The ongoing impacts of a volcanic eruption in Iceland demonstrate the astonishing vulnerability of the civilization we've created for ourselves. The eruption of a single volcano in Iceland (and not a huge one at that) has wreaked havoc across Europe and this could just be the beginning. The last time this particular volcano blew, it erupted for a year.
Throughout much of Europe, airports remain closed days after the eruption. The Guardian reports some 17,000 flights were cancelled yesterday alone. The backlog of stranded travellers is becoming serious. Many of these are holidayers or people off to visit relatives but there's also a disruption of business travel and air freight.
The disaster is estimated to be costing airlines $200 million a day, but the economic damage will roll through to farms, retail establishments and nearly any other business that depends on air cargo shipments. Fresh produce will spoil, and supermarkets in Europe, used to year-round supplies, will begin to run out.
But unless flights are disrupted for weeks, threatening factories’ supply chains, economists do not think the crisis will significantly affect gross domestic product.
“If it really drags on another week that could be really serious,” said Peter Westaway, chief economist for Europe at the Nomura investment bank. The air travel shutdown could affect productivity, he said, if hundreds of thousands of people miss work or are not able to do business because they are stuck in limbo somewhere.
He would know. He was speaking by cellphone from Tokyo where he was watching British soccer on a barroom TV at 3 a.m. and waiting for news of when he might be able to get back to his office in London
.
“We don’t understand how interconnected we are until you can’t do it anymore,” he said.
The shutdown has also affected American military operations. Military supplies for operations in Afghanistan have been disrupted, and a spokeswoman for the Pentagon said that all medical evacuation flights from Iraq and Afghanistan to Germany, where most injured soldiers are typically treated, were being diverted directly to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.
There are invaluable lessons to be learned from what is going on in Europe today. One of them is that our civilization is not nearly as robust as we imagine. It is, in fact, quite fragile yet, despite the myriad of challenges we'll be facing this century, no one is in charge, we have no Plan "B". While our leaders natter on endlessly about trivialities, seeking to score points, nobody is leading.
Stephen Harper isn't a leader. He's an automaton, the closest thing yet to a breathing robot. In the fashion of the day, Harper treats Canada's challenges like they were a greasy diner menu and he wasn't particularly hungry. He picks at his plate, moves his food around with his fork, and declares himself finished.
Canadian society is facing great environmental, social and economic upheaval and this will probably land on your doorstep with a definite thud within a decade, two at the outside. When it does, you're going to wonder why nobody was doing anything about it years earlier. Why was nobody talking about it, why was nobody talking to us about these challenges? Why indeed.
How many of us know that Canada has a looming freshwater crisis? Yeah, that's right, Canada. And how many of us know that several governments, Conservative and Liberal, have been warned about this by their own environment ministry and simply ignored their warnings. Do you realize that we don't even have an inventory of our remaining groundwater reserves even though about 30% of us are fully dependent on groundwater.
Here are a few insights taken from Maude Barlow's excellent book "Blue Covenant":
...a Statistics Canada study called Human Activity and the Environment warned that the country's major glaciers,which hold 50% more water than the Great Lakes, are melting. Some 1,300 glaciers have lost between 25% and 75% of their mass since 1950 and all are predicted to disappear.
Important regional rivers, such as the Saskatchewan River, depend entirely on these glaciers for renewal. The British science journal 'Nature' notes that western cities such as Calgary, Edmonton and Saskatoon are at risk of losing the rivers upon which they are built in the next generation or two.
...the fastest-growing source of water loss and contamination in the country is coming from the mining operations in the tar sands of Northern Alberta. ...It takes between 2 and 4.5 barrels of water to produce a barrel of [Tar Sand] oil, says the Pembina Institute, and very little of that water is returned to the river. Most of it is dumped into some of the world's largest man-made dikes [visible to the naked eye from space] containing toxic waste and is lost to the lydrologic cycle forever. Fifty square kilometers of these toxic tailing ponds now cover what used to be wetland and boreal forest. [University of Alberta expert, Dr. David] Schindler says that this operation threatens the water security of two northern territories, three hundred thousand aboriginal people and Canada's largest watershed, the Mackenzie River Basin.
...A leaked 2005 Environment Canada assessment of the state of Canada's water for then environment minister Stephane Dion was a scathing indictment of the government's water policies. "Clean, Safe and Secure Water: The Need for Federal Leadership", meant only for the minister's eyes, said that a water crisis in Canada was looming, but that no one is in charge...
"No one is in charge." Precisely. Yet despite the ecological devastation wreaked by the Tar Sands (leave greenhouse gases aside), the Conservative and Liberal parties are led by Tar Sands boosters. That is nothing short of astonishing and an indictment of both supposed leaders. It's one reason why I believe that Canada will be ill-served with either of them as prime minister. We're running out of time. Canada and the Canadian people cannot afford their sort of leadership any longer.
Serious as Canada's freshwater problems are, they are vastly worse and rapidly worsening in most other parts of the world. We need to realize that, without adequate, secure freshwater there is no global economy. Without adequate, safe and secure freshwater, there is no global security. We are so utterly dependent - not just for our prosperity but for our very survival - on a fragile resource we have blithely taken for granted and abusively exploited at every turn.
Barlow asserts that the global freshwater crisis is every bit as serious as the global warming problem but much more immediate. India and China are particularly threatened just as they step up to become economic superpowers. It's going to take real genius and some very costly goodwill just to shave the sharp edges off what's coming. Unfortunately, "no one is in charge."
When it comes to knocking the wheels off our own civilization's bandwagon, we don' need no steenking volcano.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
India - A Country In Trouble
Here's a clear sign of India's troubles. Half the population have cell phones. Less than a third have access to a proper toilet.
In a nation with a growing population already exceeding 1.2-billion people, that's 800-million without "access" to proper sanitation. From AFP:
"..It is a tragic irony to think in India, a country now wealthy enough that roughly half of the people own phones," so many people "cannot afford the basic necessity and dignity of a toilet," said UN University director Zafar Adeel.
...Proper sanitation "could do more to save lives, especially those of young people, improve health and help pull India and other countries in similar circumstances out of poverty than any alternative investment," Adeel said.
Poor sanitation is a major contributor to water-borne diseases, which in the past three years alone killed an estimated 4.5 million children under the age of five worldwide, according to the study.
In a nation with a growing population already exceeding 1.2-billion people, that's 800-million without "access" to proper sanitation. From AFP:
"..It is a tragic irony to think in India, a country now wealthy enough that roughly half of the people own phones," so many people "cannot afford the basic necessity and dignity of a toilet," said UN University director Zafar Adeel.
...Proper sanitation "could do more to save lives, especially those of young people, improve health and help pull India and other countries in similar circumstances out of poverty than any alternative investment," Adeel said.
Poor sanitation is a major contributor to water-borne diseases, which in the past three years alone killed an estimated 4.5 million children under the age of five worldwide, according to the study.
Global Warming - Where's the Heat Going?
In a stable climate period, the amount of heat coming from the sun and elsewhere equals the amount of heat given off by the Earth. Balance, stasis.
Global warming is the result of heat coming to Earth and being trapped by greenhouse gases instead of given off by the Earth. How much heat? According to Reuters, the trapped heat is roughly 37 times the, "...heat energy produced by all human activities, from driving cars and running power plants to burning wood."
What has researchers from America's National Center for Atmospheric Research perplexed is where all that extra heat has gone.
Half of that gap is unaccounted for... It hasn't left the climate system but it hasn't been detected with satellites, ocean sensors or other technology. The rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere means far more energy is coming into Earth's climate system than is going out, but half of that energy is missing and could eventually reappear as another sign of climate change.
...It might lurk in deep ocean waters in areas sensors don't reach. Some of it could be the result of imprecise measurement or processing of satellite or sensor data. But the greenhouse-caused heat gap is definitely there, the authors said.
"The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later," Trenberth said. "It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate."
Brilliant. All that heat and no idea where it's gone.
Global warming is the result of heat coming to Earth and being trapped by greenhouse gases instead of given off by the Earth. How much heat? According to Reuters, the trapped heat is roughly 37 times the, "...heat energy produced by all human activities, from driving cars and running power plants to burning wood."
What has researchers from America's National Center for Atmospheric Research perplexed is where all that extra heat has gone.
Half of that gap is unaccounted for... It hasn't left the climate system but it hasn't been detected with satellites, ocean sensors or other technology. The rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere means far more energy is coming into Earth's climate system than is going out, but half of that energy is missing and could eventually reappear as another sign of climate change.
...It might lurk in deep ocean waters in areas sensors don't reach. Some of it could be the result of imprecise measurement or processing of satellite or sensor data. But the greenhouse-caused heat gap is definitely there, the authors said.
"The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later," Trenberth said. "It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate."
Brilliant. All that heat and no idea where it's gone.
Is the End of Goldman Sachs Too Much to Hope For?
The US Securities Exchange Commission has brought civil fraud charges against Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs for betting on the failure of securities it was flogging to its own customers.
The crux of the case is an allegation that the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly designed to fail. It's claimed that the firm had John Poulson pick out what he felt were mortgage bonds most likely to fail, packaged those bonds into a product called Abacus 2007 and then flogged Abacus to Goldman customers. Apparently Goldman told investors that Abacus had been reviewed by an "independent" fund manager.
From what I've read, Goldman could be the very large tip of an even larger iceberg. A number of leading Wall Street firms are said to have done the same thing - unload bad securities to their customers and then bet, or take out credit default swaps, against what they'd just sold.
A lot of people who are seriously out of pocket today will be watching the Goldman suit very, very closely.
The crux of the case is an allegation that the bank created and sold a mortgage investment that was secretly designed to fail. It's claimed that the firm had John Poulson pick out what he felt were mortgage bonds most likely to fail, packaged those bonds into a product called Abacus 2007 and then flogged Abacus to Goldman customers. Apparently Goldman told investors that Abacus had been reviewed by an "independent" fund manager.
From what I've read, Goldman could be the very large tip of an even larger iceberg. A number of leading Wall Street firms are said to have done the same thing - unload bad securities to their customers and then bet, or take out credit default swaps, against what they'd just sold.
A lot of people who are seriously out of pocket today will be watching the Goldman suit very, very closely.
The Most Important Thing You Don't Know About the Guergis/Jaffer Affair
We already know a lot, more than many of us want to know. Guergis and her antics, Jaffer and his run-in with the law, the shady characters he hangs with etc., etc.
We now also know of a private investigator, one Derrick (or "Derek") Snowdy, who claims to have the 'inside' dirt on the once Ottawa power couple.
Here's what you don't know but really need to learn. Who is private eye Snowdy working for and why did that client send him first to the Libs and then, when spurned, send him on to the party he apparently wanted to harm in the first place?
Snowdy has let it out that he went to the Conservatives on his client's instructions. No points at all for surmising that he first went to the Libs on that same client's instructions. Who has it so "in" for Jaffer/Guergis that he's prepared to go to these lengths for retribution.
There's no doubt about it - Snowdy is acting for someone with a very serious axe to grind. But before you can begin to evaluate this you need to know the nature of the axe and who is wielding it and why. Without those details, it's all Jello.
Snowdy's obviously a character. A guy with $12,000 in assets going bankrupt owing $13,000,000? That takes some doing. It doesn't mean he's not telling the truth but it sure as hell deserves caution.
Here's what you need to keep in mind about Mr. Snowdy. Having gone bankrupt last year just $13,000,000 shy of the $12,000 he had to his name there's something extremely unusual about Derek/Derrick Snowdy. You don't get a voluntary informant with that history every day.
But, with that recent misfortune, you can assume Mr. Snowdy isn't making the rounds in Ottawa on his own account. You can also assume Mr. Snowdy has been into this investigation for some time, long before the first whiff of it surfaced. Those contacted who professed to know Snowdy as a private investigator vouchsafe for his abilities. They say he's "top notch" and knows how to operate.
That leads to the conclusion that Mr. Snowdy has spent some considerable time on the payroll of someone interested in monitoring the activities of Mr. Jaffer or one or more of his business associates or all of them. Snowdy isn't telling or revealing all he knows and has or else he's lying right through his teeth.
The most important story may be who stands behind all this, who is picking up Mr. Snowdy's tab? That simple fact may explain more about what's going on here than any other.
UPDATE
Something else that comes to mind, questions for the prime minister. Just what information did he receive from Snowdy and under what circumstances? For example, was anything paid for what Snowdy provided? Was a promise of confidentiality extracted from Snowdy?
How can we be sure there wasn't an element of extortion in their dealings because it plainly is in the public interest to ensure that the Tories dealings with Snowdy were properly conducted. Whatever information Harper got from Snowdy was powerful enough for him to boot Guergis straight out of caucus. That sort of information might, in some circumstances, be very valuable either through its disclosure or its concealment.
We now also know of a private investigator, one Derrick (or "Derek") Snowdy, who claims to have the 'inside' dirt on the once Ottawa power couple.
Here's what you don't know but really need to learn. Who is private eye Snowdy working for and why did that client send him first to the Libs and then, when spurned, send him on to the party he apparently wanted to harm in the first place?
Snowdy has let it out that he went to the Conservatives on his client's instructions. No points at all for surmising that he first went to the Libs on that same client's instructions. Who has it so "in" for Jaffer/Guergis that he's prepared to go to these lengths for retribution.
There's no doubt about it - Snowdy is acting for someone with a very serious axe to grind. But before you can begin to evaluate this you need to know the nature of the axe and who is wielding it and why. Without those details, it's all Jello.
Snowdy's obviously a character. A guy with $12,000 in assets going bankrupt owing $13,000,000? That takes some doing. It doesn't mean he's not telling the truth but it sure as hell deserves caution.
Here's what you need to keep in mind about Mr. Snowdy. Having gone bankrupt last year just $13,000,000 shy of the $12,000 he had to his name there's something extremely unusual about Derek/Derrick Snowdy. You don't get a voluntary informant with that history every day.
But, with that recent misfortune, you can assume Mr. Snowdy isn't making the rounds in Ottawa on his own account. You can also assume Mr. Snowdy has been into this investigation for some time, long before the first whiff of it surfaced. Those contacted who professed to know Snowdy as a private investigator vouchsafe for his abilities. They say he's "top notch" and knows how to operate.
That leads to the conclusion that Mr. Snowdy has spent some considerable time on the payroll of someone interested in monitoring the activities of Mr. Jaffer or one or more of his business associates or all of them. Snowdy isn't telling or revealing all he knows and has or else he's lying right through his teeth.
The most important story may be who stands behind all this, who is picking up Mr. Snowdy's tab? That simple fact may explain more about what's going on here than any other.
