For years, Frank Moores and those around him have been adamant that the former Newfoundland premier turned lobbyist had nothing whatsoever to do with Airbus Industries and its sale of jetliners to Air Canada.
What a difference a page makes.
The Globe & Mail has reported on a February 3, 1988 letter that may be the smoking gun to undo the Moores' camp claims:
On Feb. 3, 1988, only two months before the board of directors at Air Canada agreed to make the largest civilian aircraft purchase in the country's history, Mr. Moores wrote to the chairman of Airbus Industrie, the late Franz Josef Strauss, about the financing agreement for the sale.
“I would like to bring to your attention a situation that has developed regarding the sale of aircraft to Air Canada,” Mr. Moores wrote, explaining that Air Canada required a “deficiency guarantee” before proceeding with the sale.
In March of 1985, he was named to Air Canada's board of directors by Mr. Mulroney's Conservative government – the same month that Airbus entered into a secret commission deal that saw millions of dollars flow into a shell company controlled by Mr. Schreiber. (Mr. Moores later stepped down from the board because of accusations of conflict of interest.)
As for Mr. Moores's letter to Airbus, which seems to contradict everything he ever said about his involvement with the company, many of his old partners at GCI did not return phone calls from The Globe. His wife, Beth Moores, said earlier this year that she did not want to speak on the record.
Pierre Jeanniot, who was CEO of Air Canada when the Airbus deal was made, said he had no explanation for why Mr. Moores would be writing Airbus about its sale to the former Crown corporation.
Maybe the ghost of Frank Moores still has a role to play in the Airbus saga. Thanks to the Globe and CBC, a lot of old beliefs are beginning to fall apart.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Cheney's Love of Killing
Dick Cheney's been at it again, slaughtering tame birds by the score.
AlterNet has the story of Cheney's most recent safari to a tame bird farm in upstate New York where he and his pals bagged upwards of 400-tame pheasants:
Last month in a caravan of 15 sport utility vehicles and an ambulance -- no jokes, please -- Cheney made his way to Clove Valley Rod & Gun Club, about 70 miles north of New York City, near Poughkeepsie, for a day of controlled bloodletting.
Cheney landed at Stewart Air Force Base and took off the following day for the upscale gun club at a cost of $32,000 for local law enforcement officials who guarded his hotel, protected his motorcade and diverted school buses.
Like Cheney's last visit to Clove Valley in 2001, the 4,000-acre club, which costs $150,000 a year to join, was a fortress with Blackwater-style snipers "protecting" the vice president's right to shoot tame birds.
Birds raised for canned hunts at gun clubs and in state "recreational" areas are grown in packed pens -- think factory farmed chickens -- and fitted with goggles so they won't peck each other to death from the crowding.
When released for put and take hunters like Cheney, pen raised birds can barely walk or fly -- or see, thanks to the goggles. They don't know how to forage or hide in the wild and sometimes have to be kicked to "fly" enough to be shot.
Some hunters say shooting the pellet-ready tame animals, which offer no resistance, is like having sex with a blow-up doll.
Mulroney's Real Fight is With Himself
Brian Mulroney is talking tough again.
Speaking at a fundraiser in Toronto he proclaimed, "Twelve years ago I was falsely accused. I fought and I won. Now it seems I'm going to have to fight again. I'm not pleased by this, but so be it. I am going to fight and win again."
Just who is he planning to fight? He doesn't need to fight, merely to give believable explanations to a number of facts that he admits or that are in the public record.
Karlheinz Schreiber has tossed out a number of allegations, some of them barely more than innuendo. If Mulroney will simply clarify a few of the troubling inconsistencies, Schreiber's claims will become irrelevant to all but the real conspiracy theorists.
He needs to explain why he took cash-stuffed envelopes at three meetings with Schreiber. Why cash and what was it for?
He needs to explain how he handled the money. Just what did he do with it?
He needs to explain how he treated the money for tax purposes. Was it Schreiber's money that led to his (and Frank Moores') voluntary disclosures to Revenue Canada after the story was broken in the Canadian media?
He needs to explain the evidence he gave, under oath, in the course of his lawsuit suggesting that his only involvement with Schreiber was to have a coffee with the guy a few times.
These four issues are the core of the problem. Explain them, if there is an explanation, and the problem pretty much goes away. If he tries to avoid these issues, Mulroney's real fight will be with himself.
About the Death Penalty...
No question, Stephen Harper and his trolls would reinstate the death penalty in a final heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it. The idea of killing people has a deep-rooted appeal to their Old Testamental minds.
In other words, they would have Canada join the likes of China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the US. The Big Six account for 91% of all the executions carried out by the 25-Dark Age nations that still indulge in this pastime. After that they'll reinstate wife-beating and, someday, who knows, slavery?
What's wrong with the death penalty? There's plenty wrong with it but, first and foremost, is that it can result in state homicide of innocent people wrongly convicted.
Sure we've all heard of the DNA-cases where forensic biology rescued innocents sitting on death row. But they were just a small fraction of the killers awaiting execution, right? Fair enough. What's missing in this argument is reality. We've somehow come to assume that the only innocents sitting on death row are those who've since been cleared by DNA testing. What a fanciful idea!
There are plenty of murder convictions where DNA isn't relevant evidence. It's a technology that lends itself to crimes where the killer leaves biological trace evidence - usually hair or body fluids. What if there is no such evidence? Well the jury has to weigh other evidence, itself often circumstantial.
We know, from the DNA cases, that several innocents were convicted long before the days of DNA testing, on the strength of unreliable eyewitness identifications, botched forensics, incompetent defence counsel, or police or prosecutorial misconduct.
The worst convictions are those grounded on eyewitness testimony. That's where the person in the witness box points the accusatory finger at the other person sitting (conveniently) in the prisoner's box or at the defence table and pronounces "that's him, that's the guy I saw do the dirty deed." Compelling stuff indeed but proven to be astonishingly unreliable.
Botched forensics? Consider Ontario pathologist Dr. Charles Smith or the FBI crime lab scandal or the dozens of other examples you can easily find if you bother looking.
Incompetent defence counsel? There's no shortage of them.
Police or prosecutorial misconduct? Yes, it happens. Greenspan even wrote a book about it. Cops simply making up stories or telling incomplete accounts or burying exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors playing similar games. It happens.
You see, atop the DNA cases, there are plenty of people convicted of murder as a result of these other factors. There are innocents who haven't got the DNA Get Out of Jail card.
But this isn't about those people sitting on Death Row. It's about you and how we keep you from getting slung into a Death Row cell. What makes you think it couldn't happen to you? You're fooling yourself if you believe that.
In short, we can either find a way to eliminate botched forensics or mistaken identity or incompetent counsel or police or prosecutorial misconduct or flaws in criminal procedure and the laws of evidence - or - we can accept that we can't do the impossible and because of that we accept that society cannot take the lives of innocent people who may be condemned by serious defects in our criminal justice system.
Before leaving this subject there is one remedial step we can, and should, take. If, in the course of a proceeding, it becomes apparent that the defendant has been the victim of police or prosecutorial misconduct, we ought to take those offenders and give them cells of their own. We need to make police understand that they're investigators, not prosecutors, and their job isn't to facilitate convictions but merely to gather and present the evidence - fully, fairly and accurately. They betray all of us and society suffers when they pervert our fundamental principles of justice.
The Big Picture - If You Want It
It's called the "Global Incident Map" and you can access it here:
It is, as the name suggests, a map of the world onto which are shown all the latest terrorism and other nasty events going on, right now, in our planet. It's even updated - every six minutes. Think about that.
You'll definitely learn something new and exciting, guaranteed. For example did you know Israel's Dimona nuclear facilities were put on air raid alert 30-times last week? Seems Israel fears a retaliatory Syrian air strike.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Is Our New Government Indifferent to Torture?
Amnesty International wants all NATO forces in Afghanistan to stop transferring prisoners to the National Directorate for Security, that country's secret police service.
Amnesty alleges the NDS routinely tortures captives and handing over detainees to torturers violates international law. From the Globe & Mail:
The government of Stephen Harper has scoffed at detainee accounts of torture, dismissing them as enemy propaganda.
"We do expect these kinds of allegations from the Taliban," Tory House Leader Peter Van Loan said when the latest horrific accounts were published last month.
Isn't that the same logic once used in witch trials? If they complain about abuse they must be the evil enemy? Does that mean that, if the detainees were innocent, they'd take their torture like good men and keep their mouths shut?
Nevertheless, the United Nations, international organizations, and even Afghanistan's own tiny and underfunded rights group consistently find that detainees are tortured by the NDS.
Canadian diplomats in Kabul also found that torture was rife in NDS prisons, but Ottawa blacked out every instance of the word "torture" in the annual report on Afghanistan.
If our detainees are being tortured on handover to the Afghanis, and it certainly appears to be the case, allowing it to continue brings disgrace upon all of us. It's strange but I'm not surprised that the Harper regime would be indifferent to it. Then again, what does this say for the supposedly wonderful Karzai government our troops are dying in order to prop up?
I find it curious that we can act decently and be disgusted when Bush/Cheney pack Maher Arar off to Syria for a bout of rendition torture but show not the slightest concern when we hand over mere suspects to the Afghanis knowing they'll get the same thing, perhaps even worse.
If you needed another reason to get rid of Harper, there it is.
Musharraf's Getting "Bad Vibes" From Bhutto
Pakistani strongman, Pervez Musharraf, told the New York Times, that his state of emergency, including the imprisonment of 2,500 opposition party workers, lawyers and human rights advocatese, is essential in order for Pakistan to ensure free and fair elections in January.
Mushie added that he finds Bhutto confrontational and hard to work with:
“You come here on supposedly on a reconciliatory mode, and right before you land, you’re on a confrontationist mode,” he said. “I am afraid this is producing negative vibes, negative optics.”
Asked when he'll end the state of emergency, Musharraf replied, “I don’t know, I don’t know. We need to see the environment.”
Mushie added that he finds Bhutto confrontational and hard to work with:
“You come here on supposedly on a reconciliatory mode, and right before you land, you’re on a confrontationist mode,” he said. “I am afraid this is producing negative vibes, negative optics.”
Asked when he'll end the state of emergency, Musharraf replied, “I don’t know, I don’t know. We need to see the environment.”
Just What a Debt-Strapped Country Needs
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson wants America's military ground force expanded to an even million soldiers. Thompson proposes a 775,000-strong army and a 225,000 member marine corps. The Pentagon has said it wants 547,000 soldiers for the army.
