Monday, May 19, 2008
McCain's Lobbyist Friends
For years John McCain has championed a campaign to cleanse Capitol Hill of the scourge of lobbyists. Well he's not even president yet and he's already delivering on that promise. He's driven a bunch of them out of the Washington - aboard his campaign bus. They in turn are driving his campaign. Do you think they figure that John's going to take an axe to them if he wins?
Don't Get Smug, We're Really Not That Much Better
A few observations from Bill Moyers taken from his new book, "Moyers on Democracy":
"Democracy in America is a series of narrow escapes, and we may be running out of luck. Now all bets are off. We have fallen under the spell of money, faction, and fear, and the great American experience in creating a different future together has been subjugated to individual cunning in the pursuit of wealth and power -and to the claims of empire, with its ravenous demands and stuporous distractions. A sense of political impotence pervades the country - a mass resignation defined by Goodwyn as "believing the dogma of 'democracy' on a superficial public level but not believing it privately." We hold elections, knowing they are unlikely to bring the corporate state under popular control.
The earth we share as our common gift, to be passed on in good condition to our children's children, is being despoiled. Private wealth is growing as public needs increase apace. Our Constitution is perilously close to being consigned to the valley of the shadow of death, betrayed by a powerful cabal of secrecy-obsessed authoritarians. Terms like "liberty" and "individual freedom" invoked by generations of Americans who battled to widen the 1787 promise to "promote the general welfare" have been perverted to create a government primarily dedicated to the welfare of the state and the political class that runs it. Yes, Virginia, there is a class war and ordinary people are losing it.
The conclusion that we are in trouble is unavoidable. I report the assault on nature evidenced in coal mining that tears the tops off mountains and dumps them into rivers, sacrificing the health and lives of those in the river valleys to short-term profit, and I see a link between that process and the stock-market frenzy which scorns long-term investments - genuine savings - in favor of quick turnovers and speculative bubbles whose inevitable bursting leaves insiders with stuffed pockets and millions of small stockholders, pensioners, and employees out of work, out of luck, and out of hope.
When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of justice for the people as a whole, it mocks the very concept of government as proclaimed in the preamble to our Constitution; mocks Lincoln's sacred belief in "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"; mocks the democratic notion of government as "a voluntary union for the common good" embodied in the great wave of reform that produced the Progressive Era and the two Roosevelts. In contrast, the philosophy popularized in the last quarter century that "freedom" simply means freedom to choose among competing brands of consumer goods, that taxes are an unfair theft from the pockets of the successful to reward the incompetent, and that the market will meet all human needs while government itself becomes the enabler of privilege - the philosophy of an earlier social Darwinism and laissez-faire capitalism dressed in new togs - is as subversive as Benedict Arnold's betrayal of the Revolution he had once served."
"Democracy in America is a series of narrow escapes, and we may be running out of luck. Now all bets are off. We have fallen under the spell of money, faction, and fear, and the great American experience in creating a different future together has been subjugated to individual cunning in the pursuit of wealth and power -and to the claims of empire, with its ravenous demands and stuporous distractions. A sense of political impotence pervades the country - a mass resignation defined by Goodwyn as "believing the dogma of 'democracy' on a superficial public level but not believing it privately." We hold elections, knowing they are unlikely to bring the corporate state under popular control.
The earth we share as our common gift, to be passed on in good condition to our children's children, is being despoiled. Private wealth is growing as public needs increase apace. Our Constitution is perilously close to being consigned to the valley of the shadow of death, betrayed by a powerful cabal of secrecy-obsessed authoritarians. Terms like "liberty" and "individual freedom" invoked by generations of Americans who battled to widen the 1787 promise to "promote the general welfare" have been perverted to create a government primarily dedicated to the welfare of the state and the political class that runs it. Yes, Virginia, there is a class war and ordinary people are losing it.
The conclusion that we are in trouble is unavoidable. I report the assault on nature evidenced in coal mining that tears the tops off mountains and dumps them into rivers, sacrificing the health and lives of those in the river valleys to short-term profit, and I see a link between that process and the stock-market frenzy which scorns long-term investments - genuine savings - in favor of quick turnovers and speculative bubbles whose inevitable bursting leaves insiders with stuffed pockets and millions of small stockholders, pensioners, and employees out of work, out of luck, and out of hope.
When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of justice for the people as a whole, it mocks the very concept of government as proclaimed in the preamble to our Constitution; mocks Lincoln's sacred belief in "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"; mocks the democratic notion of government as "a voluntary union for the common good" embodied in the great wave of reform that produced the Progressive Era and the two Roosevelts. In contrast, the philosophy popularized in the last quarter century that "freedom" simply means freedom to choose among competing brands of consumer goods, that taxes are an unfair theft from the pockets of the successful to reward the incompetent, and that the market will meet all human needs while government itself becomes the enabler of privilege - the philosophy of an earlier social Darwinism and laissez-faire capitalism dressed in new togs - is as subversive as Benedict Arnold's betrayal of the Revolution he had once served."
That Flushing Sound is Hillary's Last Shred of Integrity
To borrow a line from Keith Olbermann, "shut the Hell up." Right now Hillary Clinton is nose-deep in the cesspit of her own hypocrisy.
It's all about Hillary's attack questioning Obama's ties to '60s radicals and it's got a lot of those very radicals questioning why Hypocrite Hillary is overlooking her own history with them. From the Washington Post:
"...her comments baffled two retired Bay Area lawyers who knew Clinton in the summer of 1971 when she worked as an intern at a left-wing law firm in Oakland, Calif., that defended communists and Black Panthers.
"She's a hypocrite," Doris B. Walker, 89, who was a member of the American Communist Party, said in an interview last week. "She had to know who we were and what kinds of cases we were handling. We had a very left-wing reputation, including civil rights, constitutional law, racist problems."
Malcolm Burnstein, 74, a partner at the firm who worked closely with Clinton during her internship, said he was traveling in Pennsylvania in April when Clinton attacked Obama for his past interactions with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, members of Students for a Democratic Society who went on to found the bomb-making Weather Underground.
"Given her background, it was quite hypocritical," Burnstein said. "I almost called the Philadelphia Enquirer. I saw what she and her campaign were saying about Ayers and I thought, 'Well, if you're going to talk about that totally bit of irrelevant nonsense, I'll talk about your career with us.' "
The very things she's accusing Barack of could be said of her with much greater evidence," said Tom Hayden, a leading anti-Vietnam War activist, author and self-described friend of the Clintons.