UPDATE
Something else that comes to mind, questions for the prime minister. Just what information did he receive from Snowdy and under what circumstances? For example, was anything paid for what Snowdy provided? Was a promise of confidentiality extracted from Snowdy?
How can we be sure there wasn't an element of extortion in their dealings because it plainly is in the public interest to ensure that the Tories dealings with Snowdy were properly conducted. Whatever information Harper got from Snowdy was powerful enough for him to boot Guergis straight out of caucus. That sort of information might, in some circumstances, be very valuable either through its disclosure or its concealment.
Today's "No Fly Zone"
The New York Times published this dandy graphic showing the extent of the volcanic ash cloud that's brought air travel to a halt in much of Europe. The last major eruption of this particular volcano continued for - a year.
The
The
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Torture? Not My Job.
Whatever disgrace, if any, befalls the Canadian Forces as a result of the torture meted out to Afghans we detained and handed over to their nation's security service, lies not with the troops but exclusively with their supposed commanders. It's not the privates and corporals and sergeants but the majors, colonels and generals who need to be held to account and, not surprisingly, they're doing everything they can to dodge this one.
Today we heard from the remarkably outspoken backpeddler, Lt.-Col. Douglas Boot. The Colonel's position was clear - it wasn't his job to investigate whether the detainees we handed over to Afghan security types were being tortured. Were they being tortured, possibly - okay sure, but that wasn't any business of the Canadians.
Colonel Boot told the Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission that he had it really rough as Provost Marshal at the Canadian Expeditionary Force headquarters. He wasn't goofing off like those other slackers out drawing sniper fire or trolling for IEDs. No siree, he was fighting the war from his desk and - war is hell. Why at times his paper load got so bad it was "unrelenting" and "psychotic." Yes, those were his words to describe the torturous conditions at his office at headquarters.
The sniveling dipshit finished his testimony by suggesting that maybe the situation wasn't as bad "as some people would hope to think." I'm sorry. I really hate this word but Colonel Boot is an unmitigated asshole.
Today we heard from the remarkably outspoken backpeddler, Lt.-Col. Douglas Boot. The Colonel's position was clear - it wasn't his job to investigate whether the detainees we handed over to Afghan security types were being tortured. Were they being tortured, possibly - okay sure, but that wasn't any business of the Canadians.
Colonel Boot told the Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission that he had it really rough as Provost Marshal at the Canadian Expeditionary Force headquarters. He wasn't goofing off like those other slackers out drawing sniper fire or trolling for IEDs. No siree, he was fighting the war from his desk and - war is hell. Why at times his paper load got so bad it was "unrelenting" and "psychotic." Yes, those were his words to describe the torturous conditions at his office at headquarters.
The sniveling dipshit finished his testimony by suggesting that maybe the situation wasn't as bad "as some people would hope to think." I'm sorry. I really hate this word but Colonel Boot is an unmitigated asshole.
The Risk of Believing Volunteer Informants
A lot of Libs, it seems, are critical of Ignatieff for spurning a private investigator offering dirt of Helena Guergis.
Take it from someone who knows - people like this investigator are usually trouble, often big trouble. Why? There are several reasons.
Why indeed? When someone comes out of the woodwork with damaging sleaze, they're doing it for a reason. They want something, potentially a great deal, from somebody and that somebody might just be you. Unless you're certain that you know what they're after, keep your distance.
Volunteer informants can be plants. They can deliver a load of credible, verifiable information to which they slip in the snippets of disinformation that can readily blow up in your face. Even if he promises to deliver glossies of Harper buggering the Speaker, best to show the guy the door.
And what of this particular "private investigator" Derek Snowdy? Maybe he's not that great of a private eye after all. CBC News found his bankruptcy records from 2009 when he owed total liabilities the grand sum of $13-million against assets of less than $12,000. He must be one hell of an investigator, eh? Sounds like there's a lot more to Derek Snowdy than meets the eye.
Don't blame Michael Ignatieff for being prudent in the midst of this truly smelly situation. Better yet, let's say instead that he took the high road.
Take it from someone who knows - people like this investigator are usually trouble, often big trouble. Why? There are several reasons.
Why indeed? When someone comes out of the woodwork with damaging sleaze, they're doing it for a reason. They want something, potentially a great deal, from somebody and that somebody might just be you. Unless you're certain that you know what they're after, keep your distance.
Volunteer informants can be plants. They can deliver a load of credible, verifiable information to which they slip in the snippets of disinformation that can readily blow up in your face. Even if he promises to deliver glossies of Harper buggering the Speaker, best to show the guy the door.
And what of this particular "private investigator" Derek Snowdy? Maybe he's not that great of a private eye after all. CBC News found his bankruptcy records from 2009 when he owed total liabilities the grand sum of $13-million against assets of less than $12,000. He must be one hell of an investigator, eh? Sounds like there's a lot more to Derek Snowdy than meets the eye.
Don't blame Michael Ignatieff for being prudent in the midst of this truly smelly situation. Better yet, let's say instead that he took the high road.
Hey Ladies - Larry King is Wife-Shopping Again
76-year old CNN celebrity interviewer Larry King is heading for bachelorhood again. That's right ladies, he's available.
King has filed for divorce from his 50-year old wife of 13-years citing "irreconcilable differences." She says that Larry has been up to his old tricks, fooling around - possibly with her sister to boot.
Larry has had seven wives but this'll be his eighth divorce. He remarried and re-divorced one woman along the way.
(by the way, he gets to keep the jacket as part of the settlement)
Iggy Not Open to Sleaze but Harper Is
I don't get many opportunities to sing the praises of Michael Ignatieff but I will give him full marks for turning his back on the private investigator behind the Guergis scandal.
It seems that PI Derek Snowdy had second-hand information that a Jaffer business associate said that three companies had been set up in Belize to hold cash for Guergis and Jaffer. Snowdy shopped his story to the Liberals first but was promptly given the brush off.
Snowdy then took his information to Conservative party lawyer Arthur Hamilton who was more receptive and saw to it that it got straight to the prime minister. Harper didn't seem to quibble about 'benefit of the doubt' but accepted what would have been third-hand hearsay that originated from a dodgy source and, acting on that, booted Guergis clean out of the Tory caucus.
For my money, the Liberals did the right thing but Harper, it seems, finds a bit of good, old-fashioned sleaze irresistible. Yeah, he does have an appetite for all things sleazy. The past four years have taught us that.
It seems that PI Derek Snowdy had second-hand information that a Jaffer business associate said that three companies had been set up in Belize to hold cash for Guergis and Jaffer. Snowdy shopped his story to the Liberals first but was promptly given the brush off.
Snowdy then took his information to Conservative party lawyer Arthur Hamilton who was more receptive and saw to it that it got straight to the prime minister. Harper didn't seem to quibble about 'benefit of the doubt' but accepted what would have been third-hand hearsay that originated from a dodgy source and, acting on that, booted Guergis clean out of the Tory caucus.
For my money, the Liberals did the right thing but Harper, it seems, finds a bit of good, old-fashioned sleaze irresistible. Yeah, he does have an appetite for all things sleazy. The past four years have taught us that.
Joe, er Benny - It's Me, Mound. Let's Chat.
You've really pissed in the pickles this time Joe. You've lost control of the whole kid diddling scandal. The tide has turned to the point where it's a distinct possibility even your saintly ass might be hauled before a court of law.
You have only yourself and your underlings to blame by comparing your critics to anti-Semites or blaming the scandal on Zionists or dismissing it as "petty gossip" or trying to write it off as a gay problem. One by one your straw men collapsed before you had a chance to knock them down.
C'mon Joe. I know it. The whole world knows it. You know it too but you won't admit it. The problem, Joe, is your church's fanatical obsession with clerical celibacy. Celibacy is the Titanic of the Roman Catholic Church. You're sinking.
Celibacy attacks the church at every turn. Perverse as this might seem, it even attracts gay men to the priesthood. One gay priest explained it very clearly. The priesthood was the obvious "way out" for a closeted homosexual wishing to escape exposure or dodge a mother otherwise desperate for grandchildren. They don't go in yearning to get at the altar boy's ass, not at all. They believe that getting closer to their faith will actually help them overcome temptation. Later, for some, it turns out they guessed wrong.
Don't lay this all on the gay clergy either. There are plenty of hetero priests who also mistakenly believe they can suppress their sexuality. Priests do diddle girls too.
You see, Joe, gay or straight, men all have a physiology they can't park at the door upon getting ordained. If they're going to stay celibate, they're going to struggle with it - forever. Some win, some lose and, there's no getting around this, you're setting up some of them to lose and then shirking all responsibility for the devastation that creates. You and your cronies are spinning so hard your pointy heads are going to burst trying to pin this on anti-Semites or Zionists or gossipers or homosexuals or whatever you can come up with today and tomorrow and you're beginning to sound downright ridiculous for that.
Here's the deal, Joe. If you're going to insist on celibacy you're going to have to accept personal
(as in "you") responsibility for the consequences. Stand up, be a man. If you really believe this celibacy bullshit is divine, prove it by accepting responsibility.
You have only yourself and your underlings to blame by comparing your critics to anti-Semites or blaming the scandal on Zionists or dismissing it as "petty gossip" or trying to write it off as a gay problem. One by one your straw men collapsed before you had a chance to knock them down.
C'mon Joe. I know it. The whole world knows it. You know it too but you won't admit it. The problem, Joe, is your church's fanatical obsession with clerical celibacy. Celibacy is the Titanic of the Roman Catholic Church. You're sinking.
Celibacy attacks the church at every turn. Perverse as this might seem, it even attracts gay men to the priesthood. One gay priest explained it very clearly. The priesthood was the obvious "way out" for a closeted homosexual wishing to escape exposure or dodge a mother otherwise desperate for grandchildren. They don't go in yearning to get at the altar boy's ass, not at all. They believe that getting closer to their faith will actually help them overcome temptation. Later, for some, it turns out they guessed wrong.
Don't lay this all on the gay clergy either. There are plenty of hetero priests who also mistakenly believe they can suppress their sexuality. Priests do diddle girls too.
You see, Joe, gay or straight, men all have a physiology they can't park at the door upon getting ordained. If they're going to stay celibate, they're going to struggle with it - forever. Some win, some lose and, there's no getting around this, you're setting up some of them to lose and then shirking all responsibility for the devastation that creates. You and your cronies are spinning so hard your pointy heads are going to burst trying to pin this on anti-Semites or Zionists or gossipers or homosexuals or whatever you can come up with today and tomorrow and you're beginning to sound downright ridiculous for that.
Here's the deal, Joe. If you're going to insist on celibacy you're going to have to accept personal
(as in "you") responsibility for the consequences. Stand up, be a man. If you really believe this celibacy bullshit is divine, prove it by accepting responsibility.
Nature Meets High-Technology - Nature Wins
Curious creatures that we are, mankind has raced headlong to embrace the latest and greatest technology just as quickly as it can be churned out. We like it so much we become utterly dependent upon it, leaving us ridiculously vulnerable when it and we fail.
Take air travel and, today, take Britain. Flights are grounded today because of dangerous levels of ash that have entered British airspace from a volcano that erupted in Iceland. Not so bad, I suppose. Iceland's Eyjafjallajökull volcano hasn't erupted in 200 years.
But.
The last time Eyjafjallajökull erupted, it went on for a year. If the current eruption is no worse than the last, Britain still faces the possibility of repeated air travel disruptions over the next year. From The Telegraph:
Professor Bill McGuire, of the Aon Benfield Hazard Research Centre at University College London, said the previous eruption, in December 1821, lasted until January 1823.
He said air travel could be curtailed repeatedly if the current eruption lasted the same amount of time.
However, he added: "There is no way of knowing for certain how long this eruption will last based on previous events. The level of disruption would also depend on how much gas and ash is produced."
The most notable previous example of Icelandic volcanic activity causing problems for Britain was in 1783, when an eruption at Laki sent a huge toxic cloud of sulphur across Western Europe, killing an estimated 23,000 Britons.
I suppose memory may be mankind's Achilles' Heel. We shape our reality by events of the past generation, sometimes two, but pretty much wipe the slate clean about anything beyond that. Even here on the island, we're likely to have heard the accounts of the mega-earthquakes and monster tsunamis that arrive every few centuries from the giant subduction fault right beneath us and we know the clock's ticking but just getting by means you pretty much have to put that out of mind.
Maybe the earthquake threat comes right down to "you pay your money and take your chances." We can reinforce our homes and keep a stock of canned food in the cupboard but, beyond that, it's pretty much out of our control. But what of an even greater threat, one that's truly global in dimension, one that's not just within our control but of our own creation? A threat that could stress our economies, our very civilization to the breaking point. A threat that comes with a hair-trigger, tipping points that, when reached, send the threat spiralling out of our control.
I'm not referring simply to global warming either. The threat is the host of man-made environmental disasters we're steadily building around the world - global warming; climate change; soil exhaustion and desertification; the disruption and collapse of freshwater systems; deforestation; air, soil and water contamination; overpopulation; species extinction and loss of biodiversity; species, disease and population migration; resource depletion; precipitation pattern imbalances (drought and flood); spreading militarization and arms races; nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Sort of makes you yearn for the darkest days of the Cold War, no?
This Icelandic volcano problem is a very cheap lesson that, when mankind's ways and our technology clash with nature, we don't win. We can buy time. If we're lucky, we can shelter ourselves from the worst. But we don't win. Ever.
Take air travel and, today, take Britain. Flights are grounded today because of dangerous levels of ash that have entered British airspace from a volcano that erupted in Iceland. Not so bad, I suppose. Iceland's Eyjafjallajökull volcano hasn't erupted in 200 years.
But.
The last time Eyjafjallajökull erupted, it went on for a year. If the current eruption is no worse than the last, Britain still faces the possibility of repeated air travel disruptions over the next year. From The Telegraph:
Professor Bill McGuire, of the Aon Benfield Hazard Research Centre at University College London, said the previous eruption, in December 1821, lasted until January 1823.
He said air travel could be curtailed repeatedly if the current eruption lasted the same amount of time.
However, he added: "There is no way of knowing for certain how long this eruption will last based on previous events. The level of disruption would also depend on how much gas and ash is produced."
The most notable previous example of Icelandic volcanic activity causing problems for Britain was in 1783, when an eruption at Laki sent a huge toxic cloud of sulphur across Western Europe, killing an estimated 23,000 Britons.
I suppose memory may be mankind's Achilles' Heel. We shape our reality by events of the past generation, sometimes two, but pretty much wipe the slate clean about anything beyond that. Even here on the island, we're likely to have heard the accounts of the mega-earthquakes and monster tsunamis that arrive every few centuries from the giant subduction fault right beneath us and we know the clock's ticking but just getting by means you pretty much have to put that out of mind.