Thompson hasn't said just who he'd like to attack with his bigger and better army but I'm sure he's got some place in mind. That seems to be the presidential thing to do these days. His rival, Guiliani, has already said he's in the mood for kicking some third world ass if he gets elected. Mitt Romney wants to double the size of Guantanimo's prison for illegal combattants.
Seriously, folks, these guys are as crazy as outhouse rats.
Thompson hasn't said just who he'd like to attack with his bigger and better army but I'm sure he's got some place in mind. That seems to be the presidential thing to do these days. His rival, Guiliani, has already said he's in the mood for kicking some third world ass if he gets elected. Mitt Romney wants to double the size of Guantanimo's prison for illegal combattants.
Seriously, folks, these guys are as crazy as outhouse rats.
The Price of War
This isn't about dead or wounded civilians or soldiers. It's about the amount the average American family of four has become responsible for thanks to George w. Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
An audit released today says, including funding already committed for these wars, that family is indebted to the tune of $20,900 of which Iraq alone accounts for $16,500. Future economic costs associated with these wars are expected to inflate that debt to $46,400 per family of four.
The figures came from the US Congress' Joint Economic Committee.
The report says that the wars have also contributed to increased oil prices over the past four years. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, the price of oil was $37 per barrel.
The Democrats have suggested levying a tax to raise revenue to pay off this indebtedness now. The thinking is that it would be such an unpopular levy that it would incite a clamour for an end to these wars, particularly the adventure in Iraq. Bush has irresponsibly sheltered the American people from the impact of his lunacy by borrowing the war funding, leaving it as a liability for the next generation of unfortunate American workers.
An audit released today says, including funding already committed for these wars, that family is indebted to the tune of $20,900 of which Iraq alone accounts for $16,500. Future economic costs associated with these wars are expected to inflate that debt to $46,400 per family of four.
The figures came from the US Congress' Joint Economic Committee.
The report says that the wars have also contributed to increased oil prices over the past four years. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, the price of oil was $37 per barrel.
The Democrats have suggested levying a tax to raise revenue to pay off this indebtedness now. The thinking is that it would be such an unpopular levy that it would incite a clamour for an end to these wars, particularly the adventure in Iraq. Bush has irresponsibly sheltered the American people from the impact of his lunacy by borrowing the war funding, leaving it as a liability for the next generation of unfortunate American workers.
Criminal Irresponsibility
The UN's lead climate change official has opened the latest IPCC meeting by warning that "Failing to recognize the urgency of [the global warming danger] and act on it would be nothing less than criminally irresponsible."
In his remarks, Yvo de Boer, made it clear that this time the scientists are going to stand up to the government representatives in hammering out the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop our planet from overheating.
Thousands of scientific papers are going to be boiled down into a 25-page report to be issued at the end of the week. Like the panel's previous reports, it's a consensus project which has normally seen government reps negotiate to water down the scientific side's findings. From USA Today:
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning panel, said scientists were determined to "adhere to standards of quality" in the report. It was indirect barb at the government representatives, who have been accused by environmentalists of watering down and excluding vital information from the summaries of earlier reports to fit their domestic agendas.
The document to be issued Saturday sums up the scientific consensus on how rapidly the Earth is warming and the effects already observed; the impact it could have for billions of people; and what steps can be taken to keep the planet's temperature from rising to disastrous levels.
The document to be issued Saturday sums up the scientific consensus on how rapidly the Earth is warming and the effects already observed; the impact it could have for billions of people; and what steps can be taken to keep the planet's temperature from rising to disastrous levels.
The IPCC has already been criticized for the selectivity and language of the policy summaries, which have been softened on several points because of objections by countries including the USA, China and some big oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia.
On Monday, WWF International, one of several environmental groups invited to observe the process, said "governments cut vital facts and important information" during the negotiations.
Without naming them, the WWF accused governments of "politically inspired trimming" of facts from the summaries, which it said diluted the urgency to make deep cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
de Boer noted that global warming will hit the poorest countries hardest and will "threaten the very survival" of some people. He added that, failing to act on global warming would be a direct attack on the world's poorest people. On that score, he's absolutely right.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Yeah, But Do You LOVE the Troops?
My dad missed it, he stayed in bed, but I watched the CBC Remembrance Day coverage. Hey, he's 90 now, he's entitled to give it a pass.
This year's coverage included an appearance by a rabbi who exhorted the audience to profess that they actually "loved" the troops. Loved'em? Why, 'cause they're now fighting Muslims? Loved'em? Just how? Wrecked'em? Damned near killed'em!
I listened to that shit and I just about howled! This guy wanted to turn a solemn moment of remembrance into some sort of knee-jerk, Love In? We let this guy come in and co-opt their sacrifice and their deaths to his own political agenda. There's not so much something wrong with him and still there's a whole lot wrong with us that we didn't react to that.
Do I respect the troops? Totally. Do I support the troops? More than most, in my own way. Do I "love" the troops? Of course not. Why would I and, better yet, would any of them really want my love? My sincere respect, appreciation and support? Sure they would want that. My love? I'll bet that would leave them as twitchy as it does me.
This whole idea of soldier-worship really bothers me. If for no other reason but that it takes away from their sacrifice by exploiting it to advance someone else's political agenda. I don't believe in feeding political agendas on the dead. It's just plain wrong.
This year's coverage included an appearance by a rabbi who exhorted the audience to profess that they actually "loved" the troops. Loved'em? Why, 'cause they're now fighting Muslims? Loved'em? Just how? Wrecked'em? Damned near killed'em!
I listened to that shit and I just about howled! This guy wanted to turn a solemn moment of remembrance into some sort of knee-jerk, Love In? We let this guy come in and co-opt their sacrifice and their deaths to his own political agenda. There's not so much something wrong with him and still there's a whole lot wrong with us that we didn't react to that.
Do I respect the troops? Totally. Do I support the troops? More than most, in my own way. Do I "love" the troops? Of course not. Why would I and, better yet, would any of them really want my love? My sincere respect, appreciation and support? Sure they would want that. My love? I'll bet that would leave them as twitchy as it does me.
This whole idea of soldier-worship really bothers me. If for no other reason but that it takes away from their sacrifice by exploiting it to advance someone else's political agenda. I don't believe in feeding political agendas on the dead. It's just plain wrong.
Of Rats and Sinking Ships
The Tories would have us believe them to be the party of transparency, accountability, honesty, fidelity, rigtheousness and everything espoused in the Boy Scout oath. And then there's Brian Mulroney.
These same lilly-whites are now furiously bailing out on their pal and mentor, Lyin' Brian. It's as though Mulroney has the avian flu and is trying to bed them.
Relax, Mulroney stopped screwing Canada when he got $2-million of our taxdollars by claiming he barely knew Karlheinz Schreiber. The only bunch he seems to be screwing now are the - lordy, lordy - Holier than Thou Tories.
The Conservative hypocrisy is so blatant as to be rebuked by the National Disgrace's own Don Martin:
Brian Mulroney was declared a parliamentary pariah last week by a Conservative government that had hailed him as its mentor and elder statesman.
Cabinet ministers and Conservative MPs are abruptly bailing from a health research gala this Thursday in Montreal, where Mr. Mulroney is scheduled to speak after receiving a "rarely awarded" medal of honour.
Organizers say he has not yet followed insider advice to miss the event, knowing it will become a Mulroney-stalking media frenzy instead of a salute to his former government's medical-research support.
Senator Marjory LeBreton has also fallen strangely silent, unusual behaviour for a chatty Cabinet minister who serves as Mr. Mulroney's loudest and proudest cheerleader on Parliament Hill.
And from inside the Stephen Harper Cabinet, a bizarre blame game has been started by Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, who says former prime minister Jean Chrétien should have nailed Mr. Mulroney with a public inquiry a decade ago instead of apologetically paying his $2.1-million legal bill.
This is particularly odd coming from Mr. Cannon, whose chief of staff served as the usher for Mr. Mulroney's 1998 Swiss hotel meeting with Karlheinz Schreiber, the lobbyist who forked over three $100,000 cash payments nobody knew existed when the court settlement was announced.
The troubling side of Mr. Mulroney's predicament is that while Mr. Schreiber has sworn out an incendiary affidavit, the former prime minister's advocates have been silenced and the former leader has been shunned by his own party before he's uttered a public peep in his own defence.
Of course, Mr. Mulroney is not above apparent nose-stretching of his own and there's no doubt this saga suggests he's an alarmingly poor judge of character.
For Mr. Schreiber to know, for example, that Mr. Mulroney had a meeting with the ultra-secretive Stephen Harper at his Harrington Lake retreat in the summer of 2006 shows a shocking lack of discretion on Mr. Mulroney's part.
And for the former prime minister to allegedly agree to hand Mr. Harper a friendly letter from Mr. Schreiber to curry political favour suggests a frightening desperation by Mr. Mulroney to fix a problem from his past.
So far, Prime Minister Harper's only risk in this ruckus is confined to questions about Mr. Schreiber's seven-month-old taddle-tale letter to the Privy Council. It was filled with many of the Mulroney allegations, but Mr. Harper insists it never reached his office. If this is true, it suggests a failure to communicate in the top bureaucracy. If this is not the case, cover-up allegations beckon.
But this much is certain: The investigator tagged to study this mess will need Solomon's wisdom to sort facts from fiction.
With so many exaggerations, distortions and outright lies being spread by people who place a priceless value on self-preservation, the truth may be impossible to find.
So the rats are deserting the sinking ship. I guess the guy just outlived his usefulness.
These same lilly-whites are now furiously bailing out on their pal and mentor, Lyin' Brian. It's as though Mulroney has the avian flu and is trying to bed them.
Relax, Mulroney stopped screwing Canada when he got $2-million of our taxdollars by claiming he barely knew Karlheinz Schreiber. The only bunch he seems to be screwing now are the - lordy, lordy - Holier than Thou Tories.
The Conservative hypocrisy is so blatant as to be rebuked by the National Disgrace's own Don Martin:
Brian Mulroney was declared a parliamentary pariah last week by a Conservative government that had hailed him as its mentor and elder statesman.
Cabinet ministers and Conservative MPs are abruptly bailing from a health research gala this Thursday in Montreal, where Mr. Mulroney is scheduled to speak after receiving a "rarely awarded" medal of honour.
Organizers say he has not yet followed insider advice to miss the event, knowing it will become a Mulroney-stalking media frenzy instead of a salute to his former government's medical-research support.
Senator Marjory LeBreton has also fallen strangely silent, unusual behaviour for a chatty Cabinet minister who serves as Mr. Mulroney's loudest and proudest cheerleader on Parliament Hill.