Robert Reich who went to Yale Law School with Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton and later served in the Clinton administration, called Hillary Clinton's attack on Obama "absurd," adding: "That carries guilt by association to a new level of absurdity. Where does guilt by association stop? I mean, she was a partner of Jim McDougal in the 1980s, for crying out loud." Reich is now an Obama supporter.
Clinton's associations date to her years as a student leader at Wellesley from 1965 to 1969. It was the height of student opposition to the Vietnam War, and Carl Oglesby, the president of Students for a Democratic Society, came to campus to speak.
"I gave a talk at Wellesley, where she was a student," Oglesby said in a telephone interview from Amherst, Mass., where he is recovering from a stroke. "I can't say that I was a close friend of hers. It was more of a passing acquaintance. I liked her. I think of her as a good guy. I think she has a good heart and a solid mind. And I support her in the current primary."
Oglesby now talks warmly about Clinton. In an interview with Reason magazine, he called their association "a friendship, a comradeship, within the context of the movement. She and I, for a while, were warm with each other. She and I were semi-close."
But Oglesby said he has not contacted Clinton because he is afraid that he could harm her candidacy.
"A friend of mine mentioned me to her not long ago, and according to him she got a case of the shakes. I think it was because she could imagine if any of her considerable enemies on the right wanted to do her in, they would be happy to discover a relationship between her and me," he told the magazine."
I think what Hillary is revealing is what many Democrats most fear - that she's willing to do anything, say anything on her way out the door, even if she winds up kneecapping the Democratic Party in the process. Between the blatant pandering and the hypocrisy, not to mention race-baiting, Hillary has also put her last shred of integrity into the toilet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/18/AR2008051802101.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2008051802293
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Up Against the Wall, MotherF__ker!
You have to be pretty close to 60 now to remember when that phrase literally rolled off the lips of college students from one end of America to the other. It was the late 60's/early 70's and American youth, or a good number of them, were in revolt. They were tired of a war without end, tired of the killing, tired of the draft, tired of blatant, institutional racism.
I was in the states doing my undergrad at the time and what a time it was. Protests everywhere, seemingly a daily event. On campus the SDS or the Weathermen, no one knew for sure, got into the Army ROTC building one night and what the blast didn't destroy the flames certainly did.
For all its absurdity and contradiction, it was a cleansing moment for America. It couldn't last and it didn't. The long-haired radicals shaved, put on Brooks Brothers suits and button-down Oxford cloth shirts and became investment bankers. But it was important while it lasted for it exposed the deep wound in American society and forced everyone to see it and, when that happened, Washington had to respond.
America could use another of those radical, cleansing moments right now but it's not going to happen. Why not? Because there's no generational divide, no draft and no powerful mass media.
The Bush wars are being fought by America's "all volunteer" army which is technically correct even if those hapless volunteers didn't understand they might wind up being held hostage by their own government and forced to fight year after year after year. It's a hidden draft, a perverse blend of voluntary enlistment and indentured servitude. It's wicked cruel, the handiwork of cowards, rapscallions and utter reprobates.
The trick, of couse, is "all volunteer." If you don't sign on for it, you're safe. You can forget all about it. And that's exactly what most American youth are doing, forgetting about it. The effects are plain. After 9/11, nine out of ten recruits were high school graduates. That's now down to seven of ten. In addition, the use of moral waivers to allow the military to accept volunteers with criminal records or other issues has skyrocketed. And even that isn't working which is why many of those early volunteers are now serving their fourth tours in combat, tours that have been extended to 15-months a pop.
Because there's no draft, at least not yet, America's youth, especially the privileged kids (and their parents) have nothing to fear. So long as you can hold that all volunteer army captive, they're safe.
No draft, no generational divide. When old people begin sending draft notices to young people, the chasm opens instantaneously. Anger and resentment and distrust build rapidly and settle in.
No powerful mass media either to make the American people see what's being done to their country. No courageous mass media to raise proper hell over the abuse of the all-volunteer soldiers. There's the obligatory occasional story, sure, but they're far and few between and not enough to make those who prefer not to see look at it, certainly not enough to trigger public outrage. There's nobody to expose the deep wound in American society.
And that, kids, is how America came to have so many motherfuckers and so few walls to put them up against.
I was in the states doing my undergrad at the time and what a time it was. Protests everywhere, seemingly a daily event. On campus the SDS or the Weathermen, no one knew for sure, got into the Army ROTC building one night and what the blast didn't destroy the flames certainly did.
For all its absurdity and contradiction, it was a cleansing moment for America. It couldn't last and it didn't. The long-haired radicals shaved, put on Brooks Brothers suits and button-down Oxford cloth shirts and became investment bankers. But it was important while it lasted for it exposed the deep wound in American society and forced everyone to see it and, when that happened, Washington had to respond.
America could use another of those radical, cleansing moments right now but it's not going to happen. Why not? Because there's no generational divide, no draft and no powerful mass media.
The Bush wars are being fought by America's "all volunteer" army which is technically correct even if those hapless volunteers didn't understand they might wind up being held hostage by their own government and forced to fight year after year after year. It's a hidden draft, a perverse blend of voluntary enlistment and indentured servitude. It's wicked cruel, the handiwork of cowards, rapscallions and utter reprobates.
The trick, of couse, is "all volunteer." If you don't sign on for it, you're safe. You can forget all about it. And that's exactly what most American youth are doing, forgetting about it. The effects are plain. After 9/11, nine out of ten recruits were high school graduates. That's now down to seven of ten. In addition, the use of moral waivers to allow the military to accept volunteers with criminal records or other issues has skyrocketed. And even that isn't working which is why many of those early volunteers are now serving their fourth tours in combat, tours that have been extended to 15-months a pop.
Because there's no draft, at least not yet, America's youth, especially the privileged kids (and their parents) have nothing to fear. So long as you can hold that all volunteer army captive, they're safe.
No draft, no generational divide. When old people begin sending draft notices to young people, the chasm opens instantaneously. Anger and resentment and distrust build rapidly and settle in.
No powerful mass media either to make the American people see what's being done to their country. No courageous mass media to raise proper hell over the abuse of the all-volunteer soldiers. There's the obligatory occasional story, sure, but they're far and few between and not enough to make those who prefer not to see look at it, certainly not enough to trigger public outrage. There's nobody to expose the deep wound in American society.
And that, kids, is how America came to have so many motherfuckers and so few walls to put them up against.