Maybe the earthquake threat comes right down to "you pay your money and take your chances." We can reinforce our homes and keep a stock of canned food in the cupboard but, beyond that, it's pretty much out of our control. But what of an even greater threat, one that's truly global in dimension, one that's not just within our control but of our own creation? A threat that could stress our economies, our very civilization to the breaking point. A threat that comes with a hair-trigger, tipping points that, when reached, send the threat spiralling out of our control.
I'm not referring simply to global warming either. The threat is the host of man-made environmental disasters we're steadily building around the world - global warming; climate change; soil exhaustion and desertification; the disruption and collapse of freshwater systems; deforestation; air, soil and water contamination; overpopulation; species extinction and loss of biodiversity; species, disease and population migration; resource depletion; precipitation pattern imbalances (drought and flood); spreading militarization and arms races; nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Sort of makes you yearn for the darkest days of the Cold War, no?
This Icelandic volcano problem is a very cheap lesson that, when mankind's ways and our technology clash with nature, we don't win. We can buy time. If we're lucky, we can shelter ourselves from the worst. But we don't win. Ever.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Lady Doth Protest Too Much
Steve knows. Helena knows, so does Rahim. Probably, by now, most if not all of the Conservative caucus knows. To see them play coy, many in the Hill media know although they're not talking either.
What do we know? That Helena at times seems fidgety, irritable, angry and volatile even. That her husband, Mr. Guergis, can drive while tipsy and in possession of a bit of cocaine to boot. That Mr. Guergis, aka Rahim Jaffer, plays fast and loose with some curious characters. That some revelation came to L'il Stevie that made him leap into action, dumping Ms. Guergis from his cabinet and even booting her straight out of the Tory caucus before tossing the whole business over to the RCMP to investigate.
Now Ms. Guergis is whining about "rumours gone amok" and vowing to fight back. She's even hired the lawyer who negotiated Rahim's cushy plea bargain.
But despite all her whining, Helena won't take the first step to restoring her reputation - she won't say what the ruckus is all about. It's pretty hard to deny something the identity of which you refuse to disclose. Sorry Helena but, without disclosure, you'll just have to stew in a cauldron of Spicy Rumour soup. If you want to leave yourself there, don't complain about the inevitable consequences.
What do we know? That Helena at times seems fidgety, irritable, angry and volatile even. That her husband, Mr. Guergis, can drive while tipsy and in possession of a bit of cocaine to boot. That Mr. Guergis, aka Rahim Jaffer, plays fast and loose with some curious characters. That some revelation came to L'il Stevie that made him leap into action, dumping Ms. Guergis from his cabinet and even booting her straight out of the Tory caucus before tossing the whole business over to the RCMP to investigate.
Now Ms. Guergis is whining about "rumours gone amok" and vowing to fight back. She's even hired the lawyer who negotiated Rahim's cushy plea bargain.
But despite all her whining, Helena won't take the first step to restoring her reputation - she won't say what the ruckus is all about. It's pretty hard to deny something the identity of which you refuse to disclose. Sorry Helena but, without disclosure, you'll just have to stew in a cauldron of Spicy Rumour soup. If you want to leave yourself there, don't complain about the inevitable consequences.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Britain Has It. Even the US Has It. Why Don't Canadians Have It?
As the Harper government is busy cutting off funding for public climate change research, the Americans, like the Brits, are getting out clear, concise and useful information about coming climate change impacts to their country on a region by region basis.
See what I mean. Take a look here: http://www.globalchange.gov/
The Harper government is deliberately and forcefully betraying its duty to the Canadian people to get them the latest, most accurate information on climate change so that, like the British and American public, we could become informed, engaged and focused on the planning and preparation challenges we'll have to meet this century.
Harper, with the acquiescence of the opposition, is leaving the Canadian public uninformed (even misinformed) and unnecessarily vulnerable to what is coming. Our children, probably, and theirs, certainly, will pay dearly for this betrayal.
See what I mean. Take a look here: http://www.globalchange.gov/
The Harper government is deliberately and forcefully betraying its duty to the Canadian people to get them the latest, most accurate information on climate change so that, like the British and American public, we could become informed, engaged and focused on the planning and preparation challenges we'll have to meet this century.
Harper, with the acquiescence of the opposition, is leaving the Canadian public uninformed (even misinformed) and unnecessarily vulnerable to what is coming. Our children, probably, and theirs, certainly, will pay dearly for this betrayal.
Homosexuality, Not Forced Celibacy, Cause of Clerical Paedophelia
Gee the Vatican can't help but stir up the very waters it's trying so desperately to calm. First they compared criticism of RC kid-diddling to anti-semitism. Then it was dismissed as "petty gossip." Then some retired RC nutjob blamed the criticism on a Zionist plot.
Today the pope's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone risked jumped into the pool by claiming that paedophilia was linked to homosexuality and had nothing to do with the Vatican's doctrine of celibacy:
"Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia," he told a news conference in Santiago.
It does appear, however, that pope Benny is feeling the heat. He's now issued directions to Bishops to report kid-diddling to the police. From The Guardian:
The short set of rules, published online in English, is an attempt to satisfy critics who have accused the Catholic church of covering up some of the dozens of abuse cases coming to light in the US and Europe. "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed," it states.
Francis X Rocca, Vatican correspondent for Religion News Service, said: "This is a new and notable public emphasis on the need to follow local laws."
The Vatican daily L'Osservatore Romano described the rules as part of a "transparency drive" adopted by the Vatican. The document, it added, was based on the Motu Proprio, the 2001 Vatican ruling which ordered bishops to forward abuse cases to Rome.
But one Vatican expert said the 2001 document gave no specific instructions on reporting to the police. "There is no similar sentence in the Motu Proprio," said John Allen, senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter. "The Vatican may say these guidelines make explicit what was always understood but the truth is that for years abuse was not reported to the police."
In Ireland, bishops reportedly understood the 2001 rules to mean they should not tell police about abuse.
Today the pope's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone risked jumped into the pool by claiming that paedophilia was linked to homosexuality and had nothing to do with the Vatican's doctrine of celibacy:
"Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia," he told a news conference in Santiago.
It does appear, however, that pope Benny is feeling the heat. He's now issued directions to Bishops to report kid-diddling to the police. From The Guardian:
The short set of rules, published online in English, is an attempt to satisfy critics who have accused the Catholic church of covering up some of the dozens of abuse cases coming to light in the US and Europe. "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed," it states.
Francis X Rocca, Vatican correspondent for Religion News Service, said: "This is a new and notable public emphasis on the need to follow local laws."
The Vatican daily L'Osservatore Romano described the rules as part of a "transparency drive" adopted by the Vatican. The document, it added, was based on the Motu Proprio, the 2001 Vatican ruling which ordered bishops to forward abuse cases to Rome.
But one Vatican expert said the 2001 document gave no specific instructions on reporting to the police. "There is no similar sentence in the Motu Proprio," said John Allen, senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter. "The Vatican may say these guidelines make explicit what was always understood but the truth is that for years abuse was not reported to the police."
In Ireland, bishops reportedly understood the 2001 rules to mean they should not tell police about abuse.
Cutting the Risk of Alzheimers by 40%
A study reported by Reuters suggests that diet can cut the risk of developing Alzheimer's by up to 40%.
A diet rich in olive oil, nuts, fish, poultry and certain fruits and vegetables may have a powerful effect at staving off Alzheimer's disease, researchers reported on Monday.
People who ate nutrients specifically selected for brain health had a 40 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease compared with others, Yian Gu, an Alzheimer's disease researcher at Columbia University in New York and colleagues found
.
"Diet is probably the easiest way to modify disease risk," said Gu, whose study appears in Archives of Neurology.
A diet rich in olive oil, nuts, fish, poultry and certain fruits and vegetables may have a powerful effect at staving off Alzheimer's disease, researchers reported on Monday.
People who ate nutrients specifically selected for brain health had a 40 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease compared with others, Yian Gu, an Alzheimer's disease researcher at Columbia University in New York and colleagues found
.
"Diet is probably the easiest way to modify disease risk," said Gu, whose study appears in Archives of Neurology.
Israel to Clear "Illegal" Palestinians from West Bank
I guess the offence is living in occupied Palestinian lands while Palestinian. Israel's army of illegal occupation is about to move against Palestinians living in their homeland - without an Israeli permit.
Those Palestinians living in their homeland without Israel's approval face expulsion within three days or up to seven years imprisonment. The ordinance was brought to light by an Israeli human rights group, HaMoked: The Center for the Defense of the Individual. From the Christian Science Monitor:
The deportation policy would be applied primarily to Palestinians or foreign nationals who are residing in West Bank without permits, according to an army statement.
"The major problem is that for the first time, Palestinians can be regarded as infiltrators in their own land," said Elad Kahana, a lawyer for HaMoked who added that even people who've been living in the West Bank for 20 years would be required to obtain special permits.
"The main target is people who originally came from the Gaza Strip and foreigners who came here under family reunification laws," she said.
The greatest number of those in the second category, said a spokeswoman for the human rights organization B'tselem, are Jordanian women who married West Bank Palestinian men. Such marriages are common, usually within extended families.
"These are the groups at risk, but the order is so general and so wide that it could be used against almost anybody caught in the West Bank," said Sarit Michaeli, the spokeswoman for B'tselem.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/12/92011/israel-moves-to-deport-illegal.html#ixzz0kzjNt1H8
Those Palestinians living in their homeland without Israel's approval face expulsion within three days or up to seven years imprisonment. The ordinance was brought to light by an Israeli human rights group, HaMoked: The Center for the Defense of the Individual. From the Christian Science Monitor:
The deportation policy would be applied primarily to Palestinians or foreign nationals who are residing in West Bank without permits, according to an army statement.
"The major problem is that for the first time, Palestinians can be regarded as infiltrators in their own land," said Elad Kahana, a lawyer for HaMoked who added that even people who've been living in the West Bank for 20 years would be required to obtain special permits.
"The main target is people who originally came from the Gaza Strip and foreigners who came here under family reunification laws," she said.
The greatest number of those in the second category, said a spokeswoman for the human rights organization B'tselem, are Jordanian women who married West Bank Palestinian men. Such marriages are common, usually within extended families.
"These are the groups at risk, but the order is so general and so wide that it could be used against almost anybody caught in the West Bank," said Sarit Michaeli, the spokeswoman for B'tselem.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/12/92011/israel-moves-to-deport-illegal.html#ixzz0kzjNt1H8
Canada Slips on Maternal Mortality Standings
In 1990 Canada had the lowest rate of maternal mortality, the death of mothers in childbirth. In 2008, we've fallen to ninth overall. Three things to note: 1. Our numbers are still pretty good compared to the 181 countries assessed. 2. The countries that now occupy the top 8 slots ahead of us made real progress in cutting maternal mortality. 3. Canada's numbers actually worsened slightly over the past two decades.
Italy now claims top spot with just 3.9 maternal deaths per 100,000 deliveries. Canada's numbers increased from 5.7 to 6.6 over this period, placing us in 9th spot. The UK trails us with 8.2 while the United States records 16.7 for 39th place.
At the very bottom, standing 181st, is Afghanistan with 1575.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 deliveries.
Italy now claims top spot with just 3.9 maternal deaths per 100,000 deliveries. Canada's numbers increased from 5.7 to 6.6 over this period, placing us in 9th spot. The UK trails us with 8.2 while the United States records 16.7 for 39th place.
At the very bottom, standing 181st, is Afghanistan with 1575.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 deliveries.
Pakistan Nukes Vulnerable to Inside Job
What are the odds that Pakistani nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists? Depends whom you ask. Depends on whether you're looking from the outside in or from the inside out.
Pakistan says its arsenal of nuclear warheads is well and truly secured and, for the most part, Britain and America agree. Harvard's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs isn't so sure, at least according to a recent report that questions the security of both Pakistan's and Russia's nuclear arsenals. From The Guardian:
"Despite extensive security measures, there is a very real possibility that sympathetic insiders might carry out or assist in a nuclear theft, or that a sophisticated outsider attack (possibly with insider help) could overwhelm the defences," the report said.
"Sympathetic insider" is code for the radical Muslim element said to flourish within Pakistan's military chain of command reaching to the highest ranks.
Pakistan says its arsenal of nuclear warheads is well and truly secured and, for the most part, Britain and America agree. Harvard's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs isn't so sure, at least according to a recent report that questions the security of both Pakistan's and Russia's nuclear arsenals. From The Guardian:
"Despite extensive security measures, there is a very real possibility that sympathetic insiders might carry out or assist in a nuclear theft, or that a sophisticated outsider attack (possibly with insider help) could overwhelm the defences," the report said.
"Sympathetic insider" is code for the radical Muslim element said to flourish within Pakistan's military chain of command reaching to the highest ranks.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Guergis Booted Over "Second-Hand" Tip?
See what happens when you can get the prime minister's ear?
Stand-in stuffed suit, Curious John Baird, wasn't saying much about the Guergis affair today but he did let it drop that Harper moved to brutally eviscerate Helena on the strength of a "second hand" tip from a "third party." Let me see, multiply "second hand" by "third party" and divide by Harper's judgment deficit and you get - a lynching?
Did I hear that correctly? Guergis was not only fired from cabinet but turfed from the Tory caucus on the strength of barely more than a rumour. Incredible.
Must've been some "tip." Must've been some "tipster" too.
Wonder when L'il Stevie will be advertising his own "Conservative Caucus Crimestoppers" hotline?
Stand-in stuffed suit, Curious John Baird, wasn't saying much about the Guergis affair today but he did let it drop that Harper moved to brutally eviscerate Helena on the strength of a "second hand" tip from a "third party." Let me see, multiply "second hand" by "third party" and divide by Harper's judgment deficit and you get - a lynching?
Did I hear that correctly? Guergis was not only fired from cabinet but turfed from the Tory caucus on the strength of barely more than a rumour. Incredible.
Must've been some "tip." Must've been some "tipster" too.
Wonder when L'il Stevie will be advertising his own "Conservative Caucus Crimestoppers" hotline?
Harper Did the Right Thing? Says Who?
Drifting around the Conservative MSM the past few days has turned up a curious point. Many of the Harper media scribes are proclaiming he "did the right thing" or had "no choice" in booting Helena Guergis out of the Tory caucus.
Who says?
The editorial board of the Calgary Herald, that's who. And CTV's Bob Fife. And the National Spot, that's who too. The Sun media chain couldn't wait to praise Harper for doing the right thing.