And from inside the Stephen Harper Cabinet, a bizarre blame game has been started by Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, who says former prime minister Jean Chrétien should have nailed Mr. Mulroney with a public inquiry a decade ago instead of apologetically paying his $2.1-million legal bill.
This is particularly odd coming from Mr. Cannon, whose chief of staff served as the usher for Mr. Mulroney's 1998 Swiss hotel meeting with Karlheinz Schreiber, the lobbyist who forked over three $100,000 cash payments nobody knew existed when the court settlement was announced.
The troubling side of Mr. Mulroney's predicament is that while Mr. Schreiber has sworn out an incendiary affidavit, the former prime minister's advocates have been silenced and the former leader has been shunned by his own party before he's uttered a public peep in his own defence.
Of course, Mr. Mulroney is not above apparent nose-stretching of his own and there's no doubt this saga suggests he's an alarmingly poor judge of character.
For Mr. Schreiber to know, for example, that Mr. Mulroney had a meeting with the ultra-secretive Stephen Harper at his Harrington Lake retreat in the summer of 2006 shows a shocking lack of discretion on Mr. Mulroney's part.
And for the former prime minister to allegedly agree to hand Mr. Harper a friendly letter from Mr. Schreiber to curry political favour suggests a frightening desperation by Mr. Mulroney to fix a problem from his past.
So far, Prime Minister Harper's only risk in this ruckus is confined to questions about Mr. Schreiber's seven-month-old taddle-tale letter to the Privy Council. It was filled with many of the Mulroney allegations, but Mr. Harper insists it never reached his office. If this is true, it suggests a failure to communicate in the top bureaucracy. If this is not the case, cover-up allegations beckon.
But this much is certain: The investigator tagged to study this mess will need Solomon's wisdom to sort facts from fiction.
With so many exaggerations, distortions and outright lies being spread by people who place a priceless value on self-preservation, the truth may be impossible to find.
So the rats are deserting the sinking ship. I guess the guy just outlived his usefulness.
Harpo's Cheney Style Cut-Out
In his excellent book, The One Percent Doctrine, Pulitzer Prize winning author, Ron Suskind, discusses ways and means employed by the Bush regime to dodge accountability:
"...the Bush presidency had been quietly innovating new concepts in regard to presidential accountability - changes largely intuited and instituted by the Vice President.
Cheney, as far back as the Ford presidency, had experimented with the concept of keeping certain issues away from the chief executive - a reversal of equations that operated before the media age obligated presidents to spend so much time speaking under hot lights. Cheney's view, according to officeholders from several Republican administrations, is that presidents, in essence, needed a failsafe if they were publicly challenged with an inopportunate disclosure about the activities of the U.S. government. They needed to be able to say they had no knowldge of the incident, and not be caught in a lie.
There has been no better Canadian practitioner of Cheney-style gutter politics than Stephen Harper. He's shown himself a master of the witches' brew of fear and confusion, spreading it around as thick as can be to achieve his ends. I immediately recalled Cheney's cut out theory, therefore, when I read the latest, lame explanation of why Stephen Harper waited seven months after receiving Shcreiber's letter alleging prime ministerial misconduct by Brian Mulroney before relenting and ordering some investigation of the matter. From the Globe & Mail:
The Prime Minister's Office said Mr. Harper never got the correspondence because it was received by the Privy Council Office – its bureaucratic arm – and was not forwarded to Mr. Harper.
“Even if it had been, it is unlikely Prime Minister Harper would have seen it,” PMO spokeswoman Sandra Buckler said in an e-mail sent late Friday night. In an e-mail Sunday, she added that the Privy Council also never communicated the details of that correspondence to Mr. Harper verbally, saying the first he learned of these accusations was when they were filed in court. “The Prime Minister was clear – he acted when he learned about the new allegations contained in the sworn affidavit. He did not know about the new allegations previously,” Ms. Buckler said.
Mr. Dion, Official Opposition Leader, said it strained credulity to accept that the Privy Council Office did not relay the allegations it received in the March, 2007, correspondence from Mr. Schreiber.
Sorry, Stephane, this doesn't strain credulity. To the contrary, it's now the way business is conducted by the far-right. It works. It can even let you get away with invading a country on the other side of the world based on nothing more than a veil of lies.
"...the Bush presidency had been quietly innovating new concepts in regard to presidential accountability - changes largely intuited and instituted by the Vice President.
Cheney, as far back as the Ford presidency, had experimented with the concept of keeping certain issues away from the chief executive - a reversal of equations that operated before the media age obligated presidents to spend so much time speaking under hot lights. Cheney's view, according to officeholders from several Republican administrations, is that presidents, in essence, needed a failsafe if they were publicly challenged with an inopportunate disclosure about the activities of the U.S. government. They needed to be able to say they had no knowldge of the incident, and not be caught in a lie.
There has been no better Canadian practitioner of Cheney-style gutter politics than Stephen Harper. He's shown himself a master of the witches' brew of fear and confusion, spreading it around as thick as can be to achieve his ends. I immediately recalled Cheney's cut out theory, therefore, when I read the latest, lame explanation of why Stephen Harper waited seven months after receiving Shcreiber's letter alleging prime ministerial misconduct by Brian Mulroney before relenting and ordering some investigation of the matter. From the Globe & Mail:
The Prime Minister's Office said Mr. Harper never got the correspondence because it was received by the Privy Council Office – its bureaucratic arm – and was not forwarded to Mr. Harper.
“Even if it had been, it is unlikely Prime Minister Harper would have seen it,” PMO spokeswoman Sandra Buckler said in an e-mail sent late Friday night. In an e-mail Sunday, she added that the Privy Council also never communicated the details of that correspondence to Mr. Harper verbally, saying the first he learned of these accusations was when they were filed in court. “The Prime Minister was clear – he acted when he learned about the new allegations contained in the sworn affidavit. He did not know about the new allegations previously,” Ms. Buckler said.
Mr. Dion, Official Opposition Leader, said it strained credulity to accept that the Privy Council Office did not relay the allegations it received in the March, 2007, correspondence from Mr. Schreiber.
Sorry, Stephane, this doesn't strain credulity. To the contrary, it's now the way business is conducted by the far-right. It works. It can even let you get away with invading a country on the other side of the world based on nothing more than a veil of lies.
Tories Pay for Harper's Bully Boy Antics
The Conservative Party of Canada has settled a libel action brought by one of its own, former candidates.
Lawyer Alan Riddell ran in Ottawa in the 2004 election. He subsequently was replaced as the riding's Tory candidate. In the wake of that, Riddell alleged he'd been promised $50,000 sto step aside.
Harpo, in his typical arrogance, disputed Riddell's claim of a deal. Riddell sued and the court found there was indeed the agreement alleged, notwithstanding Harper's denial.
Riddell then sued the party that had labelled him a liar. The party - that would be the CPC, Riddell's very own Conservatives - announced it has now settled that lawsuit.
Lawyer Alan Riddell ran in Ottawa in the 2004 election. He subsequently was replaced as the riding's Tory candidate. In the wake of that, Riddell alleged he'd been promised $50,000 sto step aside.
Harpo, in his typical arrogance, disputed Riddell's claim of a deal. Riddell sued and the court found there was indeed the agreement alleged, notwithstanding Harper's denial.
Riddell then sued the party that had labelled him a liar. The party - that would be the CPC, Riddell's very own Conservatives - announced it has now settled that lawsuit.
Mila to Barbel - "Don't Worry, Be Happy"
Brian Mulroney's attempts to cover-up his close relationship with Karheinz Schreiber took another hit today with publication by the Globe & Mail of a 2000 letter from Mila Mulroney to Schreiber's wife, Barbel.
Mila's handwritten letter, dated 24 January, 2000, seeks to comfort Mrs. Schreiber. From the Globe:
"I had wanted to put pen to paper sooner. But at times like these words do not seem adequate," Mrs. Mulroney wrote to Mr. Schreiber's wife, Barbel Schreiber.
"I know what you are going through. It is never easy when our husbands have difficulties. Rest assured that it will pass. Things will get better, you have an excellent lawyer and the truth is certainly the best weapon."
It's hard to know what "truth" Mrs. Mulroney refers to. There's been a profound lack of truth in this business.
Mila's handwritten letter, dated 24 January, 2000, seeks to comfort Mrs. Schreiber. From the Globe:
"I had wanted to put pen to paper sooner. But at times like these words do not seem adequate," Mrs. Mulroney wrote to Mr. Schreiber's wife, Barbel Schreiber.
"I know what you are going through. It is never easy when our husbands have difficulties. Rest assured that it will pass. Things will get better, you have an excellent lawyer and the truth is certainly the best weapon."
It's hard to know what "truth" Mrs. Mulroney refers to. There's been a profound lack of truth in this business.
Why We Can't Win in Afghanistan
Progress is a relative concept. If your house catches fire you can make progress heading for the door but if you don't make enough progress you're not getting out alive. You see, making it to the door is the only progress that really matters.
We are making progress in Afghanistan, sort of, but so is the opposition, the fire, and meanwhile the house, the government, is being consumed.
NATO is making progress but is it succeeding? No, it's not. Will it succeed? No it won't, at least not without a wholesale change in a variety of factors both within and beyond NATO's control.
Two of the best think tanks in existence are the International Crisis Group and Chatham House. They tend to be fact focused instead of being ideologically blinded, propaganda mills like so many such as the Fraser Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.
The Royal Institute of International Affairs, better known as "Chatham House", has released a paper entitled "Coalition Warfare in Afghanistan: Burden-sharing or Disunity?" The paper cites a lack of consensus among NATO partners, the absence of any coherent strategy, and the failure to determine, collectively, how to implement effective civil-military co-operation as chronic problems that undermine what the alliance seeks to do in Afghanistan. The report also points to Pakistan and notes that, so long as the tribal lands remain a sanctuary for al-Qaeda and the Taliban, "coalition forces will not be able to control Afghanistan."
The report notes that the combined and confused Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF-US) and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) were crippled, from the start, by critical strategic inconsistencies. The parallel structures of OEF and ISAF violate the principle of unity of command in military operations. Different mandates led to the development of differing strategic objectives made further confused by individual nations taking differing interpretations of their mandate obligations. ISAF has been far too limited (weak) in its geographical reach and ability to deliver sustained stability and reconstruction. OEF has been too American-dominated and globally directed to achieve necessary support from the European nations.
In other words, the past six years have been one giant FUBAR.
Reconstruction was similarly hobbled. The coalition was given responsibility for security. The US took charge of building the Afghan army. Germany received the mandate to train and organize the Afghan police. Italy got to reform the legal system. Britain took over the counter-narcotics programme and Japan got the job of tackling demilitarization and reintegration of the Northern Alliance militias. Each got to do its job as it saw fit. We've all seen how well that's worked out. It turned into a confused mess that is today's Afghanistan.