Friday, May 16, 2008
McCain's Slave Army
John McCain's grasp of history and current events is pretty wobbly but his vision for the near future must be giving nightmares to America's hostage soldiers.
The Bush regime still maintains the tyrannical "stop loss" cudgel to force its soldiers, regulars and reservists, to keep on serving - and fighting and dying - for years beyond their intended commitment.
There are now American service personnel on their third, sometimes even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, many essentially held against their will. The reservists, in particular, have found themselves trapped with desperate families and ruined businesses or careers awaiting their eventual return home.
Here's the brutal truth. John McCain intends to keep these people fighting for the foreseeable future or until America wins the already lost Afghan and Iraq wars. He intends to keep these people hostage because the only other way he can continue "to victory" is to draft replacements.
The giveaway is found in McCain's recent speech where he outlined his vision for bringing American troops home after winning Iraq and Afghanistan by 2013. This is what he said,
"By January, 2013 America is welcome [sic] home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom."
By 2013 some of these indentured troops will have served in combat longer than any Western soldiers for centuries.
Years ago I read some post-WWII American studies of just how long the average soldier can function in combat. The results were quite interesting. Long before the body goes, the mind fails. Often the soldier either becomes unusable or deeply disturbed. There are already plenty of reports of psychological damage being sustained by American troops due to extended tours. What will four more years of fighting bring to these who have already "sacrificed terribly?"
There's not even a slight chance that McCain would ever get congressional approval for a draft. That means, as Rumsfeld said, "you go to war with the army you have." McCain's war is going to have to be fought, on and on, by the very same army that Rumsfeld had back in 2003 when he launched the adventure in the Iraqi sandbox.
I wonder if John McCain's memory is good enough to recall what happened the last time the American army became hopelessly demoralized?
The Bush regime still maintains the tyrannical "stop loss" cudgel to force its soldiers, regulars and reservists, to keep on serving - and fighting and dying - for years beyond their intended commitment.
There are now American service personnel on their third, sometimes even fourth tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, many essentially held against their will. The reservists, in particular, have found themselves trapped with desperate families and ruined businesses or careers awaiting their eventual return home.
Here's the brutal truth. John McCain intends to keep these people fighting for the foreseeable future or until America wins the already lost Afghan and Iraq wars. He intends to keep these people hostage because the only other way he can continue "to victory" is to draft replacements.
The giveaway is found in McCain's recent speech where he outlined his vision for bringing American troops home after winning Iraq and Afghanistan by 2013. This is what he said,
"By January, 2013 America is welcome [sic] home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom."
By 2013 some of these indentured troops will have served in combat longer than any Western soldiers for centuries.
Years ago I read some post-WWII American studies of just how long the average soldier can function in combat. The results were quite interesting. Long before the body goes, the mind fails. Often the soldier either becomes unusable or deeply disturbed. There are already plenty of reports of psychological damage being sustained by American troops due to extended tours. What will four more years of fighting bring to these who have already "sacrificed terribly?"
There's not even a slight chance that McCain would ever get congressional approval for a draft. That means, as Rumsfeld said, "you go to war with the army you have." McCain's war is going to have to be fought, on and on, by the very same army that Rumsfeld had back in 2003 when he launched the adventure in the Iraqi sandbox.
I wonder if John McCain's memory is good enough to recall what happened the last time the American army became hopelessly demoralized?
Surprise, Dead Men Tell No Tales
The RCMP have announced they'll pursue no charges in the Cadman Affair. What a surprise!
Chuck, of course, is long gone, lost to cancer in 2005. Before he died he told his wife, daughter and son-in-law about an apparent bribe offered by some Conservative fixers to get him to vote to defeat the Liberal government of Paul Martin.
Unfortunately this man of such great integrity didn't get into details of who, what, when and where - the information the cops would need to build any case warranting prosecution.
With Cadman dead and the possibility of the others voluntarily incriminating themselves pretty slim, there's really nothing for the cops to go on but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have tasered a few highly placed Conservatives just to avoid the appearance of favouritism.
So, what does the RCMP announcement tell us about the Cadman affair? Precisely nothing.
Chuck, of course, is long gone, lost to cancer in 2005. Before he died he told his wife, daughter and son-in-law about an apparent bribe offered by some Conservative fixers to get him to vote to defeat the Liberal government of Paul Martin.
Unfortunately this man of such great integrity didn't get into details of who, what, when and where - the information the cops would need to build any case warranting prosecution.
With Cadman dead and the possibility of the others voluntarily incriminating themselves pretty slim, there's really nothing for the cops to go on but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have tasered a few highly placed Conservatives just to avoid the appearance of favouritism.
So, what does the RCMP announcement tell us about the Cadman affair? Precisely nothing.
Can Bernier Stop Embarassing Harper?
Maxime Bernier's days are numbered. Canada's New Government's foreign affairs minister has pretty exotic tastes - in girlfriends and now, it appears, in air travel also. It's bad enough that he's utterly bungled his job, he doesn't need controversy about his high life.
The latest scandal involves a $22,573 bill Bernier rang up for airfare - yes, for one - to attend a 2-day conference in Laos last November. Basic airfare for that trip comes in at about $7,000. Two of Mad Max's aides clocked airfares of $18,500 for the same trip.
Bernier is a walking disaster. It seems he can't open his mouth - or his pants - without bringing unwanted attention on Stephen Harper.
Max, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I'd like to say "thanks."
The latest scandal involves a $22,573 bill Bernier rang up for airfare - yes, for one - to attend a 2-day conference in Laos last November. Basic airfare for that trip comes in at about $7,000. Two of Mad Max's aides clocked airfares of $18,500 for the same trip.
Bernier is a walking disaster. It seems he can't open his mouth - or his pants - without bringing unwanted attention on Stephen Harper.
Max, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I'd like to say "thanks."
Bush Goes Cap In Hand to Riyadh
Like Oliver Twist in the orphanage, US President George Bush has picked up his gruel bowl and flown to Riyadh to ask the House of Saud for "more please." Bush is making a private visit to King Abdullah's "ranch" (didn't know they had those in Saudi Arabia) to beg the Saudis to increase oil production and exports to the US.
From the New York Times:
"When Mr. Bush was last here in January, a similar request caused him some embarrassment. The president asked the Saudi oil minister to increase production, and was publicly rebuffed. He then took up the matter with the king, but the conversation did not get very far.