In other words, either the rightwing MSM really don't know why Harper booted Guergis and they're just making this all up or they do know what's behind it and, being dutiful toadies, are doing the government's bidding and keeping it to themselves. In the latter case, if they are keeping secrets for the government, they're no longer journalists but publicity agents to the ruling party.
Maybe Harper did do the right thing - eventually - but why are the rightwing MSM vouchsafing for the guy if they can't tell us about it? If you keep a secret, you keep it to yourself. But, if it's a secret that really deserves keeping, you don't let reporters in on it for your own purposes.
Who says?
The editorial board of the Calgary Herald, that's who. And CTV's Bob Fife. And the National Spot, that's who too. The Sun media chain couldn't wait to praise Harper for doing the right thing.
In other words, either the rightwing MSM really don't know why Harper booted Guergis and they're just making this all up or they do know what's behind it and, being dutiful toadies, are doing the government's bidding and keeping it to themselves. In the latter case, if they are keeping secrets for the government, they're no longer journalists but publicity agents to the ruling party.
Maybe Harper did do the right thing - eventually - but why are the rightwing MSM vouchsafing for the guy if they can't tell us about it? If you keep a secret, you keep it to yourself. But, if it's a secret that really deserves keeping, you don't let reporters in on it for your own purposes.
Pack Your Bags Everybody - Climate Summit in Cancun!
The Copenhagen climate summit drew hordes of wannabes and hangers-on but now the party is moving to Cancun! Yippee! Margaritas all around!
If you have the slightest concern for our planet, pack your sandals, a swimsuit or two and a good, SPF 30 and get ready to di di mau to the fabulous Mayan Riviera. Just remember, what happens in Cancun, stays in Cancun.
Is it any goddamned wonder these climate summits are always flops? Look at the destinations - Kyoto, Bali, Rio, Copenhagen, Cancun. This is one giant revolving holiday junket!
Look, these are United Nations-sponsored summits. Why not just hold'em where the UN does the rest of its business - in New York. That's right, boring old New York where every country already has a delegation, most of them underemployed.
Or not. Cancun, November 29th to December 10th. Should be a hell of a party.
If you have the slightest concern for our planet, pack your sandals, a swimsuit or two and a good, SPF 30 and get ready to di di mau to the fabulous Mayan Riviera. Just remember, what happens in Cancun, stays in Cancun.
Is it any goddamned wonder these climate summits are always flops? Look at the destinations - Kyoto, Bali, Rio, Copenhagen, Cancun. This is one giant revolving holiday junket!
Look, these are United Nations-sponsored summits. Why not just hold'em where the UN does the rest of its business - in New York. That's right, boring old New York where every country already has a delegation, most of them underemployed.
Or not. Cancun, November 29th to December 10th. Should be a hell of a party.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Sue Rahim, Sue
The right-wing rag, The Toronto Sun, reports that Rahim Jaffer is threatening to sue the Toronto Star for something, probably defamation. The Sun claims Jaffer is furious about a Star expose claiming Jaffer got drunk driving and cocaine possession charges dropped by agreeing to roll over on, grass, give evidence against one of his business associates Nazim Gillani. It is alleged Gillani is the subject of investigations into tax fraud and other offences.
Jaffer's got a point. If The Star's article is false, it's defamatory as hell. He ought to sue. It's the best - make that the only - way to redeem his reputation. Let's lay the facts before a court of law. Let's let the newspaper defend its story. Let's get Jaffer under oath and get a look at the records of his dealings with Gillani and the Conservatives.
My guess is that Jaffer is blowing smoke. A sure sign of a scoundrel is one who threatens to sue before skulking back into the shadows. Of course the account in The Sun claims Jaffer isn't exactly complaining of defamation but merely that the Toronto Star article is "inaccurate" and "a complete mischaracterization." I'd love to hear more. Wouldn't we all?
Jaffer's got a point. If The Star's article is false, it's defamatory as hell. He ought to sue. It's the best - make that the only - way to redeem his reputation. Let's lay the facts before a court of law. Let's let the newspaper defend its story. Let's get Jaffer under oath and get a look at the records of his dealings with Gillani and the Conservatives.
My guess is that Jaffer is blowing smoke. A sure sign of a scoundrel is one who threatens to sue before skulking back into the shadows. Of course the account in The Sun claims Jaffer isn't exactly complaining of defamation but merely that the Toronto Star article is "inaccurate" and "a complete mischaracterization." I'd love to hear more. Wouldn't we all?
What "Next" Assignment? Bring the Army Home - Period
It's time the grown ups got all the generals together for a little talking to. There has been a creeping mist of news stories lately claiming that Canada's top generals are looking for their next gig, even speculating they may be lobbying to take a go at the Congo. You could be forgiven for suspecting what they're really trying to do is to keep the Legion in the field, somewhere. It's as though they've finally gotten this war fighting machine and they don't want to send it back to barracks.
I think these soldiers need a little furlough. For starters, our combat troops need a rest, a good long rest. They've been at this the better part of eight years and many have had several rotations through Kandahar. Enough.
As for the generals, they need time off for meditation. We've been taught a great many lessons in Afghanistan, painful lessons paid for in blood and treasure. If those lost lives are not to have been wasted, this is the time to use those experiences to draw up a "do and don't" list.
Remember when Hillier pompously boasted about how we were going over to Kandahar to "kill scumbags" that he assured us numbered just a few dozen? There's your first "don't" - don't ever underestimate the enemy your soldiers will be required to fight. History books are full of losers who did just that.
Remember how we deployed to Kandahar with a force neither trained nor equipped for the job? They were finely honed for conventional warfare but not for counterinsurgency. Our generals seemed constantly frustrated, befuddled even that the guerrillas wouldn't stand and fight (read "stand and be mowed down"). Huh? Insurgents don't stand and fight against conventional forces with overwhelming firepower advantages. They're not morons and only a moron would think they are.
Little steps for little forces. We went over there with a total force of just 2,500. Less than a third of that were actual fighting soldiers. Counterinsurgency doctrine states that to cover a province the size of Kandahar takes 20,000 counterinsurgents (boots and rifles). The best you can do (and our soldiers did it well) with a force that size we deployed is win tactical skirmishes that decide nothing.
Read and learn. We made most if not all of the major tactical errors of counterinsurgency warfare throughout our five years in Kandahar. Get copies of the US Army/Marine Corps counterinsurgency field manual, FM3-24. This little handbook contains the digested wisdom of two millenia of unconventional warfare from Caesar to the Boers, TE Lawrence (of Arabia), Guevara to Giap. The Taliban have been playing very conventional insurgency warfare. We've been the side that strayed from the lessons and we did it at almost every turn with predictable results.
With a military force as minuscule as Canada's it's foolish to try to be all things to all men. When you're small it's often best to find a niche or two where you can really excel and stick to that. Somehow Harper and Hillier got many Canadians thinking that peacekeeping was for second-raters. Real men shot people and blew shit up. There were people who really needed killin'. It was something perfect for feeble minds who slapped magnetic plastic ribbons on their trunk lids but it was pure bollocks. With all the shortages spreading around the world, the one thing our planet has in abundance is soldiers armed to the teeth ready to unload. In that particular ocean, Canada is but a guppy.
I think these soldiers need a little furlough. For starters, our combat troops need a rest, a good long rest. They've been at this the better part of eight years and many have had several rotations through Kandahar. Enough.
As for the generals, they need time off for meditation. We've been taught a great many lessons in Afghanistan, painful lessons paid for in blood and treasure. If those lost lives are not to have been wasted, this is the time to use those experiences to draw up a "do and don't" list.
Remember when Hillier pompously boasted about how we were going over to Kandahar to "kill scumbags" that he assured us numbered just a few dozen? There's your first "don't" - don't ever underestimate the enemy your soldiers will be required to fight. History books are full of losers who did just that.
Remember how we deployed to Kandahar with a force neither trained nor equipped for the job? They were finely honed for conventional warfare but not for counterinsurgency. Our generals seemed constantly frustrated, befuddled even that the guerrillas wouldn't stand and fight (read "stand and be mowed down"). Huh? Insurgents don't stand and fight against conventional forces with overwhelming firepower advantages. They're not morons and only a moron would think they are.
Little steps for little forces. We went over there with a total force of just 2,500. Less than a third of that were actual fighting soldiers. Counterinsurgency doctrine states that to cover a province the size of Kandahar takes 20,000 counterinsurgents (boots and rifles). The best you can do (and our soldiers did it well) with a force that size we deployed is win tactical skirmishes that decide nothing.
Read and learn. We made most if not all of the major tactical errors of counterinsurgency warfare throughout our five years in Kandahar. Get copies of the US Army/Marine Corps counterinsurgency field manual, FM3-24. This little handbook contains the digested wisdom of two millenia of unconventional warfare from Caesar to the Boers, TE Lawrence (of Arabia), Guevara to Giap. The Taliban have been playing very conventional insurgency warfare. We've been the side that strayed from the lessons and we did it at almost every turn with predictable results.
With a military force as minuscule as Canada's it's foolish to try to be all things to all men. When you're small it's often best to find a niche or two where you can really excel and stick to that. Somehow Harper and Hillier got many Canadians thinking that peacekeeping was for second-raters. Real men shot people and blew shit up. There were people who really needed killin'. It was something perfect for feeble minds who slapped magnetic plastic ribbons on their trunk lids but it was pure bollocks. With all the shortages spreading around the world, the one thing our planet has in abundance is soldiers armed to the teeth ready to unload. In that particular ocean, Canada is but a guppy.
Something else that demands careful scrutiny is the abject and sordid failure of Canadian political leadership in the mission to Kandahar. I fault Paul Martin for gullibility in believing Canada could tackle the Kandahar mission with a force of 2,500 and for believing the tall tale that our military could do that and have enough strength to take on a second major effort if required. That was bullshit and if the smell didn't give it away, the taste should have. But it was Rambo Harper who was the greasy punk who exploited our forces for everything he could get out of them with both the voting public at home and his American Idol, W. We should have been out of that bottomless hole by now but for Harper's insistence on extension and Dion's feckless capitulation to his demands.
Let's take a breather. Sit back and reflect. Let's not rush into the next mission. We need to have a serious talk about Canada's and her military's role in the difficult decades that lie ahead.
Let's take a breather. Sit back and reflect. Let's not rush into the next mission. We need to have a serious talk about Canada's and her military's role in the difficult decades that lie ahead.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Here's Where To Fight Islamic Extremism
The place to battle Islamic extremism isn't Afghanistan. Try Cairo instead. The Washington Post shows where and how Islamic extremism breeds:
Egyptian police on Tuesday beat back and detained pro-democracy demonstrators in central Cairo calling for constitutional reforms and a repeal of the decades-old emergency law that restricts a broad array of personal rights.
At least 90 people were detained, according to organizers of the rally from the 6th of April movement, a mostly youth-led organization formed two years ago that is pushing for more political freedom
.
Protester Amal Sharaf, 35, an office manager in an advertising agency, was hysterical after being beaten by a police officer with a baton. "I've been to protests before, but I've never been beaten," she said, grabbing her wounded arm. "We're trying to change the emergency law that we've been living with for 28 years."
The demonstration came amid political uncertainty, with parliamentary elections slated for this year and a presidential election next year. President Hosni Mubarak, 81, who had his gall bladder and a growth on his small intestine removed in a surgery performed abroad last month, has ruled Egypt for nearly three decades. He has not said yet whether he will compete in next year's election, fueling speculation that he might try to ensure his son, Gamal, succeeds him.
Now there's your problem. As in Saudi Arabia and other places, we're propping up a tyrant. In this case it's Mubarak. Moderate Egyptians, Muslims of course, keep getting oppressed when they clamor for democratic reforms. Get too pushy and Mubarak's secret police whisk you away in the night.
What happens? Moderates eventually get frustrated. Many turn to the only organization that stands up to Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood, a decidedly Islamist outfit. They're the only game in town. They don't turn to us because they know that we're standing behind their oppressor, keeping the guy in power. We even give him the weapons he uses against them.
When we spend decades pursuing policies that radicalize the Arab Street what in hell do we expect except to drive moderate Muslims into the arms of the extremists - their one and only option?
Egyptian police on Tuesday beat back and detained pro-democracy demonstrators in central Cairo calling for constitutional reforms and a repeal of the decades-old emergency law that restricts a broad array of personal rights.
At least 90 people were detained, according to organizers of the rally from the 6th of April movement, a mostly youth-led organization formed two years ago that is pushing for more political freedom
.
Protester Amal Sharaf, 35, an office manager in an advertising agency, was hysterical after being beaten by a police officer with a baton. "I've been to protests before, but I've never been beaten," she said, grabbing her wounded arm. "We're trying to change the emergency law that we've been living with for 28 years."
The demonstration came amid political uncertainty, with parliamentary elections slated for this year and a presidential election next year. President Hosni Mubarak, 81, who had his gall bladder and a growth on his small intestine removed in a surgery performed abroad last month, has ruled Egypt for nearly three decades. He has not said yet whether he will compete in next year's election, fueling speculation that he might try to ensure his son, Gamal, succeeds him.
Now there's your problem. As in Saudi Arabia and other places, we're propping up a tyrant. In this case it's Mubarak. Moderate Egyptians, Muslims of course, keep getting oppressed when they clamor for democratic reforms. Get too pushy and Mubarak's secret police whisk you away in the night.
What happens? Moderates eventually get frustrated. Many turn to the only organization that stands up to Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood, a decidedly Islamist outfit. They're the only game in town. They don't turn to us because they know that we're standing behind their oppressor, keeping the guy in power. We even give him the weapons he uses against them.
When we spend decades pursuing policies that radicalize the Arab Street what in hell do we expect except to drive moderate Muslims into the arms of the extremists - their one and only option?
Greenpeace has Hill Mounties Going For Their Guns
Apparently Greenpeace activists so rattled the RCMP last December when they scaled the Centre and West Blocks on Parliament Hill to unfurl banners that someone has decided the Mounties need to pack automatic assault rifles. This bizarre report from the Toronto Star:
Senator Colin Kenny, former chair of the Senate defence and security committee, said the extra firepower makes sense in a scenario where “someone is on a rampage.”
“Bluntly put, it is hard as hell to hit someone with a handgun,” Kenny said.
Someone is on a rampage? Greenpeace? What does Kenny have in mind? Maybe the RCMP pressure washing the rooftops clean of protesters with automatic weapon fire?