Then there's the resources question. Neither ISAF nor OEF have remotely enough manpower to achieve their objectives. Not even close. If you put each nation's force under a magnifying glass, look at its own immediate area, you can see signs of progress. It's when you put down the magnifying glass and look at the entire map that you see how insignificant that progress truly is.
NATO was never prepared for its expansion in 2006 from a Kabul security force into a replacement for American combat forces in southern Afghanistan. There ought to have been a clear consensus before that commitment was undertaken but that would have meant not doing it at all so NATO simply blundered ahead, relying on America, British, Canadian, Dutch and Australian forces to do the heavy lifting. The idea was that NATO somehow, magically, would later get the others to get stuck in to a conflict they shunned at the outset. What lunacy! Even those that did get involved frequently disagree on how the military effort should be pursued. Incredible.
Why can we not defeat the Taliban? Because our forces are so small that we're limited to tactical victories - clearing them out of specific locations - but we cannot achieve strategic victories - holding the territories we clear. We go in, drive them out, we leave, they return. The battles are won tactically but the war is decided strategically and OEF/ISAF have no strategic solutions because they absolutely will not furnish the resources needed.
Then there are the other problems, just as critical as the insurgency, that we can't control and so, instead, simply choose to look the other way. "Little progress has been made in dealing with the warlords, whose infighting and various forms of criminal activity remain a major security threat. In particular, the coalition has failed to tackle the nexus of Afghan government, warlords and the drug trade. ...the coalition has tended to ignore this issue."
Put simply the international effort to which Canadian forces are committed is, at the end of the day, a dysfunctional campaign undermined by a fatal lack of consensus, co-operation, commitment and coherence. We have no way forward unless we first recognize these failures and then find the means to overcome them. Without that remedial effort we cannot win in Afghanistan. Without that remedial effort we're just squandering the lives of our soldiers.
We are making progress in Afghanistan, sort of, but so is the opposition, the fire, and meanwhile the house, the government, is being consumed.
NATO is making progress but is it succeeding? No, it's not. Will it succeed? No it won't, at least not without a wholesale change in a variety of factors both within and beyond NATO's control.
Two of the best think tanks in existence are the International Crisis Group and Chatham House. They tend to be fact focused instead of being ideologically blinded, propaganda mills like so many such as the Fraser Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.
The Royal Institute of International Affairs, better known as "Chatham House", has released a paper entitled "Coalition Warfare in Afghanistan: Burden-sharing or Disunity?" The paper cites a lack of consensus among NATO partners, the absence of any coherent strategy, and the failure to determine, collectively, how to implement effective civil-military co-operation as chronic problems that undermine what the alliance seeks to do in Afghanistan. The report also points to Pakistan and notes that, so long as the tribal lands remain a sanctuary for al-Qaeda and the Taliban, "coalition forces will not be able to control Afghanistan."
The report notes that the combined and confused Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF-US) and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) were crippled, from the start, by critical strategic inconsistencies. The parallel structures of OEF and ISAF violate the principle of unity of command in military operations. Different mandates led to the development of differing strategic objectives made further confused by individual nations taking differing interpretations of their mandate obligations. ISAF has been far too limited (weak) in its geographical reach and ability to deliver sustained stability and reconstruction. OEF has been too American-dominated and globally directed to achieve necessary support from the European nations.
In other words, the past six years have been one giant FUBAR.
Reconstruction was similarly hobbled. The coalition was given responsibility for security. The US took charge of building the Afghan army. Germany received the mandate to train and organize the Afghan police. Italy got to reform the legal system. Britain took over the counter-narcotics programme and Japan got the job of tackling demilitarization and reintegration of the Northern Alliance militias. Each got to do its job as it saw fit. We've all seen how well that's worked out. It turned into a confused mess that is today's Afghanistan.
Then there's the resources question. Neither ISAF nor OEF have remotely enough manpower to achieve their objectives. Not even close. If you put each nation's force under a magnifying glass, look at its own immediate area, you can see signs of progress. It's when you put down the magnifying glass and look at the entire map that you see how insignificant that progress truly is.
NATO was never prepared for its expansion in 2006 from a Kabul security force into a replacement for American combat forces in southern Afghanistan. There ought to have been a clear consensus before that commitment was undertaken but that would have meant not doing it at all so NATO simply blundered ahead, relying on America, British, Canadian, Dutch and Australian forces to do the heavy lifting. The idea was that NATO somehow, magically, would later get the others to get stuck in to a conflict they shunned at the outset. What lunacy! Even those that did get involved frequently disagree on how the military effort should be pursued. Incredible.
Why can we not defeat the Taliban? Because our forces are so small that we're limited to tactical victories - clearing them out of specific locations - but we cannot achieve strategic victories - holding the territories we clear. We go in, drive them out, we leave, they return. The battles are won tactically but the war is decided strategically and OEF/ISAF have no strategic solutions because they absolutely will not furnish the resources needed.
Then there are the other problems, just as critical as the insurgency, that we can't control and so, instead, simply choose to look the other way. "Little progress has been made in dealing with the warlords, whose infighting and various forms of criminal activity remain a major security threat. In particular, the coalition has failed to tackle the nexus of Afghan government, warlords and the drug trade. ...the coalition has tended to ignore this issue."
Put simply the international effort to which Canadian forces are committed is, at the end of the day, a dysfunctional campaign undermined by a fatal lack of consensus, co-operation, commitment and coherence. We have no way forward unless we first recognize these failures and then find the means to overcome them. Without that remedial effort we cannot win in Afghanistan. Without that remedial effort we're just squandering the lives of our soldiers.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Why Stop at Mulroney?
Karlheinz Schreiber may have used Airbus schmeergelder to funnel $300,000 to Brian Mulroney but that was just the tip of the iceberg.
The Airbus money totalled many millions of dollars, perhaps upwards of twenty million.
Schreiber has recently said he's willing to talk about the rest of that money, just who got what and why, and isn't that something we all would like to know? Liberal, Conservative - who cares? Let the chips fall where they may.
We know Frank Moores got a matching $300,000. What was that for anyway?
If Schreiber wants to use what he knows to extort a deal to avoid extradition at least let's get that out in the open too. Stephen Harper has a chance to really dig into this dung heap and he owes it to all Canadians to roll up his sleeves and grab a shovel.
The Airbus money totalled many millions of dollars, perhaps upwards of twenty million.
Schreiber has recently said he's willing to talk about the rest of that money, just who got what and why, and isn't that something we all would like to know? Liberal, Conservative - who cares? Let the chips fall where they may.
We know Frank Moores got a matching $300,000. What was that for anyway?
If Schreiber wants to use what he knows to extort a deal to avoid extradition at least let's get that out in the open too. Stephen Harper has a chance to really dig into this dung heap and he owes it to all Canadians to roll up his sleeves and grab a shovel.
The Lower Mainland is - Sinking?
Apparently so. Areas along the Fraser River are reportedly subsiding from Vancouver International Airport as far upriver as Maple Ridge.
The communities along the Fraser Delta, including Richmond, a city of nearly 200,000, are sitting on soft land, often below sea level. Some of those lands have been found to be sinking under their own weight.
Melting sea ice is predicted to cause sea level rises of about 1.6 mm. annually. However the Fraser River communities are also subsiding at the average rate of 2 mm. per year. It doesn't sound like much but, as we tell our kids to get them to put their allowance into savings, after several years it sure adds up. In areas of heavier development the subsidence has been recorded at 5 mm. annually.
Two sites of particular interest to researchers are Vancouver International Airport, parked atop low-lying Lulu Island, and the BC Ferries' Tsawwassen terminal and the Roberts Bank coal port.
I've always maintained that the Vancouver/Fraser Valley region is dangerously over-developed. Several years ago, when the population was significantly smaller than it is today, a federal government study found that area had exceeded by several times its environmentally sustainable population limits.
The United State of Indebtedness
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert writes that his nation is in what he calls "recession denial."
“Quite frankly,” said Senator Charles Schumer, peering over his glasses at the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, “I think we are at a moment of economic crisis, stemming from four key areas: falling housing prices, lack of confidence in creditworthiness, the weak dollar and high oil prices.”
The housing meltdown is getting the attention, but there’s so much more. Bankruptcies and homelessness are on the rise. The job market has been weak for years. The auto industry is in trouble. The cost of food, gasoline and home heating oil are soaring at a time when millions of Americans are managing to make it from one month to another solely by the grace of their credit cards.
The country has been in denial for years about the economic reality facing American families. That grim reality has been masked by the flimflammery of official statistics (job growth good, inflation low) and the muscular magic of the American way of debt: mortgages on top of mortgages, pyramiding student loans and an opiatelike addiction to credit cards at rates that used to get people locked up for loan-sharking.
[New York] Representative [Maurice] Hinchey discussed the disconnect between official government reports and the reality facing working families. He noted that the unemployment rate does not include workers who have become so discouraged that they’ve given up looking for a job.
And the most popular measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index, does not include the cost of energy or food, “the two most significant aspects of the increased cost of living for the American people.”
Thirty-seven million Americans live in poverty and close to 60 million others are just a notch above the official poverty line.
An illness, an auto accident, the loss of a job — almost anything can knock them off their rickety economic perch.
"We have an economy that is based on increased debt,” said Mr. Hinchey. “The national debt is now slightly above $9 trillion, and ordinary working people are finding that they have to borrow more and more to maintain their standard of living."
“The average now is that people are spending close to 10 percent more than they earn every month. Obviously, that can’t be sustained.”
“The average now is that people are spending close to 10 percent more than they earn every month. Obviously, that can’t be sustained.”
Herbert's warning is mirrored in a powerfully insightful piece in Alternet by Adbuster's Dee Hon:
How did it come to this? How did America, collectively and as individuals, become a nation addicted to debt, pushed to and over the edge of bankruptcy? The savings rate hangs below zero. Personal bankruptcies are reaching record heights. America's total debt averages more than $160,000 for every man, woman, and child. On a broader scale, China holds nearly $1 trillion in us debt. Japan and other countries are also owed big.
The story begins with labor. The decades following World War II were boom years. Economic growth was strong and powerful industrial unions made the middle-class dream attainable for working-class citizens. Workers bought homes and cars in such volume they gave rise to the modern suburb. But prosperity for wage earners reached its zenith in the early 1970s. By then, corporate America had begun shredding the implicit social contract it had with its workers for fear of increased foreign competition. Companies cut costs by finding cheap labor overseas, creating a drag on wages.