The president has little choice but to try again. Back in Washington, Democrats like Senator Schumer of New York are pressing for sanctions against Saudi Arabia. Mr. Schumer wants to limit arms sales to the kingdom, saying he wants them to “cooperate and not strangle American consumers.”
The Bush White House opposes such methods. But with gasoline nearing $4 a gallon, clearly Mr. Bush is looking for some cooperation.
In an interview with CBS Radio before leaving Washington, Mr. Bush was asked what he would tell the king this time that he did not say when he was here last.
“That I didn’t say last time?” he asked, adding, “The price is even higher.”
There it is kids. Bush the Younger, the Scourge of Afghanistan, Desert Conqueror of Iraq, the annointed Leader of the Free World, taking his begging bowl and an enormous gift basket of America's national pride to kneel at the feet of the House of Saud. Now I have seen everything. It's all become so clear. The horror, oh the horror.
The last picture I can remember of Bush and a Saudi noble they were only holding hands and kissing cheeks. I wonder what George is going to have to kiss this time?
From the New York Times:
"When Mr. Bush was last here in January, a similar request caused him some embarrassment. The president asked the Saudi oil minister to increase production, and was publicly rebuffed. He then took up the matter with the king, but the conversation did not get very far.
The president has little choice but to try again. Back in Washington, Democrats like Senator Schumer of New York are pressing for sanctions against Saudi Arabia. Mr. Schumer wants to limit arms sales to the kingdom, saying he wants them to “cooperate and not strangle American consumers.”
The Bush White House opposes such methods. But with gasoline nearing $4 a gallon, clearly Mr. Bush is looking for some cooperation.
In an interview with CBS Radio before leaving Washington, Mr. Bush was asked what he would tell the king this time that he did not say when he was here last.
“That I didn’t say last time?” he asked, adding, “The price is even higher.”
There it is kids. Bush the Younger, the Scourge of Afghanistan, Desert Conqueror of Iraq, the annointed Leader of the Free World, taking his begging bowl and an enormous gift basket of America's national pride to kneel at the feet of the House of Saud. Now I have seen everything. It's all become so clear. The horror, oh the horror.
The last picture I can remember of Bush and a Saudi noble they were only holding hands and kissing cheeks. I wonder what George is going to have to kiss this time?
Hillary's Post Mortem
Hillary may refuse to accept that she's as dead as the moose hanging in some working man's bar but her campaign staff know she's finished, and why.
Michelle Cottle at The New Republic interviewed some Clinton campaign staffers and reveals their telling insights. A really worthwhile piece, "What Went Wrong?":
http://www.tnr.com:80/politics/story.html?id=f7a4a380-c4a4-4f84-b653-f252e8569915
Michelle Cottle at The New Republic interviewed some Clinton campaign staffers and reveals their telling insights. A really worthwhile piece, "What Went Wrong?":
http://www.tnr.com:80/politics/story.html?id=f7a4a380-c4a4-4f84-b653-f252e8569915
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Funny Incurious George Should Criticize Appeasers
Contemptus StultusWe've all heard the story of George w. Bush's thinly veiled slight of Barack Obama over the Senator's statements that he would talk to America's "enemies", namely Iran and Syria. Without naming Obama directly, the frat boy who has miserably failed the American people every day of his administration, even back before 9/11, was obviously exploiting the opportunity of a speech to commemorate Israel's 60th anniversary in order to get in a few partisan digs for John McSame.
Bush ought to appreciate appeasers, not condemn them. He's relied on a gang of spineless appeasers in order to get his way and drag America down ever since 9/11. Without appeasers (yes, including Her Ladyship, Dame Hillary), George might have had to wait a few more months before invading Iraq by which time Hans Blix would have given Iraq a WMD Clean Bill of Health. Without appeasers, Americans wouldn't be living under the scourge of the Patriot Act. Without appeasers, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached and probably indicted by now. Without appeasers America might not remain at the feet of Big Oil today. Without appeasers, America might not have tolerated the privatization of war itself.
The appeasers did more than just prostrate themselves before their self-proclaimed emperor. They empowered him with tools to intimidate and coerce those who refused to appease the puppet prince. These appeasers even allowed Bush to twist and pervert their Constitution to suit his will. These appeasers allowed Bush to institutionalize torture, to dishonour their own military, to arrest and imprison anyone, indefinitely, without charge - to fly them to some of the most vile nations on the planet where their dirty work could be carried out unseen, unheard.
Mister Bush ought to appreciate appeasers. Without them he'd be nothing - and wouldn't the world be an infinitely better place for that?
Bush ought to appreciate appeasers, not condemn them. He's relied on a gang of spineless appeasers in order to get his way and drag America down ever since 9/11. Without appeasers (yes, including Her Ladyship, Dame Hillary), George might have had to wait a few more months before invading Iraq by which time Hans Blix would have given Iraq a WMD Clean Bill of Health. Without appeasers, Americans wouldn't be living under the scourge of the Patriot Act. Without appeasers, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached and probably indicted by now. Without appeasers America might not remain at the feet of Big Oil today. Without appeasers, America might not have tolerated the privatization of war itself.
The appeasers did more than just prostrate themselves before their self-proclaimed emperor. They empowered him with tools to intimidate and coerce those who refused to appease the puppet prince. These appeasers even allowed Bush to twist and pervert their Constitution to suit his will. These appeasers allowed Bush to institutionalize torture, to dishonour their own military, to arrest and imprison anyone, indefinitely, without charge - to fly them to some of the most vile nations on the planet where their dirty work could be carried out unseen, unheard.
Mister Bush ought to appreciate appeasers. Without them he'd be nothing - and wouldn't the world be an infinitely better place for that?
Save the Polar Bear - From Bush, Harper & Big Oil
Okay, I know better, it's my fault. I know that if something sounds too good to be true, chances are it is.
Like the announcement yesterday that the US had declared the polar bear a species in imminent danger of extinction. Yippee, it's "Save the Bears Day!" Not.
What was I thinking? This is the Bush regime, the same pack of bait and switch clowns the world has had to endure for seven and a half years already. Surely if we've learned anything it's that, when these creatures say anything, you can bet they mean something else altogether.
Yes, Washington has declared the polar bear in imminent danger of extinction. But the Bushies have also effectively said "so what?" The Independent sums it all up very nicely:
"Yesterday marked the first time the US Endangered Species Act was used to protect a species threatened by climate change. The US Geological Survey says that two-thirds of the world's polar bears could be gone by 2050.