Look, if there's a credible threat that warrants Hill mounties patrolling with automatic weapons, let's hear about it. Force is one of those things that really ought to be justified before it's deployed. There should be a clear understanding of what's being used, how it's to be used and in what conditions before it hits the street. Remember, we're talking about the RCMP and we've all seen the video of how trigger happy they can get when the have to square off, four on one, against a fat, middle-aged man with a stapler, right?
Senator Colin Kenny, former chair of the Senate defence and security committee, said the extra firepower makes sense in a scenario where “someone is on a rampage.”
“Bluntly put, it is hard as hell to hit someone with a handgun,” Kenny said.
Someone is on a rampage? Greenpeace? What does Kenny have in mind? Maybe the RCMP pressure washing the rooftops clean of protesters with automatic weapon fire?
Look, if there's a credible threat that warrants Hill mounties patrolling with automatic weapons, let's hear about it. Force is one of those things that really ought to be justified before it's deployed. There should be a clear understanding of what's being used, how it's to be used and in what conditions before it hits the street. Remember, we're talking about the RCMP and we've all seen the video of how trigger happy they can get when the have to square off, four on one, against a fat, middle-aged man with a stapler, right?
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Calgary Tops in Canada
Calgary, you're Number One!
Toronto has per capita carbon emissions of 9.5 tonnes. Vancouver comes in at 4.9 tonnes. But Calgary, your per capita carbon emissions are a staggering 17.1 tonnes.
Not only is Calgary the worst in Canada, it's the fifth worst city on the planet. Calgarians' emissions are even far worse than the inhabitants of smog-choked Mexico City.
Calgary suffers from urban sprawl, traffic congestion and an utter reliance on coal-fueled power plants.
Toronto has per capita carbon emissions of 9.5 tonnes. Vancouver comes in at 4.9 tonnes. But Calgary, your per capita carbon emissions are a staggering 17.1 tonnes.
Not only is Calgary the worst in Canada, it's the fifth worst city on the planet. Calgarians' emissions are even far worse than the inhabitants of smog-choked Mexico City.
Calgary suffers from urban sprawl, traffic congestion and an utter reliance on coal-fueled power plants.
Shhh! - Keep It To Yourself
Sometimes you just screw up and things slip out. That seems to be Chris Perry's problem. Chris and the other Perrys live in the prosperous St. Albert district north of Edmonton. Chris seems to like living on "the right side of the tracks." He likes it enough that when word got out that Habitat for Humanity was planning to develop a low-income housing project in St. Albert, Chris and Karleena penned an angry letter to their local paper.
"The average family income for St. Albert is higher than in Edmonton or any other area municipality. We moved to St. Albert because we can afford it and we deserve it. This is a great city with great families. We feel comfortable joining in activities we would not have considered in Edmonton."
"...This development is a bad idea for St. Albert for both current residents and the people who will occupy the new development. Current residents will have to deal with the likeliness of children influenced by crime in our schools and adults in our community. Our cost of living will increase as we will have to pay for low-income subsidies due to higher school fees or other taxes.
"...We won't feel comfortable taking our kids to activities like movie night in the park or other St. Albert events for fear that there will be unruly families. We can assure each other that measures will be taken to prevent this influence, but that's not what we want ."
Chris and Karleena's expression of Social Darwinism sparked a wave of outrage that had Chris backpedalling just as fast as his tiny legs would spin. Chris has figured out that you can think these things, you can share them with your neighbours but, whatever you do, don't write what's on your mind in a letter to the editor. Hell people might get the wrong idea about you.
One last thing Chris, don't get too carried away with yourself. After all you did marry somebody named "Karleena."
"The average family income for St. Albert is higher than in Edmonton or any other area municipality. We moved to St. Albert because we can afford it and we deserve it. This is a great city with great families. We feel comfortable joining in activities we would not have considered in Edmonton."
"...This development is a bad idea for St. Albert for both current residents and the people who will occupy the new development. Current residents will have to deal with the likeliness of children influenced by crime in our schools and adults in our community. Our cost of living will increase as we will have to pay for low-income subsidies due to higher school fees or other taxes.
"...We won't feel comfortable taking our kids to activities like movie night in the park or other St. Albert events for fear that there will be unruly families. We can assure each other that measures will be taken to prevent this influence, but that's not what we want ."
Chris and Karleena's expression of Social Darwinism sparked a wave of outrage that had Chris backpedalling just as fast as his tiny legs would spin. Chris has figured out that you can think these things, you can share them with your neighbours but, whatever you do, don't write what's on your mind in a letter to the editor. Hell people might get the wrong idea about you.
One last thing Chris, don't get too carried away with yourself. After all you did marry somebody named "Karleena."
Lieberman's Lebensraum Edict
One thing you have to say for Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, he puts to rest any illusions about Israel wanting peace with the Palestinians. That much is obvious from Lieberman's open threats of what Israel has in store for the Palestinians if they dare claim Palestinian statehood.
"Any unilateral decision will release us from all of our commitments and will allow us also to make unilateral decisions," Avigdor Lieberman was quoted as saying by the Ynet news Web site. "For example, imposing Israeli sovereignty on certain areas, cutting off all kinds of ties and transfers of money and a string of benefits and agreements put into place since the Oslo accords."
Under American pressure, Israel has imposed a 10-month slowdown on West Bank construction, but the order does not include east Jerusalem. "I think we have to make clear to Obama that we are not only not freezing construction in Jerusalem, but after the 10-month freeze we will go back to building" in the West Bank, Lieberman said.
What Lieberman is saying is that Israel is an outlaw state that will take Palestinian territory when and as it chooses, particularly if the Palestinians seek international recognition of statehood.
Sorry Michael. I know you'll grovel for votes but if you can't stand up to confront this sort of thing, you're a piss-poor excuse for a Liberal leader.
"Any unilateral decision will release us from all of our commitments and will allow us also to make unilateral decisions," Avigdor Lieberman was quoted as saying by the Ynet news Web site. "For example, imposing Israeli sovereignty on certain areas, cutting off all kinds of ties and transfers of money and a string of benefits and agreements put into place since the Oslo accords."
Under American pressure, Israel has imposed a 10-month slowdown on West Bank construction, but the order does not include east Jerusalem. "I think we have to make clear to Obama that we are not only not freezing construction in Jerusalem, but after the 10-month freeze we will go back to building" in the West Bank, Lieberman said.
What Lieberman is saying is that Israel is an outlaw state that will take Palestinian territory when and as it chooses, particularly if the Palestinians seek international recognition of statehood.
Sorry Michael. I know you'll grovel for votes but if you can't stand up to confront this sort of thing, you're a piss-poor excuse for a Liberal leader.
Weekend 'Auf' Bernie's?
Two German women walk into a bar. No, wait, make that an airport. Make that Liverpool's John Lennon International Airport.
Not quite. Two German women walk into Liverpool's John Lennon International with a man. A man in a wheelchair. A man wearing sunglasses in a wheelchair. They go up to the check in counter with the man wearing sunglasses in a wheelchair to hop a quick flight to Berlin.
The check-in crew have a problem. The guy - the one with the sunglasses sitting in the wheelchair - isn't breathing. Turns out Herr Snuffie had died the previous day and the two German fraus, both relatives, were simply trying to get him a cheap flight home.
Full points for trying. They did, in fact, manage to get the guy by taxi the 39-miles from Oldham to Liverpool airport. BBC News reports the two have been charged with failing to give notification of a death.
Not quite. Two German women walk into Liverpool's John Lennon International with a man. A man in a wheelchair. A man wearing sunglasses in a wheelchair. They go up to the check in counter with the man wearing sunglasses in a wheelchair to hop a quick flight to Berlin.
The check-in crew have a problem. The guy - the one with the sunglasses sitting in the wheelchair - isn't breathing. Turns out Herr Snuffie had died the previous day and the two German fraus, both relatives, were simply trying to get him a cheap flight home.
Full points for trying. They did, in fact, manage to get the guy by taxi the 39-miles from Oldham to Liverpool airport. BBC News reports the two have been charged with failing to give notification of a death.
Vic Toews Races to Slam Barn Door. Horse Looks On From Afar.
Vic Toews, supposed Public Safety minister, is the master of fake indignation, especially over something that happened on his government's watch three years ago and went completely unnoticed.
Former junior hockey coach Graham James pleaded guilty in 1997 to sexually assaulting teenage players under his influence. He was sentenced to 3.5 years imprisonment. James served his time, waited the requisite period afterward, applied for and was granted a pardon by the National Parole Board. The government of the day when James got pardoned? Why that would be the Harper Tories. Worse yet, nobody on the Harper team even noticed. Oopsie!
It was bad enough that it happened on their watch but that didn't stop the inevitable Tory hue and cry and gnashing of teeth about how such a thing could happen. They wanted a blood sacrifice and they were staring intently at the National Parole Board for their offering. Oopsie!
Turns out the NPB was only following orders. The procedures governing pardons allowed the board no discretion based on the nature of most offences. Do your time, behave yourself during the waiting period, apply and you're pardoned. Bad as that may be, by howling at the moon over the James case the Tories showed they didn't have a clue how their own agencies worked even though they've been in power for four years.
I suppose Toews was simply too focused on upholding his staunch family values by fathering illegitimate kids to pay attention to the workings of the National Parole Board. Now that the horse is safely out to pasture the Tories are racing to close the barn door. Typical.
Former junior hockey coach Graham James pleaded guilty in 1997 to sexually assaulting teenage players under his influence. He was sentenced to 3.5 years imprisonment. James served his time, waited the requisite period afterward, applied for and was granted a pardon by the National Parole Board. The government of the day when James got pardoned? Why that would be the Harper Tories. Worse yet, nobody on the Harper team even noticed. Oopsie!
It was bad enough that it happened on their watch but that didn't stop the inevitable Tory hue and cry and gnashing of teeth about how such a thing could happen. They wanted a blood sacrifice and they were staring intently at the National Parole Board for their offering. Oopsie!
Turns out the NPB was only following orders. The procedures governing pardons allowed the board no discretion based on the nature of most offences. Do your time, behave yourself during the waiting period, apply and you're pardoned. Bad as that may be, by howling at the moon over the James case the Tories showed they didn't have a clue how their own agencies worked even though they've been in power for four years.
I suppose Toews was simply too focused on upholding his staunch family values by fathering illegitimate kids to pay attention to the workings of the National Parole Board. Now that the horse is safely out to pasture the Tories are racing to close the barn door. Typical.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Burying Our Heads in the Sands of Climate Change
Stephen Harper claims to stand for Canada. Maybe yesterday's Canada but he sure doesn't stand for tomorrow's.
Climate change has already begun to arrive in Canada. If you don't see it, that's because you're not looking, not thinking. It might also be that your awareness of global warming and how it will shape Canada is stunted by the absolute dearth of information on the subject coming from the Harper regime.
I've taken a bit of time to learn what other countries such as the UK and Germany are doing for their people and the contrast between those countries and ours is severe. It's the result of the Harper Cons choking off funding for climate research in Canada. From CTV:
Last week, a climate research centre at the University of Montreal, known by the acronym ESCER, warned that such groups are being forced to close across the country.
A lack of federal funds for climate and atmospheric science has "sounded the death knell for research groups working in this field in Canada," Rene Laprise, ESCER's director, wrote in a statement.
...Climate scientists across the country say they're in a similar situation -- with dwindling funds and poor prospects to secure more money, they're preparing to shut down major projects while their staff seeks jobs abroad.
...Laprise and other scientists in his field are frustrated that the 2010 federal budget, made public last month, set aside no new money for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the main source of federal funding for climate-related research.
The Harper gang are plainly loathe to do anything that might impact adversely on home province Alberta's Athabasca Tar Sands. Anything that draws public attention to global warming and what that will mean for future generations of Canadians could easily give rise to unwelcome questions and answers.
Harper's policy of waiting for the United States to act achieves his goal of buying time by burying the issue for years to come. So what's wrong with waiting on the US? Plenty. America's climate change impacts will be a lot different than ours. In case you haven't noticed, a large part of southern US is already running out of freshwater. Canada, however, is but one of just a handful of countries where the negative impacts will be at least somewhat offset by some positive changes that can benefit us if we act in time.
Harper sees global warming in the narrow context of greenhouse gas emission reductions. He focuses on that single aspect that is so worrisome to Alberta. In his tortured little mind he's unable or unwilling to see global warming in its much larger environmental, economic, social and political dimensions. In other words, Harper is willing to throw Canada and the Canadian public to the dogs rather than position the country to meet these inescapable challenges.
The worst thing, perhaps, is realizing that Harper is aided and abetted by a complacent Liberal opposition that does nothing to hold his feet to the fire on climate change. To a lifelong Liberal supporter, that's pretty disgusting.
Climate change has already begun to arrive in Canada. If you don't see it, that's because you're not looking, not thinking. It might also be that your awareness of global warming and how it will shape Canada is stunted by the absolute dearth of information on the subject coming from the Harper regime.
I've taken a bit of time to learn what other countries such as the UK and Germany are doing for their people and the contrast between those countries and ours is severe. It's the result of the Harper Cons choking off funding for climate research in Canada. From CTV:
Last week, a climate research centre at the University of Montreal, known by the acronym ESCER, warned that such groups are being forced to close across the country.
A lack of federal funds for climate and atmospheric science has "sounded the death knell for research groups working in this field in Canada," Rene Laprise, ESCER's director, wrote in a statement.
...Climate scientists across the country say they're in a similar situation -- with dwindling funds and poor prospects to secure more money, they're preparing to shut down major projects while their staff seeks jobs abroad.
...Laprise and other scientists in his field are frustrated that the 2010 federal budget, made public last month, set aside no new money for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the main source of federal funding for climate-related research.
The Harper gang are plainly loathe to do anything that might impact adversely on home province Alberta's Athabasca Tar Sands. Anything that draws public attention to global warming and what that will mean for future generations of Canadians could easily give rise to unwelcome questions and answers.
Harper's policy of waiting for the United States to act achieves his goal of buying time by burying the issue for years to come. So what's wrong with waiting on the US? Plenty. America's climate change impacts will be a lot different than ours. In case you haven't noticed, a large part of southern US is already running out of freshwater. Canada, however, is but one of just a handful of countries where the negative impacts will be at least somewhat offset by some positive changes that can benefit us if we act in time.
Harper sees global warming in the narrow context of greenhouse gas emission reductions. He focuses on that single aspect that is so worrisome to Alberta. In his tortured little mind he's unable or unwilling to see global warming in its much larger environmental, economic, social and political dimensions. In other words, Harper is willing to throw Canada and the Canadian public to the dogs rather than position the country to meet these inescapable challenges.