In 1972, wages reached their peak. According to the us department of Labor Statistics, workers earned $331 a week, in inflation-adjusted 1982 dollars. Since then, it's been a downward slide. Today, real wages are nearly one-fifth lower -- this, despite real GDP per capita doubling over the same period.
Even as wages fell, consumerism was encouraged to continue soaring to unprecedented heights. Buying stuff became a patriotic duty that distinguished citizens from their communist Cold War enemies. In the eighties, consumers' growing fearlessness towards debt and their hunger for goods were met with Ronald Reagan's deregulation the lending industry. Credit not only became more easily attainable, it became heavily marketed. Credit card debt, at $880 billion, is now triple what it was in 1988, after adjusting for inflation. Barbecues and tv screens are now the size of small cars. So much the better to fill the average new home, which in 2005 was more than 50 percent larger than the average home in 1973.
In recent years, the further enticement of low interest rates has spawned a boom for two kinds of rentiers at the crux of the current debt crisis: home buyers and private equity firms. But it should also be noted that low interest rates are themselves the product of outsourced labor.
America gets goods from China. China gets dollars from the U.S. In order to keep the value of their currency low so that exports stay cheap, China doesn't spend those dollars in China, but buys us assets like bonds. China now holds some $900 billion in such U.S. IOUs. This massive borrowing of money from China (and to a lesser extent, from Japan) sent us interest rates to record lows.
Now the hamster wheel really gets spinning. Cheap borrowing costs encouraged millions of Americans to borrow more, buying homes and sending housing prices to record highs. Soaring house prices encouraged banks to loan freely, which sent even more buyers into the market -- many who believed the hype that the real estate investment offered a never-ending escalator to riches and borrowed heavily to finance their dreams of getting ahead. People began borrowing against the skyrocketing value of their homes, to buy furniture, appliances, and TVs. These home equity loans added $200 billion to the U.S. economy in 2004 alone.
It was all so utopian. The boom would feed on itself. Nobody would ever have to work again or produce anything of value. All that needed to be done was to keep buying and selling each other's houses with money borrowed from the Chinese.
But the party is coming to a halt. An endless housing boom requires an endless supply of ever-greater suckers to pay more for the same homes. The rich, as Voltaire said, require an abundant supply of poor. Mortgage lenders have mined even deeper into the ranks of the poor to find takers for their loans. Among the practices included teaser loans that promised low interest rates that jumped up after the first few years. Sub-prime borrowers were told the future pain would never come, as they could keep re-financing against the ever-growing value of their homes.
Of course, the supply of suckers inevitably ran out. Housing prices leveled off, beginning what promises to be a long, downward slide. Just as the housing boom fed upon itself, so too, will its collapse. The first wave of sub-prime borrowers have defaulted. A flood of foreclosures sent housing prices falling further. Lenders somehow got blindsided by news that poor people with bad credit couldn't pay them back. Frightened, they staunched the flow of easy credit, further depleting the supply of homebuyers and squeezing debt-fueled private equity. Hedge funds that merrily bought sub-prime loans collapsed.
More borrowers will soon be unable to make payments on their homes and credit cards as the supply of rent dries up. Consumer spending, and thus corporate profits, will fall. The shrinking economy will further depress workers' wages. For most people, the dream of easy money will never come true, because only the truly rich can live it.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Clearing the Air
"I will cooperate fully with the person appointed"
And so he should. Brian Mulroney has given his word to cooperate fully in sorting out the truth of his dealings with Karheinz Schreiber. Mulroney, pictured above with Schreiber and another of Schreiber's victims, Helmut Kohl, needs to explain how he came to receive cash payments totalling some $300,000 from Schreiber, what that money was for, how it was handled and the curious manner in which the former PM seems to have treated it for tax purposes.
Mulroney has long said he wanted to clear the air on this one and now's his chance. Schreiber could be just making up some of his allegations but no one has proven them false yet and some of them, such as the money involved, various meetings between Schreiber and Mulroney and so on have been acknowledged.
This could be one of those situations where nothing technically wrong happened but the optics are terrible. I think that would be a "best case" outcome for Mulroney.
Harper, having backed down on looking into this at all, now has to take great care to ensure the person he appoints to conduct the enquiry is genuinely independent and not just a reliable stooge.
I personally am looking forward to learning about the involvement in all of this of former Tory premier turned lobbyist, the late Frank Moores. It seems Moores also got a hunk of the Airbus schmeergelder, $300,000 in fact and, like Mulroney, he also seems to have raced off to make a voluntary disclosure of the "income" after bank records showing the payments became public knowledge.
Wonder if Stevie Cameron is stocking up on pens.
Check out her blog at http://steviecameronblog.blogspot.com/ You'll find some intriguing stuff there. Among the interesting tidbits is an account of a refrigerator-sized safe Mulroney kept in the basement of 24 Sussex Drive and the cash that found its way there. She quotes the Mulroneys' chef, Francois Martin, who also acted as household manager as saying, "Cash came in like it was falling from the sky."
The Blame Game
Oh my how little Georgie loves to accuse others of playing the "blame game." Ask why he dropped the ball on 9/11 and you're playing the blame game. Question how he screwed up on Hurricane Katrina and you're indulging in the blame game. Ponder aloud how he made Iraq a total disaster and you're just a dirty, low down, blame gamer.
George knows all about the blame game and a lot of observers are beginning to warn he's about to launch a game of his own, this time blaming the American people for his failure in Iraq. It wasn't his leadership, breathtakingly incompetent as it's been, that created the disaster of Iraq it was the American people losing faith in that breathtakingly incompetent leadership.
It's the same lousy game that was used in the aftermath of the Vietnam disaster. The North Vietnamese didn't win. No the war was lost at home. Why we were just on the verge of wholesale victory when our own people cut our legs right out from under us. It's the sort of tactic that despicable leaders resort to when they can't bear to take responsibility for their failures and, when it comes to that, George Bush is about as despicable as they come.
How to Halt Waterboarding
The public has heard about the waterboarding technique for the past couple of years but it's only been the last few months in which the true nature of the practice has been revealed - it's controlled drowning. It's forcing water into the victim's airways and lungs. To Dick Cheney, it's a "no brainer."
America waterboards and a lot more often than it's willing to admit. The Cheney/Bush administration has become so secretive, deceitful and duplicitous that there's no reason to believe waterboarding has been ruled out as an interrogation technique. These Chickenhawks seem to revel in this sort of sadistic perversion.
Yesterday members of Congress got a firsthand explanation of waterboarding by a guy who has experienced it, Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school.
"In my case, the technique was so fast and professional that I didn't know what was happening until the water entered my nose and throat," Nance testified yesterday at a House oversight hearing on torture and enhanced interrogation techniques. "It then pushes down into the trachea and starts the process of respiratory degradation. It is an overwhelming experience that induces horror and triggers frantic survival instincts. As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured."
Here's one way to end the problem. Simply legislate that anyone who conducts this torture or who orders it or condones it first go through it themselves. Better yet, they could start at the top - with the guys behind it all - Cheney and Rusmfeld.
America waterboards and a lot more often than it's willing to admit. The Cheney/Bush administration has become so secretive, deceitful and duplicitous that there's no reason to believe waterboarding has been ruled out as an interrogation technique. These Chickenhawks seem to revel in this sort of sadistic perversion.
Yesterday members of Congress got a firsthand explanation of waterboarding by a guy who has experienced it, Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school.
"In my case, the technique was so fast and professional that I didn't know what was happening until the water entered my nose and throat," Nance testified yesterday at a House oversight hearing on torture and enhanced interrogation techniques. "It then pushes down into the trachea and starts the process of respiratory degradation. It is an overwhelming experience that induces horror and triggers frantic survival instincts. As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured."
Here's one way to end the problem. Simply legislate that anyone who conducts this torture or who orders it or condones it first go through it themselves. Better yet, they could start at the top - with the guys behind it all - Cheney and Rusmfeld.
Adaptation Time
The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change comes with a blunt warning - significant climate change is now unavoidable and we have to develop strategies to adapt to the consequences. From CanWest News Service:
United Nations' science advisers have boiled down their landmark climate report to one simple message -- prepare for a hotter world while slashing greenhouse gas emissions.
Government delegates will comb through the synthesis report line-by-line next week in Valencia, Spain, before approving and releasing the final text next Saturday.
The report is said to understate the danger since alarming new evidence missed the deadline for inclusion. It does not, for example, include data showing global emissions are now climbing faster than ever as China and India power their economic booms with fossil fuels. And there is no mention of this summer's Arctic ice retreat, described as "astounding" by scientists and government officials who fear the Arctic may be hitting a "tipping point."
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level," it says.
...since much of the change is unstoppable, the report says countries also need to adapt: "Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation, but adaptation is also necessary."
So there it is, even if understated. It's very much a two-part challenge: slash GHG emissions and develop strategies to adapt to the warming that's coming no matter what we do. Harper, of course, is doing everything in his power to duck the first part, slashing emissions, with his endorsement of "intensity-based" targets, another way of saying increasing GHG emissions.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the Harper government is in no rush to deal with the second aspect - adaptation. Why not? It's what he and his tar patch buddies fear most - having the public informed of what's coming, what that's going to mean and what's going to be necessary to "adapt" to it. Why the peasants might actually rise up and demand tough action on slashing greenhouse gas emissions and then where would the tar sands be just when Cheney/Bush and all of America's SUV jockeys want it most?
If Dion is looking for a way to take control of this fundamental issue again, the IPCC report is a perfect opportunity. The more the public knows, the worse it is for Harper. This one's a gift, Dion's for the simple taking.
Biting the Hand that Fed You
Short of staging a coup, ultra-right winger John Bolton is a spent force destined for the musty basement of one of the loonie think tanks his type love so much. That's not to say he'll go quietly. Not his style, never was.
Bolton's latest target? Why it's Bush/Cheney, naturally. Bolton thinks they've gone soft, turned into real pussies, let down the team and he's not afraid to tell the world just that. From The New York Times:
"Mr. Bolton, who served first as the State Department’s chief arms control official, argues that the administration has abandoned the unilateralist strategy it followed at the beginning when it bolted from the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement that limits the emissions of greenhouse gases from most industrialized countries; “unsigned” the agreement that created the International Criminal Court and abrogated the Antiballistic Missile Treaty.
He says that only a fundamental change in government, not negotiations, will divert Iran and North Korea from the nuclear path.
He says that only a fundamental change in government, not negotiations, will divert Iran and North Korea from the nuclear path.