The bears will only be protected from the direct effects of hunting, and some other activities, because of limits imposed by the Interior Department. It invoked a seldom used loophole to make it easier for the energy industry to actually expand activities that already threaten the bears and their habitat.
The Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, who spent much of his political life opposing the Endangered Species Act, said it would be "inappropriate" to use the polar bear listing "to regulate global climate change."
American scientists believe that sea ice loss will likely result in two-thirds of the polar bears disappearing by mid-century.
The plight of the polar bear has also caused vehement disagreement within the Bush administration and last month the conservative Canadian government refused to list the polar bear as endangered. Canada has some 15,500 polar bears and it has given the polar bear its weakest classification, that of "special concern", saying the animals were in trouble but not at risk of extinction.
President Bush is publicly committed to the rapid expansion of oil and gas exploration along the Alaskan coast, even at the cost of the polar bears' habitat and opposes any moves to combat global warming through regulation.
But faced with overwhelming scientific evidence that already rapid loss of sea ice is accelerating, Mr Kempthorne said and he no choice but to declare the species threatened. "Sea ice is vital to polar bears' survival," he said. "This has been a difficult decision. But in light of the scientific record, and the restraints of the inflexible law that guides me," he had made "the only decision I can make."
So, kids, what's the lesson from all this? It's that these right-wing governments will follow the law when it's "the only decision [they] can make" but then they'll do everything in their power to make sure their decision is virtually meaningless.
The North American Oil Lobby, also known as Bush/Cheney/Harper, know that, so long as they're at the wheel, Big Oil rules baby!
Like the announcement yesterday that the US had declared the polar bear a species in imminent danger of extinction. Yippee, it's "Save the Bears Day!" Not.
What was I thinking? This is the Bush regime, the same pack of bait and switch clowns the world has had to endure for seven and a half years already. Surely if we've learned anything it's that, when these creatures say anything, you can bet they mean something else altogether.
Yes, Washington has declared the polar bear in imminent danger of extinction. But the Bushies have also effectively said "so what?" The Independent sums it all up very nicely:
"Yesterday marked the first time the US Endangered Species Act was used to protect a species threatened by climate change. The US Geological Survey says that two-thirds of the world's polar bears could be gone by 2050.
The bears will only be protected from the direct effects of hunting, and some other activities, because of limits imposed by the Interior Department. It invoked a seldom used loophole to make it easier for the energy industry to actually expand activities that already threaten the bears and their habitat.
The Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, who spent much of his political life opposing the Endangered Species Act, said it would be "inappropriate" to use the polar bear listing "to regulate global climate change."
American scientists believe that sea ice loss will likely result in two-thirds of the polar bears disappearing by mid-century.
The plight of the polar bear has also caused vehement disagreement within the Bush administration and last month the conservative Canadian government refused to list the polar bear as endangered. Canada has some 15,500 polar bears and it has given the polar bear its weakest classification, that of "special concern", saying the animals were in trouble but not at risk of extinction.
President Bush is publicly committed to the rapid expansion of oil and gas exploration along the Alaskan coast, even at the cost of the polar bears' habitat and opposes any moves to combat global warming through regulation.
But faced with overwhelming scientific evidence that already rapid loss of sea ice is accelerating, Mr Kempthorne said and he no choice but to declare the species threatened. "Sea ice is vital to polar bears' survival," he said. "This has been a difficult decision. But in light of the scientific record, and the restraints of the inflexible law that guides me," he had made "the only decision I can make."
So, kids, what's the lesson from all this? It's that these right-wing governments will follow the law when it's "the only decision [they] can make" but then they'll do everything in their power to make sure their decision is virtually meaningless.
The North American Oil Lobby, also known as Bush/Cheney/Harper, know that, so long as they're at the wheel, Big Oil rules baby!
Caesar Returns
French divers have recovered a bust of Julius Caesar from the bottom of the River Rhone.
What makes the bust special is that it's the only known example that predates Caesar's assassination in 44 BC. The scupture was carved two years earlier in 46 BC. It's believed that it was dumped hastily after Caesar's death lest it offend the new powers in Rome.
Afghanistan's Phoenix Programme?
The "Phoenix Programme" is straight out of Vietnam. It entailed covert, US special forces assassination squads that raided country villages to execute suspected Viet Cong officials and sympathizers. Postwar analysis revealed their targeting information was routinely poor and they wound up murdering a lot of innocents.
Now a United Nations official is sounding the alarm about something that sounds remarkably similar underway in Afghanistan. UN rights official Philip Alston met with reporters today to disclose at least three recent raids in the south and east by foreign ("western") intelligence agents that led to the deaths of innocent civilians.
Now a United Nations official is sounding the alarm about something that sounds remarkably similar underway in Afghanistan. UN rights official Philip Alston met with reporters today to disclose at least three recent raids in the south and east by foreign ("western") intelligence agents that led to the deaths of innocent civilians.
Alston said the raids involved US personnel from a special forces base in Kandahar.
What's particularly troubling to Alston is that no one is taking responsibility and the killers are operating with total impunity, two other characteristics of the Phoenix programme.
Alston said government officials confirmed the victims had no connection to the Taliban.
What's particularly troubling to Alston is that no one is taking responsibility and the killers are operating with total impunity, two other characteristics of the Phoenix programme.
Alston said government officials confirmed the victims had no connection to the Taliban.
Another "Senior's Moment" for John McCain?
Okay, the guy who wants to be America's Commander in Chief first and president second can't tell a Sunni from a Shiite but, does it really matter? America winds up fighting each of them by turns. Saddam's Iraq was a Sunni outfit, remember? It was the mortal enemy of Shiite Iran, ring a bell?
But there is further reason to question John McCain's faculties in his speech announcing his latest turnaround - the withdrawal of most American forces from Iraq by 2013. Here's what Senator McSame had to say about that:
"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom," the Arizona senator said.
He described his hopes for the scenario in the country by the end of his first term in office: "The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering form the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension."
Now of course, Iraq was created "centuries" ago - by the Brits and French - in the wake of WWI. The basis for the sectarian tensions is largely external and primarily Western.
It was the Allies who promised the Kurds their own homeland when the Ottomans were crushed and then reneged with the Treaty of Sevres.
It was the Allies who divvied up the Middle East between the French and British, drawing neatly surveyed straight lines without regard for the inevitable consequences of coralling conflicted ethnic and religious groups within the same territorial structures.
It was the Brits who chose the minority Sunnis to run the place, considering them the most effective, most reliable for British purposes.
