busy intersection.
Police tried to catch the cow, and had her wedged between a stock trailer and a fence, but the heifer barreled through the fence toward the river, nearly being hit by a Chevrolet Suburban.
It was the first of many near-death experiences.
With the police in pursuit, the cow ran toward the railroad tracks and darted in front of an oncoming locomotive, briefly giving the police the slip again.
Crossing another road, the cow was nearly struck by a semi tractor-trailer.
"By then it was a madhouse," said police officer Corey Reeves. "People were coming out of the woodwork to see."
When police, animal control officers and slaughterhouse workers surrounded the cow in a park near the Missouri River, the cow jumped into the icy water.
As she swam to the west bank of the river, Reeves said she sank lower in the water and was being swept downstream. But the cow found a sandbar near the river's west bank and walked to shore.
"I was totally amazed she was able to swim the river," said Del Morris, the slaughterhouse manager.
As police scrambled to head off the cow on the other side of the river, a veterinarian with a tranquilizer gun was called.
Pursuers again believed they had the cow cornered at a chain link fence, but the heifer ran through a perimeter set up by officials.
The chase began to slow as the cow ran up against several strong fences. Dr. Jennifer Evans of Big Sky Medical Center shot the cow with a tranquilizer dart.
It had little effect.
Two darts later, the heifer showed no signs of going down. Slaughterhouse workers created a makeshift pen with metal panels that led to a stock trailer.
The heifer walked into the trailer at 11:45 a.m.
The cow was taken back to the slaughterhouse, where it was put in a pen _ with a stronger fence _ and given food and water.

Give us us freeeee!!!!
:=8D
- posted by The MooCow @ 12:22 AM 0 comments

 
Heeheehehehheeeee.....

:=8D

Don't ferget u can always e-mail the MooCow with cowments at MooCowMoo@aol.com!!!
- posted by The MooCow @ 10:17 AM 1 comments

 
WOOHOO!!!! :=8D
:=8D

Don't ferget u can always e-mail the MooCow with cowments at MooCowMoo@aol.com!!!

Well, perhaps there is hope for this country afterall:


HARRISBURG, Pa. - In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching "intelligent design" in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise. :=8D Woohoo!!

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence" establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.
The school system said it will probably not appeal the ruling, because several members who backed intelligent design were ousted in November's elections and replaced with a new slate opposed to the policy.

During the trial, the board argued that it was trying improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection.
The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People."
But the judge said: "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom."

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.
Eric Rothschild, an attorney for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling "a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district."

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which represented the school district and describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians, said the ruling appeared to be "an ad hominem attack on scientists who happen to believe in God."

It was the latest chapter in a debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the Scopes trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law against teaching evolution.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether a suburban Atlanta school district had the right to put stickers on biology textbooks describing evolution as a theory, not fact. A federal judge last January ordered the stickers removed.
In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.

President Bush also weighed in on the issue of intelligent design recently, saying schools should present the concept when teaching about the origins of life.

In his ruling, Jones said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments "may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science." Among other things, the judge said intelligent design "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation"; it relies on "flawed and illogical" arguments; and its attacks on evolution "have been refuted by the scientific community."
"The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources," he wrote.

The judge also said: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

Former school board member William Buckingham, who advanced the policy, said from his new home in Mount Airy, N.C., that he still feels the board did the right thing.
"I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state," he said. "We didn't lose; we were robbed."
The controversy divided Dover and surrounding Dover Township, a rural area of nearly 20,000 residents about 20 miles south of Harrisburg. It galvanized voters in the Nov. 8 school board election to oust several members who supported the policy. People can make a difference :=8)

The new school board president, Bernadette Reinking, said the board intends to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum and place it in an elective social studies class. "As far as I can tell you, there is no intent to appeal," she said.

There are still a few battle to be won, but this is some really good news - finally!!!

:=8D
- posted by The MooCow @ 10:03 AM 0 comments

 
Git Ready fer An-Udder Battle on the Hill... :=8/
:=8D

Don't ferget u can always e-mail the MooCow with cowments at MooCowMoo@aol.com!!!

Here we go again. Documents just released show the true colors of Baby Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee - yet an-udder far, far-right butt-hole (surprised??). Check it out:


Updated: 2:26 p.m. ET Nov. 14, 2005
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito wrote back in 1985 that he was proud of his Reagan-era work helping the government argue that “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion,” documents showed Monday.
Alito, who was applying in 1985 to become deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, said in a document that he was proud of his work in the solicitor general’s office from 1982-1985, where he helped “to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly.”
“I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion,” he said.

The document was included in more than 100 pages of material about Alito released Monday by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library.
Abortion will be a key topic at Alito’s confirmation hearings in January. Alito, 55, has told senators in private meetings that he had “great respect” for the precedent set by the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, that legalized abortion, but he did not commit to upholding it.
In the document, Alito also declared himself a “lifelong registered” Republican and a Federalist Society member and said he had donated money to the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Conservative Political Action Committee and several GOP candidates. Sounds like an "activist judge" to me... :=8/

When he wrote this document, he was working as an assistant to the solicitor general, where he stayed from 1981 to 1987. Although he sought the job of deputy assistant attorney general in 1985, he did not win that job until 1987.

“I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to the same philosophical views that I believe are central to this administration,” Alito said.
Alito wrote that he believed “very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values.” Huh?? Just what does that mean exactly??? :=8/

In the document, Alito said he drew inspiration from the “writings of William F. Buckley, Jr., The National Review and Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign.”
“In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause and reapportionment,” he said.

Maybe, if we're all lucky, Baby Bush won't have the moomentum or the political clout to push this albatross around the neck of the American public, but it seems likely he will - the big question is will Democrats on the Hill grow a pair and stand up to this far-right takeover of the Supreme Court, a far-right that even few moderate Republicans will stomach willingly? Stay tuned to the farce that is American politics, and find out cow many of your rights will go down the drain...

:=8/
- posted by The MooCow @ 2:54 PM 0 comments