“They are not going to give up their nuclear weapons voluntarily,” Mr. Bolton said in the interview. “They might be forced to give up their nuclear weapons, but that is not the policy that we’re pursuing. So the consequence of the policy is that it won’t achieve the stated objective and it will have the effect of legitimizing and reinforcing two fundamentally illegitimate regimes.”
He said North Korea’s apparent assistance to Syria in the construction of what analysts and officials said was a nuclear reactor showed that the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, was already violating its pledge in February to dismantle its nuclear weapons program even though the administration points to a recent trip by Americans to a North Korean nuclear reactor to begin disabling the facilities.
In the case of Iran, Mr. Bolton said: “I think this is a very difficult question that has to be very carefully thought out. The choice is not between the world as it is today and the use of force. The choice is between the use of force and Iran with nuclear weapons.”
Bolton, who never met a little country he didn't despise enough to want bombed, is living proof that the far right of the Republican Party isn't going away anytime soon. In fact several of the leading candidates for the party's presidential nomination seem far more hawkish than Bush on issues such as Iran. Maybe we'll see a Bolton comeback after all - he'll be one of those four guys on horseback.
Democracy for Pakistan? Maybe, Maybe Not.
Pakistani strongman, General/President Pervez Musharraf is now responding to international pressure by promising to hold a general election in February. The problem is that Mushie has a bad habit of saying one thing and doing something else altogether.
With this guy it's useful to measure his words against his actions. For example, pledging free elections and in the next breath placing his rival, Benazir Bhutto, under house arrest. He even arrested her house. He's got Bhutto and her house surrounded with barbed wire.
If Musharraf's election promise is genuine there are a few things he'll have to do. One of them is return Pakistan to the rule of law by reinstating its judiciary. If he keeps the courts closed down, chances are there isn't going to be an election that's either free or fair.
I suspect if Langley could have found a better, more reliable stooge, Musharraf would have been gone a long time ago. This is, after all, the guy who had promised to seal off all the escape routes when bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership were pinned down in the 15-square mile patch of mountains called Tora Bora. Since then he's gotten billions of dollars in assistance from Washington most of which he's used for conventional weapons far better suited for a war against India than for battling insurgents in the border regions. Then there was his "truce" with the Taliban insurgents in Waziristan and his abject failure to seal off his country's border with Afghanistan. All in all, he's been a major league disappointment - yet he's still in power.
With this guy it's useful to measure his words against his actions. For example, pledging free elections and in the next breath placing his rival, Benazir Bhutto, under house arrest. He even arrested her house. He's got Bhutto and her house surrounded with barbed wire.
If Musharraf's election promise is genuine there are a few things he'll have to do. One of them is return Pakistan to the rule of law by reinstating its judiciary. If he keeps the courts closed down, chances are there isn't going to be an election that's either free or fair.
I suspect if Langley could have found a better, more reliable stooge, Musharraf would have been gone a long time ago. This is, after all, the guy who had promised to seal off all the escape routes when bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership were pinned down in the 15-square mile patch of mountains called Tora Bora. Since then he's gotten billions of dollars in assistance from Washington most of which he's used for conventional weapons far better suited for a war against India than for battling insurgents in the border regions. Then there was his "truce" with the Taliban insurgents in Waziristan and his abject failure to seal off his country's border with Afghanistan. All in all, he's been a major league disappointment - yet he's still in power.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Is The Christian Right In For a Lookover?
A Republican on the US Senate Finance Committee wants to take a look at just what goes on at the top in some of America's fundamentalist mega-churches. From the Sydney Morning Herald:
A Senate committee has announced plans for an inquiry into the financial workings of six well-known evangelical churches after concerns were raised about the lavish lifestyles of their founders and whether these were being built on tax-exempt proceeds from their donors.
The inquiry is being driven not by the Democrats but by a Republican on the Senate finance committee, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who has made scrutiny of these mega-churches part of his brief.
On Monday he faxed letters to a half-dozen evangelical mega-ministries requesting information about salaries, board oversight and perquisites, which appear to include luxury oceanside homes, flights on private jets and opulent office furniture.
"I'm following up complaints from the public and news coverage regarding certain practices at six ministries," Senator Grassley said. "It's part of my long-standing interest in making sure tax-exempt organisations are accountable."
The six ministries share features: they have a Pentecostal theology, attract 10,000-strong congregations, have a big television presence and preach a "prosperity gospel" message emphasising material rewards for the faithful.
The ministries are: Randy and Paula White of the Without Walls International Church, of Tampa, Florida; Benny Hinn of World Healing Centre Church Inc in Grapevine, Texas; David and Joyce Meyer of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Montana; Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Newark, Texas; Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Georgia; and Creflo Dollar Ministries of College Park, Georgia.
Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland? Let the games begin!
By the way, is it just me or is Copeland's head enormous?
An Idea Whose Time Has Come
From the Union of Concerned Scientists:
New grass-fed label for beef approved
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved a new voluntary "grass-fed" label that will allow consumers to identify meat from cows and other animals raised on a natural diet of grass. Cows raised on grass, the natural diet that they evolved to eat, are healthier than cows in feedlots that are fed corn, which they have trouble digesting. To qualify for the label, animals must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season. Beef from cows raised in these smart pasture operations also has health benefits for consumers and is easier on the environment.
Dangerous bacteria strain linked to antibiotic use in swineA dangerous strain of bacteria
A dangerous strain of bacteria resistant to the antibiotic methicillin now kills more people in the United States than AIDS, emphysema, or homicide, according to a government study. The bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), has long been known to thrive in hospitals, but has now spread into the general community, where it is spread by contact with clothing or skin. New studies from Europe and Canada suggest that some MRSA may originate in swine operations and spread via pig farmers and their families into the general community. The U.S. government does not know whether use of antibiotics in livestock in the United States is contributing to community-associated MRSA, because it is not testing U.S. livestock for the presence of bacteria.
Organic farming can feed the world
Organic farms can produce enough food to support the world's population, according to researchers from the University of Michigan. They analyzed data from nearly 300 studies comparing organic yields with nonorganic yields in both developing and developed countries. The researchers concluded that organic farming methods could support the world's current population, and potentially an even larger population, without converting any additional land to crop production. Moreover, intensified organic agriculture would reduce the harmful impacts of conventional farming such as soil erosion, water pollution, release of global warming pollution, and loss of biodiversity.
It'll Get Worse Before It Gets Better for Mulroney
Karlheinz Schreiber says he knows where the bodies are buried and it seems he's about to start pointing out the graves before he's extradited to Germany for, of all things, bribing politicians.
As Schreiber's trans-Atlantic departure date looms ever closer he's begun talking - a lot - about his friends in high places, notably Brian Mulroney, and the Air Canada/Airbus saga. He's already said a lot and a lot of what he's said has stuck - stuck to Brian Mulroney. When you add up Schreiber's sometimes astonishing claims and Mulroney's already recorded statements and deeds one thing is clear - Schreiber has a lot left to tell and Mulroney owes this country at least some explanation of the trail of inconsistencies.
The Globe & Mail reports that Schreiber has just sworn and filed an affidavit in which he deposes additional information about the three cash payments, each of $100,000, he gave Mulroney years before we ever learned of them, before Mulroney sued our country and collected $2.1-million from us for defaming him.
As Schreiber's trans-Atlantic departure date looms ever closer he's begun talking - a lot - about his friends in high places, notably Brian Mulroney, and the Air Canada/Airbus saga. He's already said a lot and a lot of what he's said has stuck - stuck to Brian Mulroney. When you add up Schreiber's sometimes astonishing claims and Mulroney's already recorded statements and deeds one thing is clear - Schreiber has a lot left to tell and Mulroney owes this country at least some explanation of the trail of inconsistencies.
The Globe & Mail reports that Schreiber has just sworn and filed an affidavit in which he deposes additional information about the three cash payments, each of $100,000, he gave Mulroney years before we ever learned of them, before Mulroney sued our country and collected $2.1-million from us for defaming him.
The latest revelations include a claim, yet to be proven, that, before Mulroney left office he had a meeting with Schreiber at which it was agreed the former prime minister would be paid $300,000 after he returned to private life. The deal, Schreiber claims, was made at a meeting between the two men at the prime minister's Harrington Lake summer residence just days before Mulroney's resignation. Mulroney spokesman, Luc Lavoie, confirms the meeting occured but denies there was any agreement as alleged. Lavoie described the meeting as "a courtesy sort of thing."
Lavoie also confirms that Schreiber and Mulroney met again in Zurich in 1998, well after the government had capitulated in Mulroney's law suit, but this time he was much more vague about what transpired. This is what he told the Globe: "I don't know that I would like to comment on this because it was his private business. It was his private dealing. It's a one-on-one meeting that took place while he was in Zurich for other businesses. And whatever was said — I don't know the details of what was said, I don't know exactly what was said — but, you know, it's his private business."
Just what really happened is something that only Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney may know. However there have been events and circumstances revealed - now acknowledged by Mulroney or his spokesmen - that raise questions the former prime minister should answer.
Why did he say under oath that he'd had no dealings with Mr. Schreiber when, after the fact of the payments became public, Mulroney said he'd received the $300,000 as a "retainer" for services to be rendered?
Why did he not declare the cash payments as income in the years in which they were received?
When did Mulroney finally make a voluntary disclosure of this "income" and how does the timing of that even coincide with the disclosure of Schreiber's bank records?
There are other questions the government of the day, Canada's New Government, should answer. Did Mulroney and the late Frank Moores make similar or identical voluntary disclosures at or around the same time in respect of monies received from Schreiber?
Why, given these late revelations, does Stephen Harper, "Mr. Accountability and Transparency", want to avoid enquiring into what really went on?
We also need to get some answers from Schreiber about just how much "schmeergelder" or grease money he received from Airbus and just who got how much out of that multi-million dollar grab bag?
Stephen Harper has the power to at least delay Mr. Schreiber's extradition until we can get this man's evidence on this miserable business. Seems he's not interested. Ain't that curious?
I can tell you from personal experience that it would be a litigator's dream to get these people under oath for a wee chat. The mind positively reels at the thought.
Turning the Mighty Athabasca Toxic
A small aboriginal village downriver of the Athabasca Tar Sands is calling for a moratorium on any further development.
The Nunee Health Authority at Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, claims tar sands developments may be responsible for rare types of cancer in the community, poor water quality and other health issues. From Reuters:
"There is a need for a moratorium on oil sands development," Russell Kaskamin, a councilor with the Mikasew Cree First Nation, said in a statement. "The federal and provincial governments are continuing to issue approvals for projects despite all the uncertainties with the true environmental effects of oil sands developments Last year a doctor in the village reported its population suffered from unusually high rates of rare cancers, thyroid problems and immune-system diseases. His report was contradicted by the Alberta Cancer Board, which found the incidence of cancer to be no higher than the provincial average.