If McCain doesn't understand these realities, he'll never be able to comprehend the powerful secessionist forces maneuvering in today's Iraq. Maliki is backed by the Badr organization which supports the division of Iraq into an oil-rich Shia south, an oil-rich Kurdish-north and a comparatively impoverished Sunni centre.
It is America's chosen foe, Muqtada al Sadr, who represents the nationalist force within the Shiite population. However the guy who most wants to hold Iraq together also insists on complete withdrawal of American forces. This leaves Washington in a horrible double-bind that politicians like John McCain ignore at America's peril.
If Washington wants America's agenda to prevail in Iraq, as McCain suggests, it can only perpetuate the Shia-Sunni divide which, ultimately, will extend to an Arab-Kurd divide. That instability will ensure that American troops will be there en masse far beyond 2013.
At some point John McCain will have to realize that you can't get out of Iraq until you disarm the sectarian landmine left by the French and British in 1920 and you can't do that with grade-school perceptions of reality.
But there is further reason to question John McCain's faculties in his speech announcing his latest turnaround - the withdrawal of most American forces from Iraq by 2013. Here's what Senator McSame had to say about that:
"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom," the Arizona senator said.
He described his hopes for the scenario in the country by the end of his first term in office: "The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering form the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension."
Now of course, Iraq was created "centuries" ago - by the Brits and French - in the wake of WWI. The basis for the sectarian tensions is largely external and primarily Western.
It was the Allies who promised the Kurds their own homeland when the Ottomans were crushed and then reneged with the Treaty of Sevres.
It was the Allies who divvied up the Middle East between the French and British, drawing neatly surveyed straight lines without regard for the inevitable consequences of coralling conflicted ethnic and religious groups within the same territorial structures.
It was the Brits who chose the minority Sunnis to run the place, considering them the most effective, most reliable for British purposes.
If McCain doesn't understand these realities, he'll never be able to comprehend the powerful secessionist forces maneuvering in today's Iraq. Maliki is backed by the Badr organization which supports the division of Iraq into an oil-rich Shia south, an oil-rich Kurdish-north and a comparatively impoverished Sunni centre.
It is America's chosen foe, Muqtada al Sadr, who represents the nationalist force within the Shiite population. However the guy who most wants to hold Iraq together also insists on complete withdrawal of American forces. This leaves Washington in a horrible double-bind that politicians like John McCain ignore at America's peril.
If Washington wants America's agenda to prevail in Iraq, as McCain suggests, it can only perpetuate the Shia-Sunni divide which, ultimately, will extend to an Arab-Kurd divide. That instability will ensure that American troops will be there en masse far beyond 2013.
At some point John McCain will have to realize that you can't get out of Iraq until you disarm the sectarian landmine left by the French and British in 1920 and you can't do that with grade-school perceptions of reality.
Why Hillary Is Yesterday's News
HIllary Clinton has a good grip of politics, politics past that is. In many ways she appears like just another rich, old white man; the kind that has ruled the United States since the Revolution. The ranks of those people have been full of reformers who've done remarkably little to transform their country into a nation for the 21st century.
Hillary Clinton meant it when she claimed to be the candidate to appeal to "hard working Americans, white Americans." That was no gaffe. That was her specialty, outright pandering and wedge politics, the kind that ought to be reviled. Her loyalty to black America was always feigned which is why black support for Clinton quietly bled out as this campaign wore on. Yet her support from working-class white Americans hasn't been as universal as she would like to crow. She's done well where racism still smoulders but where those embers are dying out, it's a different story.
As Timothy Egan writes in today's New York Times, Hillary's "white America" is becoming yesterday's news:
"...on May 20, when [Oregon] voters... could finally end the Democratic presidential marathon by giving Senator Barack Obama an outright majority of pledged delegates, don’t expect to hear much about how a black man has broadened the playing field for his party by winning a heavily white state. Apparently, white people in Gore-Tex country don’t count as much as white people in Appalachia. Nor, if you look at Colorado, a Bush state that Obama won this year, do white people who sing “Rocky Mountain High” matter as much as white people who sing, “Almost heaven, West Virginia.”
It’s absurd, of course, to tout the implied superiority of “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” as Hillary Clinton said last week of her core supporters. And those other white Americans, in Iowa, Wisconsin, or here in Oregon — all heavy Obama supporters — are slackers? Not to mention black supporters.
The map of counties that Hillary Clinton won big this year shows a broad swath of Appalachia and rural America, places where a Democrat is unlikely to prevail in the general election. The scab of racial animus can be thick in those counties, judging by exit polls of Clinton supporters who say they would never vote for a black man, and by anecdotal reporting.
The political math of the future lies with the new America — fast-growing communities in Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and elsewhere, where people are trying to step out of the cement shoes of race. Yes, race is still a factor there — it’s coded and complex — but not as raw as in other states. The transient nature of these places, where nearly everybody is from somewhere else, makes it difficult for old biases to harden."
And that's why Hillary doesn't have a hope in hell of a comeback in 2012. She's yesterday's news and that's just the way she likes it.
Hillary Clinton meant it when she claimed to be the candidate to appeal to "hard working Americans, white Americans." That was no gaffe. That was her specialty, outright pandering and wedge politics, the kind that ought to be reviled. Her loyalty to black America was always feigned which is why black support for Clinton quietly bled out as this campaign wore on. Yet her support from working-class white Americans hasn't been as universal as she would like to crow. She's done well where racism still smoulders but where those embers are dying out, it's a different story.
As Timothy Egan writes in today's New York Times, Hillary's "white America" is becoming yesterday's news:
"...on May 20, when [Oregon] voters... could finally end the Democratic presidential marathon by giving Senator Barack Obama an outright majority of pledged delegates, don’t expect to hear much about how a black man has broadened the playing field for his party by winning a heavily white state. Apparently, white people in Gore-Tex country don’t count as much as white people in Appalachia. Nor, if you look at Colorado, a Bush state that Obama won this year, do white people who sing “Rocky Mountain High” matter as much as white people who sing, “Almost heaven, West Virginia.”
It’s absurd, of course, to tout the implied superiority of “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” as Hillary Clinton said last week of her core supporters. And those other white Americans, in Iowa, Wisconsin, or here in Oregon — all heavy Obama supporters — are slackers? Not to mention black supporters.
The map of counties that Hillary Clinton won big this year shows a broad swath of Appalachia and rural America, places where a Democrat is unlikely to prevail in the general election. The scab of racial animus can be thick in those counties, judging by exit polls of Clinton supporters who say they would never vote for a black man, and by anecdotal reporting.