The worst thing, perhaps, is realizing that Harper is aided and abetted by a complacent Liberal opposition that does nothing to hold his feet to the fire on climate change. To a lifelong Liberal supporter, that's pretty disgusting.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
House of Pederasty Dismisses Scandal as "Petty Gossip"
This from the Vatican, a.k.a. Kid-Diddler U. The Dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sedano, has dismissed the uproar over child abuse by Catholic priests and the cover-up (oh hell, call it what it is - aiding and abetting) of it by senior Catholic prelates right up to the Pope as - wait for it - "Petty gossip."
Pope Benny "The Rat" Ratzinger dodged the whole business, setting his sights instead on "humanity" at large as suffering a "profound crisis" and in need of "spiritual and moral conversion."
And the Pope's personal priest, Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, backtracked on his claim that criticism of the Vatican was akin to anti-Semitism saying he was only referring to "the use of stereotype and the easy passage from individual to collective guilt." Sorry Father but the "collective guilt" thing comes from the decades-long cover up of systemic child abuse perpetuated by senior church officials throughout Europe and North America. That's collective guilt, jackass, and don't bitch just because the shoe fits.
My verdict? The blame rests entirely at the feet of the Vatican, the Holy See. This widespread and enduring outrage is grounded directly in the church's inane policy of clerical celibacy. Popes past and present set up their church as a magnet for the type of person who eventually finds the altar boy's ass irresistible and the senior clerics who turn a blind eye to it or actively cover it up. Worse yet, the celibacy doctrine is nothing more than a fanciful notion some pope past pulled out of his own ass.
I'm betting the Roman Catholic church will weather this scandal and I'm betting the Vatican knows that all too well. In the final analysis the only thing that truly stands between the church and reform are the bottoms that will be sitting in church pews this morning. If there's going to be reform it will come from the outrage and repudiation of ordinary Catholics. If they don't walk, all this is for their church and for their pope is a little stretch of rather bumpy road. The Catholic faithful will decide when their church's priests stop poking little boys up the ass.
Pope Benny "The Rat" Ratzinger dodged the whole business, setting his sights instead on "humanity" at large as suffering a "profound crisis" and in need of "spiritual and moral conversion."
And the Pope's personal priest, Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, backtracked on his claim that criticism of the Vatican was akin to anti-Semitism saying he was only referring to "the use of stereotype and the easy passage from individual to collective guilt." Sorry Father but the "collective guilt" thing comes from the decades-long cover up of systemic child abuse perpetuated by senior church officials throughout Europe and North America. That's collective guilt, jackass, and don't bitch just because the shoe fits.
My verdict? The blame rests entirely at the feet of the Vatican, the Holy See. This widespread and enduring outrage is grounded directly in the church's inane policy of clerical celibacy. Popes past and present set up their church as a magnet for the type of person who eventually finds the altar boy's ass irresistible and the senior clerics who turn a blind eye to it or actively cover it up. Worse yet, the celibacy doctrine is nothing more than a fanciful notion some pope past pulled out of his own ass.
I'm betting the Roman Catholic church will weather this scandal and I'm betting the Vatican knows that all too well. In the final analysis the only thing that truly stands between the church and reform are the bottoms that will be sitting in church pews this morning. If there's going to be reform it will come from the outrage and repudiation of ordinary Catholics. If they don't walk, all this is for their church and for their pope is a little stretch of rather bumpy road. The Catholic faithful will decide when their church's priests stop poking little boys up the ass.
Friday, April 02, 2010
What It Takes to Lead
The most frustrating and scary aspect of climate change is the way our political leadership does backflips to avoid having to engage the issue. They act as though, if they don't mention it, the problem will go away - for them anyway.
We don't talk about global warming in Canada except perhaps to argue whether it's real or a hoax perpetrated by an international coven of dodgy scientists out for ...well for something. Our politicians, particularly the wily Harpo, realize that, so long as they can keep the debate at the stage of doubt, they can avoid having to do anything. To hedge their bets they can claim to want to synchronize Canada's efforts with America's, confident in the knowledge that special interests (Big Coal, Big Oil) have America's bought and paid for Congress well and truly stitched up. Washington is the best rearguard Ottawa's elected Tar Sanders could hope for.
The one thing that might undo Ottawa's efforts to bury the climate change issue is leadership. Michael Ignatieff, like Stephen Harper, is a committed Tar Sander so don't expect him to do the job he was annointed to perform - lead. Somebody else is going to have to be found and fairly quickly.
Leadership on global warming begins by getting the facts out before the public. The Brits did just that for their people. They told the British people that, "based on the greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere today - even without any additional emissions - powerful change is coming. Here is the 'best possible' scenario and you need to begin planning and preparing for at least that."
We know that emissions are going to continue, that they're poised to increase substantially. So what does the British policy really achieve? It actually achieves its purpose. It gets the public engaged in the issue. It shows them a real bottom line, even if it is vastly understated. The public understands that. Once you get information out to the public, once you get the public engaged, then - and only then - can you open the discussion on the touchy subjects - emissions cuts, adaptation and remediation.
Dion's folly is that he didn't come close to fulfilling the information and engagement process before unveiling his "Green Shift" proposal. You can't sell that sort of thing unless the public, properly informed, is ready for change. Dion failed and he really ought to have known better.
During the Frost interviews, Richard Nixon opined that the true measure of political leadership was the ability to get the public to support an otherwise unpopular but necessary initiative. Dion wasn't up to that task and Iggy and Harper don't even want to try.
What issue is more important than this one that threatens the continuation of our very civilization? Day care or corporate taxation? Budgets and deficits? Afghanistan or senate reform? Somehow nothing else comes close. That'd take something like global nuclear war but that doesn't seem likely, at least not right now. So why do Liberals tolerate a guy like Ignatieff and his supporters in caucus who so brazenly shirk their responsibility on global warming?
Don't blame me. I've written to them and I've tried to get the IgLibs to follow the British government's lead and actually use it against Harper. Convene parliamentary hearings. Get people like Hansen and Lovelock and their Canadian counterparts before a commons committee to speak plainly. Force Harper to take the gags off EnviroCan and get meaningful, reliable information out before the public. I guess the genius responsible for keeping the LPC at least four or five points behind the Cons in the polls knows better. They know that if they don't rock the boat they can stay safely behind where neither vision nor courage are mandated.
Which brings me to this helpful bit of prose:
"And we find that this struggle is more complex, more awkward, and more wide-ranging than we had thought possible... What involves us today is a struggle of far greater proportions yet with fewer handles for men and women to grasp. It is not the absence from the scene of a Pitt or a Churchill that causes men and women to wonder in what direction humanity is pointed, it is the nature of the adversary. More than eloquence and more than leadership is required to come to grips with monetary imbalances, nutritional deficiencies, and environmental pollution... Yet these struggles are the essence of life on this planet today. They are not struggles that can be confined to a law court or a battlefield or a House of Commons; they require institutions and regimes of immense dimensions and novel attributes; they call - in the final analysis - for worldwide cooperation, for they demand that we struggle not against other human beings but with other human beings. They demand a common cause of humanity."
- Pierre Trudeau, from a speech delivered at Mansion House on his being honoured with the freedom of the City of London. Taken from "Just Watch Me, the Life of Pierre Elliott Trudeau 1968-2000" by John English. There was a leader who wouldn't have balked in the face of global warming.
We don't talk about global warming in Canada except perhaps to argue whether it's real or a hoax perpetrated by an international coven of dodgy scientists out for ...well for something. Our politicians, particularly the wily Harpo, realize that, so long as they can keep the debate at the stage of doubt, they can avoid having to do anything. To hedge their bets they can claim to want to synchronize Canada's efforts with America's, confident in the knowledge that special interests (Big Coal, Big Oil) have America's bought and paid for Congress well and truly stitched up. Washington is the best rearguard Ottawa's elected Tar Sanders could hope for.
The one thing that might undo Ottawa's efforts to bury the climate change issue is leadership. Michael Ignatieff, like Stephen Harper, is a committed Tar Sander so don't expect him to do the job he was annointed to perform - lead. Somebody else is going to have to be found and fairly quickly.
Leadership on global warming begins by getting the facts out before the public. The Brits did just that for their people. They told the British people that, "based on the greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere today - even without any additional emissions - powerful change is coming. Here is the 'best possible' scenario and you need to begin planning and preparing for at least that."
We know that emissions are going to continue, that they're poised to increase substantially. So what does the British policy really achieve? It actually achieves its purpose. It gets the public engaged in the issue. It shows them a real bottom line, even if it is vastly understated. The public understands that. Once you get information out to the public, once you get the public engaged, then - and only then - can you open the discussion on the touchy subjects - emissions cuts, adaptation and remediation.
Dion's folly is that he didn't come close to fulfilling the information and engagement process before unveiling his "Green Shift" proposal. You can't sell that sort of thing unless the public, properly informed, is ready for change. Dion failed and he really ought to have known better.
During the Frost interviews, Richard Nixon opined that the true measure of political leadership was the ability to get the public to support an otherwise unpopular but necessary initiative. Dion wasn't up to that task and Iggy and Harper don't even want to try.
What issue is more important than this one that threatens the continuation of our very civilization? Day care or corporate taxation? Budgets and deficits? Afghanistan or senate reform? Somehow nothing else comes close. That'd take something like global nuclear war but that doesn't seem likely, at least not right now. So why do Liberals tolerate a guy like Ignatieff and his supporters in caucus who so brazenly shirk their responsibility on global warming?
Don't blame me. I've written to them and I've tried to get the IgLibs to follow the British government's lead and actually use it against Harper. Convene parliamentary hearings. Get people like Hansen and Lovelock and their Canadian counterparts before a commons committee to speak plainly. Force Harper to take the gags off EnviroCan and get meaningful, reliable information out before the public. I guess the genius responsible for keeping the LPC at least four or five points behind the Cons in the polls knows better. They know that if they don't rock the boat they can stay safely behind where neither vision nor courage are mandated.
Which brings me to this helpful bit of prose:
"And we find that this struggle is more complex, more awkward, and more wide-ranging than we had thought possible... What involves us today is a struggle of far greater proportions yet with fewer handles for men and women to grasp. It is not the absence from the scene of a Pitt or a Churchill that causes men and women to wonder in what direction humanity is pointed, it is the nature of the adversary. More than eloquence and more than leadership is required to come to grips with monetary imbalances, nutritional deficiencies, and environmental pollution... Yet these struggles are the essence of life on this planet today. They are not struggles that can be confined to a law court or a battlefield or a House of Commons; they require institutions and regimes of immense dimensions and novel attributes; they call - in the final analysis - for worldwide cooperation, for they demand that we struggle not against other human beings but with other human beings. They demand a common cause of humanity."
- Pierre Trudeau, from a speech delivered at Mansion House on his being honoured with the freedom of the City of London. Taken from "Just Watch Me, the Life of Pierre Elliott Trudeau 1968-2000" by John English. There was a leader who wouldn't have balked in the face of global warming.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Lovelock - We've Already Pulled the Trigger on Catastrophic Climate Change
Britain's esteemed scientist, environmentalist and futurist, Professor James Lovelock, claims we have no chance at this point of avoiding catastrophic global warming. According to Lovelock, we've already "pulled the trigger" without realizing the gun was pointed at our own heads.
It's not as though it's any skin off James' ass. He's 91 which ensures nature will speed him well on his way before the world turns really ugly but, he says, we've already nudged our planet on an unstoppable path to another "stable state," one that's immensely warmer and decidedly intolerant of human life.
In a lengthy interview with BBC News, Lovelock says, "We're not really guilty. We didn't set out to heat the world." He adds that trying at this point to save the planet is "a lot of nonsense" and, by way of consolation, suggests you might as well "enjoy life while you can."
The good news is that America's top climate change scientist, the NOAA's Dr. James Hansen, isn't as pessimistic as Lovelock. In his new book "Storms of My Grandchildren", Hansen argues that we can still wrest back control of global warming and pull ourselves back from the brink of annihilation but - and this is a huge 'but' - the industrialized West has to give up all coal-fueled power within 10-years at the outside with the rest of the world, China and India in particular, following suit by not later than 2030. Hansen says we can get by with easily accessible sources of oil and gas during a transition to third and fourth-generation nuclear power but we must shut down all sources of dirty fossil fuels, including Tar Sands and shale, immediately and leave that fuel safely in the ground.
If Lovelock is right the worst that Athabasca can do is accelerate the inevitable. If Hansen is right - and we do still have a chance - the Tar Sands are the pin in the grenade and we have to decide whether to pull it and take the consequences or leave it safely in place.
Do yourself a favour and follow the link above to the BBC Lovelock interview.
It's not as though it's any skin off James' ass. He's 91 which ensures nature will speed him well on his way before the world turns really ugly but, he says, we've already nudged our planet on an unstoppable path to another "stable state," one that's immensely warmer and decidedly intolerant of human life.
In a lengthy interview with BBC News, Lovelock says, "We're not really guilty. We didn't set out to heat the world." He adds that trying at this point to save the planet is "a lot of nonsense" and, by way of consolation, suggests you might as well "enjoy life while you can."
The good news is that America's top climate change scientist, the NOAA's Dr. James Hansen, isn't as pessimistic as Lovelock. In his new book "Storms of My Grandchildren", Hansen argues that we can still wrest back control of global warming and pull ourselves back from the brink of annihilation but - and this is a huge 'but' - the industrialized West has to give up all coal-fueled power within 10-years at the outside with the rest of the world, China and India in particular, following suit by not later than 2030. Hansen says we can get by with easily accessible sources of oil and gas during a transition to third and fourth-generation nuclear power but we must shut down all sources of dirty fossil fuels, including Tar Sands and shale, immediately and leave that fuel safely in the ground.
If Lovelock is right the worst that Athabasca can do is accelerate the inevitable. If Hansen is right - and we do still have a chance - the Tar Sands are the pin in the grenade and we have to decide whether to pull it and take the consequences or leave it safely in place.
Do yourself a favour and follow the link above to the BBC Lovelock interview.
When You Can't Hide Behind Jesus
When the Lord won't cover your ass, fall back on sovereign immunity.
The Vatican says the Pope, Benny "The Rat" Ratzinger, as "head of state" cannot be called to testify in any of the kid diddling priest trials underway in the United States.
According to Reuters, Giuseppe dalla Torre, head of the Vatican's tribunal, said, "The pope is certainly a head of state, who has the same juridical status as all heads of state."
Dalla Torre also rejected suggestions by some U.S. lawyers and critics of the Church that Vatican documents in 1962 and 2001 encouraged local bishops not to report sexual abuse cases.
He re-stated the Vatican's position that the documents, one of which called for procedures to remain secret, did not suggest to bishops that they should not report cases to authorities.