Residents living downstream on the Athabasca fear that pollution in the river and surrounding environment is endangering their health. In Fort MacKay, many of the children live with asthma and other respiratory problems, and anecdotal evidence suggest that abnormally high cancer rates are ravaging families. Recently, a leak at a nearby oil plant forced the hospitalization of several children.
"People are dying of cancer all around us. The industry is all around us…The kids are always sick from the water. The tap water that we use is no good; it has to be boiled," says Yvonne Shott, a lifelong Fort MacKay resident.
...nowhere are the health concerns more evident than in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta's oldest settlement. Fort Chip, as it's called, is located on the scenic northern shores of Lake Athabasca, which the Athabasca River drains into.
The village, which is home to little over a thousand people, has been making headlines recently after the provincial and federal government launched an unprecedented joint investigation to understand what appears to be a cluster of cancer and other lethal diseases including leukemia, lymphoma, lupus, and perhaps most disturbingly, an high occurrence of cholangiocarcinoma—usually an extremely rare cancer affecting the bile duct, which leaves victims with only about a month to live.
The Nunee Health Authority at Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, claims tar sands developments may be responsible for rare types of cancer in the community, poor water quality and other health issues. From Reuters:
"There is a need for a moratorium on oil sands development," Russell Kaskamin, a councilor with the Mikasew Cree First Nation, said in a statement. "The federal and provincial governments are continuing to issue approvals for projects despite all the uncertainties with the true environmental effects of oil sands developments Last year a doctor in the village reported its population suffered from unusually high rates of rare cancers, thyroid problems and immune-system diseases. His report was contradicted by the Alberta Cancer Board, which found the incidence of cancer to be no higher than the provincial average.
Residents living downstream on the Athabasca fear that pollution in the river and surrounding environment is endangering their health. In Fort MacKay, many of the children live with asthma and other respiratory problems, and anecdotal evidence suggest that abnormally high cancer rates are ravaging families. Recently, a leak at a nearby oil plant forced the hospitalization of several children.
"People are dying of cancer all around us. The industry is all around us…The kids are always sick from the water. The tap water that we use is no good; it has to be boiled," says Yvonne Shott, a lifelong Fort MacKay resident.
...nowhere are the health concerns more evident than in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta's oldest settlement. Fort Chip, as it's called, is located on the scenic northern shores of Lake Athabasca, which the Athabasca River drains into.
The village, which is home to little over a thousand people, has been making headlines recently after the provincial and federal government launched an unprecedented joint investigation to understand what appears to be a cluster of cancer and other lethal diseases including leukemia, lymphoma, lupus, and perhaps most disturbingly, an high occurrence of cholangiocarcinoma—usually an extremely rare cancer affecting the bile duct, which leaves victims with only about a month to live.
What Do The Chinese People Want? Why, Aircraft Carriers!
That's right. The Chinese people are clamouring for their navy to get aircraft carriers. Here's the thinking: China is becoming a great nation, great nations have aircraft carriers, so China should have aircraft carriers.
McClatchy Newspapers reports that the Chinese navy is very likely to deploy carriers in its fleet before long:
"There's a feeling among the Chinese public that their nation is a great power, and great powers have aircraft carriers," said Andrew S. Erickson, a civilian scholar at the China Maritime Studies Institute of the Naval War College in Rhode Island. "We've seen grass-roots campaigns that say, 'Everyone contribute some money so we can have an aircraft carrier.' "
Top People's Liberation Army officers voiced interest in building aircraft carriers to visiting senior U.S. military commanders this year, peppering them with questions.
"We said to them, essentially, 'Knock yourselves out. It ain't as easy as it looks,' " Adm. Timothy J. Keating, the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, said in July. "They acknowledged that and said, 'We reserve the right to develop aircraft carriers if we so choose.' They said to us there is no more prominent and visible signal of a nation's resolve and might than an aircraft carrier coming into a port."
China actually has acquired three aircraft carriers. They were built by the Soviet Union but were sold as surplus. The Chinese took two of them to pieces to study their technology and construction. The third is said to be at a secret naval base.
The US Navy has the biggest carrier fleet, twelve in all. A handful of other nations also field carriers including China's new home waters rival, India.
McClatchy Newspapers reports that the Chinese navy is very likely to deploy carriers in its fleet before long:
"There's a feeling among the Chinese public that their nation is a great power, and great powers have aircraft carriers," said Andrew S. Erickson, a civilian scholar at the China Maritime Studies Institute of the Naval War College in Rhode Island. "We've seen grass-roots campaigns that say, 'Everyone contribute some money so we can have an aircraft carrier.' "
Top People's Liberation Army officers voiced interest in building aircraft carriers to visiting senior U.S. military commanders this year, peppering them with questions.
"We said to them, essentially, 'Knock yourselves out. It ain't as easy as it looks,' " Adm. Timothy J. Keating, the head of the U.S. Pacific Command, said in July. "They acknowledged that and said, 'We reserve the right to develop aircraft carriers if we so choose.' They said to us there is no more prominent and visible signal of a nation's resolve and might than an aircraft carrier coming into a port."
China actually has acquired three aircraft carriers. They were built by the Soviet Union but were sold as surplus. The Chinese took two of them to pieces to study their technology and construction. The third is said to be at a secret naval base.
The US Navy has the biggest carrier fleet, twelve in all. A handful of other nations also field carriers including China's new home waters rival, India.
Lemmings, We're Really Just Lemmings
The Paris-based International Energy Agency predicts greenhouse gas emissions will increase from current levels a full 57% by 2030. Put simply, the IEA forecast suggests we don't have a remote hope of reaching the GHG emission cuts that even Stephen Harper pretends to want.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has set a target of limiting global warming to no more than 2.4 C. In its most optimistic scenario the IPCC sas COs emissions would have to peak by 2015 at the latest and then decline by somewhere between 50 and 85% by 2050.
The IEA forecast maintains there will be no peak until at least 2020 whereas to meet the IPCC's goal of 450 ppm of CO2 the peak would actually have to be 2012.
The Agency also predicts we won't make the IPCC's target of limiting warming to 2.4 C. The IEA believes we'll hit at least 3C at best. The IEA warns that temperatures could actually climb to 6C if China and India continue their coal-fueled industrial growth. I don't even want to go into what that would mean for most of the world.
And in other global warming news, humpbacks and fin whales are now joining grey whales in migrating in search of food far into the Beaufort Sea, several hundred miles past their normal feeding grounds of the Bering Sea. And Atlantic City's population of three-million is three months away from completely running out of water. Hey, anyone know how many shopping days left to Christmas?
Is Free Trade Still Worth It?
Here I go with another prediction. The free trade era may be nearing its end. If so, it may be the United States that acts first to kill it off.
Consider this. When Mulroney and Reagan got into this business, global conditions were considerably different than they are today. Fuel was in abundant supply and relatively affordable, at least in the West. China and India were backward societies that posed no great rivalry industrially or in the clamour for resources. The wealth from the West's economic prowess was heavily retained in the West. With all these advantages, free trade offered great promise.
How things have changed. Fuel and other resources are now becoming shorter in supply and much more expensive. China and India are emerging from their agrarian past and into their own industrial revolutions. In the process they're absorbing much of the West's (or at least America's) wealth. China is on the verge of ousting the United States as the world's largest economy and it already holds a trillion US dollars in its foreign reserves.
The global marketplace is now beset with serious security issues such as fundamentalism, terrorism and climate change; and economic interdependence is yielding very real strategic vulnerabilities. Free trade as it's modelled isn't designed to adapt to these rapid changes.
The question becomes whether America can afford to continue pumping its wealth into Asia? There are already a lot of Americans unhappy that everything on the toy store shelves is made in China. What will they think when Chinese cars begin appearing in numbers on their streets?
To my simple mind, free trade was a concept built on a number of underlying assumptions that no longer hold true. I think the draw of protectionism will soon become irresistible on Capitol Hill.
Iran's Best Defence - Oil
It's pretty much a given that Dick Cheney is in a state of high fibrilation over his near irresistible desire to bomb the hell out of Iran.
Bush/Cheney see Iran as an emerging nuclear threat to the stability of the Middle East and Israel especially. The consensus is that Iran is at least five years away from being able to build a nuclear weapon but Bush/Cheney know they've only got just over a year to deal with it before they have to hand over control of America's armed forces to the next administration. To them it's bomb now or, perhaps, bomb never.
There was a time when Washington could pretty much do as it liked with relative impunity. Not any longer. The irony is that it's been Bush/Cheney and their cabal of nationalists and neo-cons who've steadily sapped America's strength in just a few short years. They've left their country much weakened and vulnerable.
America's army is stuck in Iraq and running out of steam. By some accounts it is nearly broken through the exhaustion of its troops and the disintegration of its equipment. With two wars underway - Iraq and Afghanistan - it cannot field enough soldiers for either. The answer, instituting a draft, is simply beyond Bush/Cheney's remaining political power. With the American public already soured on Iraq and nothing but failure to show for the lives and treasure squandered there, Congress would revolt before it would tolerate a draft.
Bush/Cheney have sapped their country's economic strength through their military adventures and they're even providing for a 9.5% increase in the military's budget (exclusive of war costs) for next year. Their entire war is being financed by running massive deficits that are propped up by foreign lenders. At the same time they've cut taxes for the rich. They'll leave their country dependent on foreign lenders (a perverse form of reverse foreign aid) and the generations to follow saddled with an enormous debt.
If you've read any of the American newspapers lately you may have noticed that the US is just now waking up to the new energy realities. Oil, soon expected to break $100 a barrel, is now getting their attention. What does it mean? What does the future hold for the US? These are the prospects now being churned over in the American press. Why, what could it possibly mean for the nation most dependent on foreign oil? Simple answer: a lot.
Like America, China and India are also scrambling to get a big hunk of the world's dwindling oil supplies. Their needs are to fuel their economic growth. America's needs are to simply maintain its status quo. There isn't enough to go around so what is available goes to those willing and able to pay the market price. Hardly a comfortable situation for a country with an already serious debt problem.
This is where Iran comes in. America simply cannot afford the consequences of bombing Iran. Even if Iran did nothing in response, oil prices would go through the roof. And there is much Iran can do. With its arsenal of modern, mobile cruise missiles it can slam the door on oil tanker movements through the Gulf. It can keep that door shut tight for a long time, more than enough to trigger a global recession. America would fall victim to its own bombs and the damage, at least in part, could be permanent.