The political math of the future lies with the new America — fast-growing communities in Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and elsewhere, where people are trying to step out of the cement shoes of race. Yes, race is still a factor there — it’s coded and complex — but not as raw as in other states. The transient nature of these places, where nearly everybody is from somewhere else, makes it difficult for old biases to harden."
And that's why Hillary doesn't have a hope in hell of a comeback in 2012. She's yesterday's news and that's just the way she likes it.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Edwards Backs Obama
It's probably not much of a surprise but John Edwards has decided to endorse Barack Obama for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Edwards is expected to make the announcement at an Obama rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan tonight.
From the New York Times:
"On the campaign trail in the past year, Mr. Edwards regularly attacked so-called establishment politicians like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and teamed with Mr. Obama against her in debates.
His campaign sounded similar themes to Mr. Obama’s – both candidates positioned themselves as change agents who would clean house in Washington.
Throughout his second bid for the Democratic nomination, Mr. Edwards clashed repeatedly with Mrs. Clinton, criticizing her for accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists, a practice that he fiercely opposed.
And much of his campaign pitch centered on the notion that Washington politicians have become corrupted by the influence of lobbyists for drug companies, oil companies and other corporate interests.
“You can’t just trade corporate Republicans for corporate Democrats,” he told audiences frequently, an attack aimed at Mrs. Clinton."
From the New York Times:
"On the campaign trail in the past year, Mr. Edwards regularly attacked so-called establishment politicians like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and teamed with Mr. Obama against her in debates.
His campaign sounded similar themes to Mr. Obama’s – both candidates positioned themselves as change agents who would clean house in Washington.
Throughout his second bid for the Democratic nomination, Mr. Edwards clashed repeatedly with Mrs. Clinton, criticizing her for accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists, a practice that he fiercely opposed.
And much of his campaign pitch centered on the notion that Washington politicians have become corrupted by the influence of lobbyists for drug companies, oil companies and other corporate interests.
“You can’t just trade corporate Republicans for corporate Democrats,” he told audiences frequently, an attack aimed at Mrs. Clinton."
And Good Luck With That
Afghanistan intends to ask the international community for another $50-billion in aid at the donors conference in Paris in June.
Unfortunately Afghanistan is old news, a country where the international community is already looking for the exit door. Lives have been wasted and billions squandered transforming Afghanistan from a failed state under the Taliban to a failed state under the rule of warlords.
I suppose massive amounts of aid will be promised in Paris but whether that aid will ever reach Afghanistan is another question. Much will probably hinge on next year's Afghan elections. Who will wind up running the show and what will their agenda look like? No one knows. At the moment, Karzai seems to be everyone's default choice but no one is particularly happy about it.
Afghanistan's other problem is that you can only be the poster boy for so long. Since the Taliban were routed in 2001, Afghanistan has been a bottomless pit for Western assistance, military and civil. However, with a government as corrupt and compromised as Karzai's, it's been little more than pissing into the wind. That sort of frustrating effort has a limited shelf life and Afghanistan has already passed its "best before" date.
No matter how hard we try not to notice, there are other problems in the world as deserving of our assistance and we're doing no one any favours by neglecting them. Food shortages, disaster relief, sectarian violence abound seemingly everywhere outside the borders of the Western world.
Besides, what's in it for us? Both Russia and China have a very tangible, economic interest in Afghanistan. They want at the mineral resources and want to run pipelines across the entire country. Why then aren't they handling the security? I don't think they would do a worse job of it than we have.
No, I don't think we'll be seeing $50-billion worth of sincere, binding commitments coming out of Paris next month. If America wants to prop up Kabul to keep it out of the sphere of influence of the Russians and Chinese, that's none of our business. We can put our money and our soldiers' lives to better use than as fodder for Washington's geopolitical games.
Unfortunately Afghanistan is old news, a country where the international community is already looking for the exit door. Lives have been wasted and billions squandered transforming Afghanistan from a failed state under the Taliban to a failed state under the rule of warlords.
I suppose massive amounts of aid will be promised in Paris but whether that aid will ever reach Afghanistan is another question. Much will probably hinge on next year's Afghan elections. Who will wind up running the show and what will their agenda look like? No one knows. At the moment, Karzai seems to be everyone's default choice but no one is particularly happy about it.
Afghanistan's other problem is that you can only be the poster boy for so long. Since the Taliban were routed in 2001, Afghanistan has been a bottomless pit for Western assistance, military and civil. However, with a government as corrupt and compromised as Karzai's, it's been little more than pissing into the wind. That sort of frustrating effort has a limited shelf life and Afghanistan has already passed its "best before" date.
No matter how hard we try not to notice, there are other problems in the world as deserving of our assistance and we're doing no one any favours by neglecting them. Food shortages, disaster relief, sectarian violence abound seemingly everywhere outside the borders of the Western world.
Besides, what's in it for us? Both Russia and China have a very tangible, economic interest in Afghanistan. They want at the mineral resources and want to run pipelines across the entire country. Why then aren't they handling the security? I don't think they would do a worse job of it than we have.
No, I don't think we'll be seeing $50-billion worth of sincere, binding commitments coming out of Paris next month. If America wants to prop up Kabul to keep it out of the sphere of influence of the Russians and Chinese, that's none of our business. We can put our money and our soldiers' lives to better use than as fodder for Washington's geopolitical games.
Hillary Wins W. Virginia in a Landslide!
Well maybe it was more like a mudslide or one of those mine collapses. There's no question that Senator Clinton handily defeated Barack Obama by a 2-1 margin but (and there's always a "but") it was West Virginia! That's about as big a deal as, well, not very much.
West Virginia has 28 delegates. That's it, 28. Maryland has 70, Missouri 72, and California 370. That's why to someone trailing in the final weeks of a campaign, triumph in the least literate state in the union has to be taken out of all proportion.
Dana Milbank had a fun piece in today's Washington Post in which he compared what remains of the Clinton campaign to Monty Python's "dead parrot" sketch.
"...Clinton has crossed the Blue Ridge and is over the green hills of West Virginia, home of what she calls the "hardworking Americans, white Americans." This is Clinton Country.
2:57 p.m., Yeager Airport, Charleston, W.Va.: A steep descent brings Clinton's plane to Charleston's hilltop airport. After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane's wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier.
Customer: "That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not half an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it being tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk."