"Secrecy served above all to protect the victim and also the accused, who could turn out to be innocent, and it regarded only the canonical (church) trial and did not substitute the penal process," he said.
Yes, I'm sure it was all about 'protecting the victim.' That's why they kept shuffling kid diddlers from parish to parish, to protect the victim, right?
The Vatican says the Pope, Benny "The Rat" Ratzinger, as "head of state" cannot be called to testify in any of the kid diddling priest trials underway in the United States.
According to Reuters, Giuseppe dalla Torre, head of the Vatican's tribunal, said, "The pope is certainly a head of state, who has the same juridical status as all heads of state."
Dalla Torre also rejected suggestions by some U.S. lawyers and critics of the Church that Vatican documents in 1962 and 2001 encouraged local bishops not to report sexual abuse cases.
He re-stated the Vatican's position that the documents, one of which called for procedures to remain secret, did not suggest to bishops that they should not report cases to authorities.
"Secrecy served above all to protect the victim and also the accused, who could turn out to be innocent, and it regarded only the canonical (church) trial and did not substitute the penal process," he said.
Yes, I'm sure it was all about 'protecting the victim.' That's why they kept shuffling kid diddlers from parish to parish, to protect the victim, right?
Now that the Coulter Furor is Over.
Ann Coulter is not a champion of free speech. Like Ezra, she's a provocateur who holds not the slightest interest in free speech of anyone else, or at least anyone who disagrees with her.
While most of us embrace the notion of free speech, a lot less of us see it as an absolute freedom. Surely race-baiting isn't free speech. Nor is faith-baiting. Free speech is supposed to be a shield to protect liberty, not a cloak for the spread of malice. It's a shield, not a sword.
A commenter on CBC radio this morning pointed out that, had Coulter substituted "Jew" for "Muslim" in her remarks she would have been run out on a rail by the very same types who championed her vitriol. To these hypocrites, denigrating Muslims is fair game but that's as far as it goes. Step over the line dividing Muslims and Jews and you're anti-Semitic. Nothing inconsistent in that, is there?
Ann Coulter is an abomination, utter low life.
While most of us embrace the notion of free speech, a lot less of us see it as an absolute freedom. Surely race-baiting isn't free speech. Nor is faith-baiting. Free speech is supposed to be a shield to protect liberty, not a cloak for the spread of malice. It's a shield, not a sword.
A commenter on CBC radio this morning pointed out that, had Coulter substituted "Jew" for "Muslim" in her remarks she would have been run out on a rail by the very same types who championed her vitriol. To these hypocrites, denigrating Muslims is fair game but that's as far as it goes. Step over the line dividing Muslims and Jews and you're anti-Semitic. Nothing inconsistent in that, is there?
Ann Coulter is an abomination, utter low life.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Be Careful What You Wish For, Especially If It's Guergis' Head
People like Helena Guergis just don't turn up every day and they're damned handy to have around when you're sitting on the opposite side of the House of Commons.
Between Helena and Mr. Guergis, they've done it all - tantrums in airports, Bolivian Marching Powder, even aides writing shill letters to newspapers and dubious magazines. When you're polishing your sniper scope it really doesn't get much better than Helena Guergis and spouse.
Nothing looks better on Stephen Harper than a gross embarrassment in his own cabinet ranks. He's got his share, more than his share, but it's handy for the Opposition to keep them alive and kicking (windows perhaps)?
Unfortunately it seems that Helena's days in cabinet - and her usefulness to the Opposition - may be numbered. The Conservative Television Network's stand-in for Mike Duffy, Robert Fife, says a lot of Cons, including some in Harper's own den of vipers, are looking to give Helena the boot. Oh please folks don't drop Helena. This is only her, what, third or fourth strike? Why not wait to see what she can find to step in next week or next month? Oh please?
Between Helena and Mr. Guergis, they've done it all - tantrums in airports, Bolivian Marching Powder, even aides writing shill letters to newspapers and dubious magazines. When you're polishing your sniper scope it really doesn't get much better than Helena Guergis and spouse.
Nothing looks better on Stephen Harper than a gross embarrassment in his own cabinet ranks. He's got his share, more than his share, but it's handy for the Opposition to keep them alive and kicking (windows perhaps)?
Unfortunately it seems that Helena's days in cabinet - and her usefulness to the Opposition - may be numbered. The Conservative Television Network's stand-in for Mike Duffy, Robert Fife, says a lot of Cons, including some in Harper's own den of vipers, are looking to give Helena the boot. Oh please folks don't drop Helena. This is only her, what, third or fourth strike? Why not wait to see what she can find to step in next week or next month? Oh please?
Guergis Affair Speaks Volumes for Canadian Media - And It Ain't Good
A second staffer discovered planting shill letters for Helena Guergis.
The Terrible-Tempered Miss Bang is in it again. A second aide has now "admitted" (i.e. been caught) writing the praises of Guergis in a letter to a publication without disclosing the connection to her boss. Yesterday it was Jessica Craven who wrote several letters under her maiden name, Jessica Morgan, to local papers in Guergis' riding. Today it's Valerie Knight, a staffer in Guergis' Alliston constituency office, who slipped one past the Tory house organ, Maclean's magazine.
Guergis, of course, is playing dumb about it all - perhaps the one thing she's remarkably good at. She claims she only learned of Knight's letter when her communications director spotted the story online. Yeah, sure.
While Guergis' own integrity is a legitimate question for debate, the most troubling issue is how do these letters get published without the media at least checking out the writers? I've never had a letter printed in the Globe, the Star, McClatchey, the LA Times or the NY Times without being directly contacted first.
It's pretty obvious that most of Canada's media today have an unspoken "reacharound" deal with the Tories but this is a bit much even for them.
The Terrible-Tempered Miss Bang is in it again. A second aide has now "admitted" (i.e. been caught) writing the praises of Guergis in a letter to a publication without disclosing the connection to her boss. Yesterday it was Jessica Craven who wrote several letters under her maiden name, Jessica Morgan, to local papers in Guergis' riding. Today it's Valerie Knight, a staffer in Guergis' Alliston constituency office, who slipped one past the Tory house organ, Maclean's magazine.
Guergis, of course, is playing dumb about it all - perhaps the one thing she's remarkably good at. She claims she only learned of Knight's letter when her communications director spotted the story online. Yeah, sure.
While Guergis' own integrity is a legitimate question for debate, the most troubling issue is how do these letters get published without the media at least checking out the writers? I've never had a letter printed in the Globe, the Star, McClatchey, the LA Times or the NY Times without being directly contacted first.
It's pretty obvious that most of Canada's media today have an unspoken "reacharound" deal with the Tories but this is a bit much even for them.
Budget Woes? Here, Take a Hit
Is legalizing marijuana the elixir of states facing financial disaster?
A report from Reuters claims that several American states are looking at marijuana as a tax revenue source to replenish empty treasuries.
...California came the closest to taxing tokes last week by putting an initiative on its November ballot. The top marijuana-producing state could raise $1.3 billion annually, according to the California Board of Equalization, which collects taxes.
...Similar voter initiative efforts are underway in Washington and Oregon for 2010, and Nevada for 2012. New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are all considering legislation to legalize and regulate the drug, and states as conservative as Virginia and South Dakota are debating decriminalization.
Backers say the debate is gaining steam for a variety of reasons: a softening of attitudes, the spread of legal clinics for medical marijuana use and frustration with the drug war. Supporters say reducing the amount of money spent on marijuana law enforcement would help state budgets.
...Each time California or Oregon has stepped closer to making marijuana legal, others have made the same move four to five years later, said Allen St. Pierre, a spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Other states could follow California's lead, as more than a dozen did after it approved medical marijuana in 1996.
Steve, are you listening?
A report from Reuters claims that several American states are looking at marijuana as a tax revenue source to replenish empty treasuries.
...California came the closest to taxing tokes last week by putting an initiative on its November ballot. The top marijuana-producing state could raise $1.3 billion annually, according to the California Board of Equalization, which collects taxes.
...Similar voter initiative efforts are underway in Washington and Oregon for 2010, and Nevada for 2012. New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are all considering legislation to legalize and regulate the drug, and states as conservative as Virginia and South Dakota are debating decriminalization.
Backers say the debate is gaining steam for a variety of reasons: a softening of attitudes, the spread of legal clinics for medical marijuana use and frustration with the drug war. Supporters say reducing the amount of money spent on marijuana law enforcement would help state budgets.
...Each time California or Oregon has stepped closer to making marijuana legal, others have made the same move four to five years later, said Allen St. Pierre, a spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Other states could follow California's lead, as more than a dozen did after it approved medical marijuana in 1996.
Steve, are you listening?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Mankind - Too Stupid to Survive Climate Change?
James Lovelock seems to have thrown in the towel on mankind. Four decades ago Lovelock introduced the theory of Gaia, the Earth functioning very much like an organism. He is considered a luminary of the global warming movement.
In a recent Guardian interview, Lovelock took the opportunity to praise 'legitimate' climate change skeptics, to upbraid some aspects of the scientific community, and, as always, to advocate the need for adaptation to what's coming instead of wasting time and resources on arresting global warming itself. This time he went so far as to suggest global warming is the sort of existential danger that may require the suspension of modern democracy:
...We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
...I don't know enough abut carbon trading, but I suspect that it is basically a scam. The whole thing is not very sensible. We have this crazy idea that we are setting an example to the world. What we're doing is trying to make money out of the world by selling them renewable gadgetry and green ideas. It might be worthy from the national interest, but it is moonshine if you think what the Chinese and Indians are doing [in terms of emissions]. The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful.
...I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change. We're very active animals. We like to think: "Ah yes, this will be a good policy," but it's almost never that simple. Wars show this to be true. People are very certain they are fighting a just cause, but it doesn't always work out like that. Climate change is kind of a repetition of a war-time situation. It could quite easily lead to a physical war. That's why I always come back to the safest thing to do being adaptation. For example, we've got to have good supplies of food. I would be very pleased to see this country and Europe seriously thinking about synthesising food.
The problem I always have with Lovelock's approach, and those of many in the science community, is that they tend to address global warming in isolation rather than incorporate it into the mix of manmade threats facing our species. As Maude Barlow points out, the looming global freshwater crisis is easily as dire a threat to mankind as global warming. Add to these the host of lesser but contributing problems such as desertification, resource depletion, species extinction, air,land and water contamination - and others - and the real nature of the problem we're facing begins to emerge.
I'm absolutely convinced that none of these problems, not one, can be solved in isolation of the others. They all must be solved for there to be a meaningful solution to any of them. Only by approaching them holistically will we identify the common threads that run through each and all of them. Only in recognizing the commonalities will we be able to shape the approaches we need to tackle them en masse.
Unfortunately I find myself agreeing with Lovelock that garden-variety democracy may be too flawed, too clumsy to meet these challenges or to prevent them from spreading beyond our control. The fact is we have no solutions to any of them, not even one.
Realize this. You are today standing on the cusp of what will become a world of rapidly accelerating change. Our ability to control that change is slipping through our fingers. It won't be global warming but the freshwater crisis that will hit first and it will hit us extremely hard and very soon. This is a danger that will be here, full blown, within 15-years if not sooner.
You may think of water in the context of what comes out of your taps on demand. You may think of water problems as a blight experienced in the poorer corners of the world. If so, you need to take a hard look at what's happening just next door, in the backyard of our immediate neighbour. Here's a glimpse from Maude Barlow excerpted from her book "The Global Water Crisis":
"...Florida is in trouble. The state's burgeoning population, with a net influx of 1,060 people every day, relies almost entirely upon its dwindling groundwater sources for its water supplies. To keep its fast-spreading lawns and golf courses green, the sunshine State is sucking up groundwater at such a rate that it has created thousands of sinkholes that devour anything - houses, cars and shopping malls... ..California has a twenty-year supply of freshwater left. New Mexico has only a ten-year supply. Arizona is out: it now imports all of its drinking water. ...scientists and water managers throughout the American Midwest and Southwest are saying that it is more than drought: major parts of the United States are running out of water. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency warns that if current water use continues unchecked, thirty-six states will suffer water shortages within the next five years."
What passes for political leadership of any stripe in Canada never acknowledges these matters much less opens them for discussion with the Canadian public. At best they make some tangential reference usually accompanied by a meaningless bromide. Do they think Canada will be immune to the fallout from America's crises? Are they simply afraid to mention these matters lest that negatively impact their personal political aspirations? Harper certainly is, Ignatieff too. Layton simply takes a free ride on their silence. Unfortunately we'll all pay dearly for their political cowardice.
In a recent Guardian interview, Lovelock took the opportunity to praise 'legitimate' climate change skeptics, to upbraid some aspects of the scientific community, and, as always, to advocate the need for adaptation to what's coming instead of wasting time and resources on arresting global warming itself. This time he went so far as to suggest global warming is the sort of existential danger that may require the suspension of modern democracy:
...We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
...I don't know enough abut carbon trading, but I suspect that it is basically a scam. The whole thing is not very sensible. We have this crazy idea that we are setting an example to the world. What we're doing is trying to make money out of the world by selling them renewable gadgetry and green ideas. It might be worthy from the national interest, but it is moonshine if you think what the Chinese and Indians are doing [in terms of emissions]. The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful.
...I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change. We're very active animals. We like to think: "Ah yes, this will be a good policy," but it's almost never that simple. Wars show this to be true. People are very certain they are fighting a just cause, but it doesn't always work out like that. Climate change is kind of a repetition of a war-time situation. It could quite easily lead to a physical war. That's why I always come back to the safest thing to do being adaptation. For example, we've got to have good supplies of food. I would be very pleased to see this country and Europe seriously thinking about synthesising food.
The problem I always have with Lovelock's approach, and those of many in the science community, is that they tend to address global warming in isolation rather than incorporate it into the mix of manmade threats facing our species. As Maude Barlow points out, the looming global freshwater crisis is easily as dire a threat to mankind as global warming. Add to these the host of lesser but contributing problems such as desertification, resource depletion, species extinction, air,land and water contamination - and others - and the real nature of the problem we're facing begins to emerge.
I'm absolutely convinced that none of these problems, not one, can be solved in isolation of the others. They all must be solved for there to be a meaningful solution to any of them. Only by approaching them holistically will we identify the common threads that run through each and all of them. Only in recognizing the commonalities will we be able to shape the approaches we need to tackle them en masse.
Unfortunately I find myself agreeing with Lovelock that garden-variety democracy may be too flawed, too clumsy to meet these challenges or to prevent them from spreading beyond our control. The fact is we have no solutions to any of them, not even one.