This is not to say that Bush/Cheney still may not go ahead and attack Iran. It's not that they haven't been warned repeatedly about how such an attack might backfire. For all of that they've shown themselves indifferent to reality plenty of times already. It's what happens when you let children play soldiers.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Lest We Forget? Better Than Remembering.
I just spent a really great couple of weeks with my dad. He came out to the coast to celebrate his 90th birthday. My brothers came out also so we had a real reunion.
Dad made the trip because he isn't confident he will be able to make such a journey next year or even next month for that matter. Chances are, he's right.
My father has beat the odds, big time. He was horribly wounded in the last "big war" and that he got through 1944 at all was astonishing. Be that as it may he's still with us - for a while longer.
If you've read this blog you may have come to the conclusion that I'm anti-war. I am. My views didn't keep me from serving in Canada's military. At the time I thought it was a decent, honourable thing to do. That view hasn't changed. Before, during and since, however, I've been anti-war.
Real warriors are pacifists - always have been and always will be. They accept that fighting may be unavoidable at times but should be avoided whenever possible. They know and understand what befalls good and honourable people when politicians and civilians ignore that idea. They know because it falls to them - not the loudmouth civilians and their boastful politicians - to pay the price of someone else's bravado.
Canadians have been fighting for six years in Afghanistan and our total casualties in this conflict pale compared to the first fifteen minutes of the landing at Dieppe. In those days, 80-dead was just another bad day at the office. At times we lost that many in a single, moonlit night sky over Germany. That said, every Canadian soldier's life we lose in Afghanistan, every mangled Canadian soldier we bring home to face his uncertain future, is as much a sacrifice as any performed in the past. It's all a waste.
I have a wish for all the hawks out there. Don't worry you chickenshits, it's a wish that can't come true. Yet I wish you had real firsthand experience of what war leaves behind for the survivors - the families of the dead and the families of the wounded. I wish you knew the fear, the frustration and the abject pain. I wish I could feed that reality to you, shove it down your throats.
Lest we forget? It's not forgetting that's the problem, it's how we selectively and deceitfully choose to remember. In case you're wondering, I don't wear a poppy. I don't need to.
China Roars, America Reels, the Loonie Soars
The upshot is that the loonie has surpassed a buck ten US. The trigger was declining confidence in the US dollar.
China has demonstrated the underlying vulnerability of America's insatiable addiction to debt. This arrived in the form of remarks made yesterday by Cheng Siwei, vice-chairman of the standing committee of the National People's Congress, China's parliament:
“In terms of the structure of our foreign exchange reserves, we should take advantage of the appreciation of strong currencies to offset the depreciation of weak currencies,” Cheng told a financial forum.
“For example, in the current foreign reserves structure, I mean the bonds we bought, the euro is appreciating against the yuan while the U.S. dollar is depreciating against the yuan. So we should make a balance between the two,” Mr. Cheng said.
The United States has long depended on other nations, Asian and European, to buy its debt and, in essence, make good its deficits. The trick has been to have that debt bought and sold in US dollars which then ties the lender to the borrower's fortunes. A shift from greenbacks to the euro as the commodity of American debt financing changes all that. Instead of being able to service debt with depreciating US dollars, America faces the nightmare of having to use its depreciating dollars to buy appreciating euros to support its debt habit.
The United States has been playing with other nations' money so long that this has become seen as a permanent state of reality. America would simply defy gravity and levitate comfortably above its rising international obligations.
Cheng's remarks are the mildest of rebukes and don't reflect any concrete policy changes. It is, however, an example of the strength China now enjoys and that nation's power to fundamentally impact the American economy.
Rick Hillier's Credibility Dump
Captain Clueless, Canada's own General Rick Hillier, has got us into a lovely mess in Kandahar. Actually not "us", as in you and me, but rather the 2,500 men and women comprising the Canadian Forces contingent in that troubled province.
The approach of Hillier and his senior officers seems to be that, when the facts don't fit, just paint over them and say whatever comes into your head. When the Taliban rocket a forward base just when Peter MacKay shows up - and pull it off with remarkable precision, getting in and out undetected and sending the DefMin scurrying to safety aboard the first US Blackhawk helicopter available - we get a full colonel of all things to tell us it's plain proof that the insurgents are becoming desperate. Say what?
Of course what are Hillier and his minions going to say? Are they apt to admit that they're in way over their heads? Are they going to acknowledge that they're using the tried and true tactics that have failed in every counterinsurgency in which they've been used (and that's quite a few) and that fly in the face of centuries of accumulated knowledge of this sort of fighting?
Now we've got Manley's dog and pony show to come up with ideas on what we should be doing in Afghanistan, a ploy to lift this miserable issue off Harper's back.
I have a few suggestions for Mr. Manley.
1. Don't listen to a word from Rick Hillier. He's been guessing this one wrong since Canadian soldiers were still in the relative safety of Kabul.
2. Don't even think about reconstruction projects until you can establish and maintain security in the countryside.
3. Protect the civilian population - 24/7 - where they live and work - to keep them from falling under the control of the Taliban insurgents.
4. Accept that accomplishing goal 3, the sine qua non of this whole business, is enormously manpower intensive. The best thinking now is that we need one counterinsurgent (combat soldier) for every 25-civilians. That works out to a combat force of about 20,000 just for Kandahar province - plus the requisite support force.
5. If we don't have the will to commit to goal 4 in order to accomplish goal 3 in order to be able to achieve goal 2 and get down to the business of reconstruction, we're just spinning our wheels.
We shouldn't be groping about for these answers now, six years after the Taliban were sent packing. Hillier should have made all this very plain before he sought to move our soldiers out of Kabul. My guess is that Hillier knew he would never get the force necessary for the job if he was up front about it but he wanted the job so badly that he was willing to take it on with a small fraction of the force actually needed. He was gambling on a number of best case scenarios in a country in which best case doesn't happen.
As to what the rocket attack and the suicide bombing of Afghan officials means, the G&M got this from Seth Jones, an analyst at the Rand Corporation: "The Taliban have improved their ability to gather live intelligence and execute on that information." The Globe also quotes a local Taliban commander as claiming that MacKay was deliberately targeted:
"...a local Taliban commander who operates in Zhari district, near Forward Operating Base Wilson, said his group received a phone call from their superiors in Pakistan earlier in the day with specific instructions to attack the base.
"We got information that a big Canadian leader came to Zhari," the low-ranking insurgent said. "So we attacked him."
The approach of Hillier and his senior officers seems to be that, when the facts don't fit, just paint over them and say whatever comes into your head. When the Taliban rocket a forward base just when Peter MacKay shows up - and pull it off with remarkable precision, getting in and out undetected and sending the DefMin scurrying to safety aboard the first US Blackhawk helicopter available - we get a full colonel of all things to tell us it's plain proof that the insurgents are becoming desperate. Say what?
Of course what are Hillier and his minions going to say? Are they apt to admit that they're in way over their heads? Are they going to acknowledge that they're using the tried and true tactics that have failed in every counterinsurgency in which they've been used (and that's quite a few) and that fly in the face of centuries of accumulated knowledge of this sort of fighting?
Now we've got Manley's dog and pony show to come up with ideas on what we should be doing in Afghanistan, a ploy to lift this miserable issue off Harper's back.
I have a few suggestions for Mr. Manley.
1. Don't listen to a word from Rick Hillier. He's been guessing this one wrong since Canadian soldiers were still in the relative safety of Kabul.
2. Don't even think about reconstruction projects until you can establish and maintain security in the countryside.
3. Protect the civilian population - 24/7 - where they live and work - to keep them from falling under the control of the Taliban insurgents.
4. Accept that accomplishing goal 3, the sine qua non of this whole business, is enormously manpower intensive. The best thinking now is that we need one counterinsurgent (combat soldier) for every 25-civilians. That works out to a combat force of about 20,000 just for Kandahar province - plus the requisite support force.
5. If we don't have the will to commit to goal 4 in order to accomplish goal 3 in order to be able to achieve goal 2 and get down to the business of reconstruction, we're just spinning our wheels.
We shouldn't be groping about for these answers now, six years after the Taliban were sent packing. Hillier should have made all this very plain before he sought to move our soldiers out of Kabul. My guess is that Hillier knew he would never get the force necessary for the job if he was up front about it but he wanted the job so badly that he was willing to take it on with a small fraction of the force actually needed. He was gambling on a number of best case scenarios in a country in which best case doesn't happen.
As to what the rocket attack and the suicide bombing of Afghan officials means, the G&M got this from Seth Jones, an analyst at the Rand Corporation: "The Taliban have improved their ability to gather live intelligence and execute on that information." The Globe also quotes a local Taliban commander as claiming that MacKay was deliberately targeted:
"...a local Taliban commander who operates in Zhari district, near Forward Operating Base Wilson, said his group received a phone call from their superiors in Pakistan earlier in the day with specific instructions to attack the base.
"We got information that a big Canadian leader came to Zhari," the low-ranking insurgent said. "So we attacked him."
Abstinence Programmes Utterly Useless
If they can't catch bin Laden just how do they think they can stop kids having sex?
One of George w. Bush's favourite sops to his Christian fundamentalist base is his focus on abstinence-education for America's teens. Tell them to leave that thing alone and they will - or so they claim. This is their preferred alternative to the godless scheme to actually educate teenagers on all options, including Satanic safe sex.
After pouring tens of millions of taxbucks into abstinence training, how well is it working? Not worth a tinker's damn. A study into adolescent sexual behaviour conducted by the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy concludes that abstinence-only programmes are worthless. From The Guardian:
"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners'' among teenagers, the study concluded.
The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes'' including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use.''
The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes'' including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use.''
"Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavior effect,'' said the report.
The study, conducted by Douglas Kirby, a senior research scientist at ETR Associates, also sought to debunk what the report called "myths propagated by abstinence-only advocates'' including: that comprehensive sex education promotes promiscuity, hastens the initiative of sex or increases its frequency, and sends a confusing message to adolescents.
None of these was found to be accurate, Kirby wrote.
Instead, he wrote, such programs improved teens' knowledge about the risks and consequences of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and gave them greater "confidence in their ability to say 'no' to unwanted sex.''
The Princes of Darkness Join Hands
It's official. Nutjob evangelical fundamentalist Pat Robertson is endorsing Nutjob former failed mayor Rudy Guiliani for the Republican presidential nomination.
"It is my pleasure to announce my support for America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans,'' read a release from Robertson.
The union was presided over by the ghost of Jerry Falwell and his pal, Loki.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)