Pet-shop owner: "Well, he's, he's, ah, probably pining for the fjords."
Customer: "He's not pining! He's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! . . . His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, rung down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible! This is an ex-parrot!"
At the convention centre, a crowd of 89-supporters has gathered to celebrate Hillary's victory:
"There are some who wanted to cut this race short!" Clinton says from the faux-wood lectern. They boo.
"I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign," she says. They cheer.
"There are many who wanted to declare a nominee before the ballots were counted or even cast," she says. They boo.
"This race isn't over yet," she says. They cheer.
The sound system emits a loud screech of feedback. The confetti cannons fire.
See? She wasn't dead; she was just pining for the fjords. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051302862.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
West Virginia has 28 delegates. That's it, 28. Maryland has 70, Missouri 72, and California 370. That's why to someone trailing in the final weeks of a campaign, triumph in the least literate state in the union has to be taken out of all proportion.
Dana Milbank had a fun piece in today's Washington Post in which he compared what remains of the Clinton campaign to Monty Python's "dead parrot" sketch.
"...Clinton has crossed the Blue Ridge and is over the green hills of West Virginia, home of what she calls the "hardworking Americans, white Americans." This is Clinton Country.
2:57 p.m., Yeager Airport, Charleston, W.Va.: A steep descent brings Clinton's plane to Charleston's hilltop airport. After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane's wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier.
Customer: "That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not half an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it being tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk."
Pet-shop owner: "Well, he's, he's, ah, probably pining for the fjords."
Customer: "He's not pining! He's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! . . . His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, rung down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible! This is an ex-parrot!"
At the convention centre, a crowd of 89-supporters has gathered to celebrate Hillary's victory:
"There are some who wanted to cut this race short!" Clinton says from the faux-wood lectern. They boo.
"I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign," she says. They cheer.
"There are many who wanted to declare a nominee before the ballots were counted or even cast," she says. They boo.
"This race isn't over yet," she says. They cheer.
The sound system emits a loud screech of feedback. The confetti cannons fire.
See? She wasn't dead; she was just pining for the fjords. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051302862.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Monday, May 12, 2008
Shoving the Genie Back In The Bottle
With all the problems facing the world - global warming, resource exhaustion, freshwater depletion and desertification, species extinction, overpopulation and migration, terrorism and security - you would think there wouldn't be room for anymore. But there is.
Also on today's menu is nuclear proliferation and, according to a report in today's Washington Post, it's a problem on the verge of getting out of control:
"At least 40 developing countries from the Persian Gulf region to Latin America have recently approached U.N. officials here to signal interest in starting nuclear power programs, a trend that concerned proliferation experts say could provide the building blocks of nuclear arsenals in some of those nations.
At least half a dozen countries have also said in the past four years that they are specifically planning to conduct enrichment or reprocessing of nuclear fuel, a prospect that could dramatically expand the global supply of plutonium and enriched uranium, according to U.S. and international nuclear officials and arms-control experts."
The list includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Algeria and Morocco. There are already seven nuclear plants underway in Egypt and Turkey. Even Yemen wants one.
"We are concerned that some countries are moving down the nuclear [weapons] path in reaction to the Iranians," a senior U.S. government official who tracks the spread of nuclear technology said in an interview. He declined to speak on the record because of diplomatic sensitivities. "The big question is: At what point do you reach the nuclear tipping point, when enough countries go nuclear that others decide they must do so, too?"
Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency and a winner with the IAEA of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for his work preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, has likened the pursuit of "latent" nuclear capability to buying an insurance policy.
"You don't really even need to have a nuclear weapon," ElBaradei said at a recent international conference of security officials in Munich. "It's enough to buy yourself an insurance policy by developing the capability, and then sit on it. Let's not kid ourselves: Ninety percent of it is insurance, a deterrence." I
Although they don't like to admit it, it was the original nuclear weapons powers that made a joke out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty under which lesser nations were supposed to give up the right to nukes while the nuclear weapons states undertook to disarm. With decades of indifference to their NPT obligations by the United States, CCCP/Russia, China, France and Britain, the rest of the world saw no reason they shouldn't ignore the treaty either. Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea so far and there'll undoubtedly be more to come.
I suppose a recommitted nuclear disarmament agreement might be theoretically possible but don't count on it. There's a global arms race underway involving the US, China, India and Russia that will almost certainly preclude any agreement on disarmament by the nuclear powers.
Also on today's menu is nuclear proliferation and, according to a report in today's Washington Post, it's a problem on the verge of getting out of control:
"At least 40 developing countries from the Persian Gulf region to Latin America have recently approached U.N. officials here to signal interest in starting nuclear power programs, a trend that concerned proliferation experts say could provide the building blocks of nuclear arsenals in some of those nations.
At least half a dozen countries have also said in the past four years that they are specifically planning to conduct enrichment or reprocessing of nuclear fuel, a prospect that could dramatically expand the global supply of plutonium and enriched uranium, according to U.S. and international nuclear officials and arms-control experts."
The list includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Algeria and Morocco. There are already seven nuclear plants underway in Egypt and Turkey. Even Yemen wants one.
"We are concerned that some countries are moving down the nuclear [weapons] path in reaction to the Iranians," a senior U.S. government official who tracks the spread of nuclear technology said in an interview. He declined to speak on the record because of diplomatic sensitivities. "The big question is: At what point do you reach the nuclear tipping point, when enough countries go nuclear that others decide they must do so, too?"
Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency and a winner with the IAEA of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for his work preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, has likened the pursuit of "latent" nuclear capability to buying an insurance policy.
"You don't really even need to have a nuclear weapon," ElBaradei said at a recent international conference of security officials in Munich. "It's enough to buy yourself an insurance policy by developing the capability, and then sit on it. Let's not kid ourselves: Ninety percent of it is insurance, a deterrence." I
Although they don't like to admit it, it was the original nuclear weapons powers that made a joke out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty under which lesser nations were supposed to give up the right to nukes while the nuclear weapons states undertook to disarm. With decades of indifference to their NPT obligations by the United States, CCCP/Russia, China, France and Britain, the rest of the world saw no reason they shouldn't ignore the treaty either. Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea so far and there'll undoubtedly be more to come.
I suppose a recommitted nuclear disarmament agreement might be theoretically possible but don't count on it. There's a global arms race underway involving the US, China, India and Russia that will almost certainly preclude any agreement on disarmament by the nuclear powers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)