Realize this. You are today standing on the cusp of what will become a world of rapidly accelerating change. Our ability to control that change is slipping through our fingers. It won't be global warming but the freshwater crisis that will hit first and it will hit us extremely hard and very soon. This is a danger that will be here, full blown, within 15-years if not sooner.
You may think of water in the context of what comes out of your taps on demand. You may think of water problems as a blight experienced in the poorer corners of the world. If so, you need to take a hard look at what's happening just next door, in the backyard of our immediate neighbour. Here's a glimpse from Maude Barlow excerpted from her book "The Global Water Crisis":
"...Florida is in trouble. The state's burgeoning population, with a net influx of 1,060 people every day, relies almost entirely upon its dwindling groundwater sources for its water supplies. To keep its fast-spreading lawns and golf courses green, the sunshine State is sucking up groundwater at such a rate that it has created thousands of sinkholes that devour anything - houses, cars and shopping malls... ..California has a twenty-year supply of freshwater left. New Mexico has only a ten-year supply. Arizona is out: it now imports all of its drinking water. ...scientists and water managers throughout the American Midwest and Southwest are saying that it is more than drought: major parts of the United States are running out of water. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency warns that if current water use continues unchecked, thirty-six states will suffer water shortages within the next five years."
What passes for political leadership of any stripe in Canada never acknowledges these matters much less opens them for discussion with the Canadian public. At best they make some tangential reference usually accompanied by a meaningless bromide. Do they think Canada will be immune to the fallout from America's crises? Are they simply afraid to mention these matters lest that negatively impact their personal political aspirations? Harper certainly is, Ignatieff too. Layton simply takes a free ride on their silence. Unfortunately we'll all pay dearly for their political cowardice.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Shill
"To this observer, it seems that Liberals today don't stand for much in the way of principles. I have the impression that they will endorse anything and everything which might return them to power and nothing which won't, whatever the merits of either. It's all about getting to power, and it shows."
- Ambassador Robert Fowler, Canada 150
Fowler said what an awful lot of us have been thinking and saying for more than a year now. He only pointed out the obvious when he warned the Liberal Party is in danger of "losing its soul" in the direction it's been taking.
Will Ignatieff and all his IgLibs listen? Without restoring progressivism to the party, the new LPC will never be anything more than "conservative lite."
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Far Right Disease - Republicanism
In case you haven't noticed it, Obama's healthcare victory, modest as it was, has sent Republicans and Republicanism wildly spinning and off kilter. The Republican movement is purging its ranks of intellectuals, leaving more room for the guiding wisdom it takes from Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity. Republicanism has become a pathology and, if you don't believe that, take a look at this excerpt I found at a medical web site:
Definition
"Republicanism" is a symptom of mental illness characterized by a radical change in personality and a distorted or diminished sense of objective reality.
Description
"Republicanism" appears as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders , schizophrenia , delusional disorder , and substance abuse. It is also the defining feature of the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder , shared psychotic disorder , psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder ).
Patients suffering from advanced Republicanism are unable to distinguish the real from the unreal. They experience hallucinations and/or delusions that they believe are real, and they typically behave in an inappropriate and confused manner.
A mental illness can exhibited through various forms of Republicanism, such as:
Delusions. An unshakable and irrational belief in something untrue (see "birthers, tea bagging, climate change denialism"). Delusions defy normal reasoning, and remain firm even when overwhelming proof is presented to disprove them.
Hallucinations. Republicanism causes false or distorted sensory experience that appear to be real.
Republicans often see, hear, smell, taste, or feel things that aren't there (see "Sarah Palin").
Disorganized speech. Republicans often speak incoherently, using noises instead of words and "talking" in unintelligible speech patterns (see "Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity").
Disorganized or catatonic behavior. Behavior that is completely inappropriate to the situation or environment. Catatonic patients have either a complete lack of or inappropriate excess of motor activity. They can be completely rigid and unable to move (vegetative or "McCainism"), or in constant motion (Limbaugh Spasm disorder). Disorganized behavior is unpredictable and inappropriate for a situation (such as screaming obscenities in the middle of class or at Fox News).
Definition
"Republicanism" is a symptom of mental illness characterized by a radical change in personality and a distorted or diminished sense of objective reality.
Description
"Republicanism" appears as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders , schizophrenia , delusional disorder , and substance abuse. It is also the defining feature of the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder , shared psychotic disorder , psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder ).
Patients suffering from advanced Republicanism are unable to distinguish the real from the unreal. They experience hallucinations and/or delusions that they believe are real, and they typically behave in an inappropriate and confused manner.
A mental illness can exhibited through various forms of Republicanism, such as:
Delusions. An unshakable and irrational belief in something untrue (see "birthers, tea bagging, climate change denialism"). Delusions defy normal reasoning, and remain firm even when overwhelming proof is presented to disprove them.
Hallucinations. Republicanism causes false or distorted sensory experience that appear to be real.
Republicans often see, hear, smell, taste, or feel things that aren't there (see "Sarah Palin").
Disorganized speech. Republicans often speak incoherently, using noises instead of words and "talking" in unintelligible speech patterns (see "Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity").
Disorganized or catatonic behavior. Behavior that is completely inappropriate to the situation or environment. Catatonic patients have either a complete lack of or inappropriate excess of motor activity. They can be completely rigid and unable to move (vegetative or "McCainism"), or in constant motion (Limbaugh Spasm disorder). Disorganized behavior is unpredictable and inappropriate for a situation (such as screaming obscenities in the middle of class or at Fox News).
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Ann Who? Ann Who Gives a Crap, That's Who
A scan of the prog blogs reveals that Ann Coulter sure got their notice. Why? Does anyone really care what she says or what publicity stunts she pulls? Why?
They're called "publicity stunts" because they're a vehicle to generate publicity and that's something that's in sufficiently short supply for this hag these days that she has to travel outside her own country to get it. She wants to get noticed and she really wants you exorcised enough to write about her.
Screw it. Screw Ann Coulter. Ignore her and she'll make an ass of herself and then go away.
They're called "publicity stunts" because they're a vehicle to generate publicity and that's something that's in sufficiently short supply for this hag these days that she has to travel outside her own country to get it. She wants to get noticed and she really wants you exorcised enough to write about her.
Screw it. Screw Ann Coulter. Ignore her and she'll make an ass of herself and then go away.
Forget Oil, Invest in Water
Within a couple of decades water will become the resource most heavily in demand throughout most of the world. By 2030, just four countries - India, China, Brazil and South Africa - are estimated to require fully 42% of the world's freshwater stocks. It doesn't help that each of these four countries already faces serious clean water shortages.
There's now a "2030 Water Resources Group", a consortium of mainly private companies assessing how to meet our world's future water needs. Their study reveals that, by 2030, there'll be a 40 per cent gap or deficiency in available, clean freshwater and global demand.
The consortium's solutions appear to lie in conservation and desalination. The conservation part is a no brainer but the desalination remedy is fraught with perils. We're talking about enormous quantities of sea water and, remember, the salt and other byproducts extracted by desalination doesn't simply vanish. They have to go somewhere and the cheapest somewhere is straight back into the ocean. The problem is this can skew salinity levels that can destroy marine ecosystems in the vicinity of the outflow. One water plant's damage may be somewhat localized but a lot of plants could have major regional impacts and this at a time when the world's fish stocks are already reeling.
The World Bank is now strongly advocating for water pricing. The WB maintains that putting a price on freshwater is the only way to enforce conservation and facilitate treatment and delivery. Of course this can also pit massive consumers - industry and agriculture - against relatively powerless consumers, the poor, who are already bearing the brunt of the global freshwater shortage. The line becomes dangerously blurred between pricing water and privatizing the resource. Introducing the "for profit" factor can risk conflicts with national social policy. Isn't water, after all, the ultimate public utility?
You don't have to look hard to discover that conglomerates are already well on the way to establishing a private sector water cartel. They're betting a lot of money that they'll succeed as public sector efforts fail.
There's now a "2030 Water Resources Group", a consortium of mainly private companies assessing how to meet our world's future water needs. Their study reveals that, by 2030, there'll be a 40 per cent gap or deficiency in available, clean freshwater and global demand.
The consortium's solutions appear to lie in conservation and desalination. The conservation part is a no brainer but the desalination remedy is fraught with perils. We're talking about enormous quantities of sea water and, remember, the salt and other byproducts extracted by desalination doesn't simply vanish. They have to go somewhere and the cheapest somewhere is straight back into the ocean. The problem is this can skew salinity levels that can destroy marine ecosystems in the vicinity of the outflow. One water plant's damage may be somewhat localized but a lot of plants could have major regional impacts and this at a time when the world's fish stocks are already reeling.
The World Bank is now strongly advocating for water pricing. The WB maintains that putting a price on freshwater is the only way to enforce conservation and facilitate treatment and delivery. Of course this can also pit massive consumers - industry and agriculture - against relatively powerless consumers, the poor, who are already bearing the brunt of the global freshwater shortage. The line becomes dangerously blurred between pricing water and privatizing the resource. Introducing the "for profit" factor can risk conflicts with national social policy. Isn't water, after all, the ultimate public utility?
You don't have to look hard to discover that conglomerates are already well on the way to establishing a private sector water cartel. They're betting a lot of money that they'll succeed as public sector efforts fail.
NYT Calls Obama Health Bill an Attack on Wealth Inequality
According to the New York Times, the Obama health bill is the first significant measure to reverse the wealth gap between America's rich and poor that has been steadily expanding since 1970.
Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.
Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.
The "Age of Reagan"? Might as well call it the "Age of Ruin." When Ronald Reagan entered the
White House, America was the world's largest creditor nation. In the breathtakingly short span of but eight years Reagan transformed the U.S. into the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan and Bush I and II were the only presidents since the end of WWII not to reduce America's debt as a function of GDP. Under them it skyrocketed to the near ruinous state inherited by Obama.
The Age of Reagan saw Americans become utterly stupid, willing to believe fantastic ideas such as their ability to live in wealth due to the endlessly increasing value of their homes. It wasn't just "casino capitalism" that brought America down, it was also "casino consumerism."
There were two types of wealth in America - real wealth and mirage wealth. Real wealth was what accumulated at the top among America's wealthy elites. Mirage wealth was the illusion of prosperity conjured out of cheap foreign borrowing and a bubble economy. It was scam wealth although it bought all the trappings of genuine affluence - while it lasted.
The Age of Reagan ruined the country and ruined an awful lot of Americans' lives. It allowed Washington, Wall Street and the American people to dig a horribly deep hole to the point where, today, their only salvation in the short to medium-term is another economic bubble. That's like a junkie relying on the next fix to keep the throes of withdrawal at bay.
For Obama and the United States, measures to arrest and narrow the wealth gap can help heal the damage done to the country and its people. On March 13th I addressed the sinister side effects of wealth inequality in a post, "A 'Must Read' for the Liberal Right." That post covered the book "The Spirit Level" in which two prominent British epidemiologists looked at the relationship between income inequality on half a century of data covering everything from mental health, drug use, physical health and life expectancy, obesity, educational performance, teen births, violence, imprisonment and punishment and social mobility.
Spirit Level compared every Western, industrialized democracy and also put America under a spotlight on a state by state comparison. What they found, and linked most persuasively, is that all of these blights on society worsen markedly (and predictably) as income or wealth inequality worsened. As income inequality diminished so too did these troubles. The authors also showed this wasn't just about the poor. Everyone but the very wealthiest suffered the scourges resulting from income inequality.
There's little question that America's rabid social Darwinism leaks across the border and into weak minds like that of our current boss, Harper. You might recall that, prior to his recent transformation, Harper subscribed to every bit of this made-in-America nonsense and even rebuked Canadians for our backward ways, the same ways that kept Canada from falling into the fiscal abyss created by the Americans.
I hope the New York Times has this one right and, if so, I hope Obama succeeds beyond his dreams. There are some who believe healthcare reform will be the spark that ignites social change in the United States. Among their ranks lie many hardcore congressional Republicans now struggling furiously to find a way to douse that very spark before it can catch hold.
Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.
Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.
The "Age of Reagan"? Might as well call it the "Age of Ruin." When Ronald Reagan entered the
White House, America was the world's largest creditor nation. In the breathtakingly short span of but eight years Reagan transformed the U.S. into the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan and Bush I and II were the only presidents since the end of WWII not to reduce America's debt as a function of GDP. Under them it skyrocketed to the near ruinous state inherited by Obama.
The Age of Reagan saw Americans become utterly stupid, willing to believe fantastic ideas such as their ability to live in wealth due to the endlessly increasing value of their homes. It wasn't just "casino capitalism" that brought America down, it was also "casino consumerism."
There were two types of wealth in America - real wealth and mirage wealth. Real wealth was what accumulated at the top among America's wealthy elites. Mirage wealth was the illusion of prosperity conjured out of cheap foreign borrowing and a bubble economy. It was scam wealth although it bought all the trappings of genuine affluence - while it lasted.
The Age of Reagan ruined the country and ruined an awful lot of Americans' lives. It allowed Washington, Wall Street and the American people to dig a horribly deep hole to the point where, today, their only salvation in the short to medium-term is another economic bubble. That's like a junkie relying on the next fix to keep the throes of withdrawal at bay.
For Obama and the United States, measures to arrest and narrow the wealth gap can help heal the damage done to the country and its people. On March 13th I addressed the sinister side effects of wealth inequality in a post, "A 'Must Read' for the Liberal Right." That post covered the book "The Spirit Level" in which two prominent British epidemiologists looked at the relationship between income inequality on half a century of data covering everything from mental health, drug use, physical health and life expectancy, obesity, educational performance, teen births, violence, imprisonment and punishment and social mobility.
Spirit Level compared every Western, industrialized democracy and also put America under a spotlight on a state by state comparison. What they found, and linked most persuasively, is that all of these blights on society worsen markedly (and predictably) as income or wealth inequality worsened. As income inequality diminished so too did these troubles. The authors also showed this wasn't just about the poor. Everyone but the very wealthiest suffered the scourges resulting from income inequality.
There's little question that America's rabid social Darwinism leaks across the border and into weak minds like that of our current boss, Harper. You might recall that, prior to his recent transformation, Harper subscribed to every bit of this made-in-America nonsense and even rebuked Canadians for our backward ways, the same ways that kept Canada from falling into the fiscal abyss created by the Americans.
I hope the New York Times has this one right and, if so, I hope Obama succeeds beyond his dreams. There are some who believe healthcare reform will be the spark that ignites social change in the United States. Among their ranks lie many hardcore congressional Republicans now struggling furiously to find a way to douse that very spark before it can catch hold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)