The American people are going to have to make a hard call very soon. Do they want their country to stay embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan and, for many Americans, that's an incredibly tough call.
Iraq is heading south, fast. Remember the Petraeus "Surge" and the "Awakening" under which Sunni resistance fighters, with American backing and money, turned on their former al-Qaeda comrades? Well, that was then, this is now. The American media are reporting that those former enemies turned allies are turning yet again, frustrated by a Shiite government that they believe hasn't kept its promises and lured to al-Qaeda by a better financial deal. Oopsie, Surge unsurged! The rebirth of the Sunni/Baathist resistance. Damn!
Then there's Muqtada al Sadr and his long dormant Mahdi Army. Muqtada has been laying low in Iran waiting to make his move and that's anticipated to coincide with next year's scheduled withdrawal of American forces. Sadr is expected to make a move on the Shia leadership before launching a crackdown on the Sunni. Any way you cut it, that's nothing but ugly.
Add to that the unresolved grievances and claims of the Kurds in the north, especially the flashpoint referendum on the future of Kirkuk and the surrounding, oil-rich region. Out of fear of igniting a powderkeg that referendum has been put through a series of postponements but the Kurds will have to seize the region or face losing it once the Americans depart. Great - Kurd versus Arab, Sunni & Shia.
Then there's neighbouring Iran waiting to back the most pro-Iranian figurehead that emerges from the struggles. With Iraq's oilfields potentially in jeopardy, that's a bitter pill for the U.S. to swallow.
L. Paul Bremer, the American proconsul of Iraq who botched everything he touched there, may have got one thing right. He predicted that all the key issues affecting the future path of Iraq would be decided after the United States' presence was gone. That seems to be the way this is playing out.
Poor Barack Obama. Bush bailed at the end of his second term, dumping this steaming load of horse manure in his successor's lap. That's the best exit any Frat Boy could hope for and he got it. Now Obama has to take the hiding for leaving Iraq and watching it fall apart or staying and ensuring it fails later. Some choice.
And how Obama decides to deal with Iraq will reverberate both on Main Street, USA and in Kabul, Afghanistan where he's saddled with Bush's other misconceived, misconducted and hapless war of whim. How Obama plays the Iraq conundrum will shape his policies on Afghanistan. He runs a very real risk of failing on both wars.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
A Chinese General Calls for Democracy
As officers of similar rank rattle their sabres against US aircraft carriers in the Yellow and South China seas, General Liu Yazhou says China's rise depends on adopting America's system of government rather than challenging its dominance off China's eastern coast.
''If a system fails to let its citizens breathe freely and release their creativity to the maximum extent, and fails to place those who best represent the system and its people into leadership positions, it is certain to perish,'' writes General Liu Yazhou in Hong Kong's Phoenix magazine, which is widely available on news stands and on the internet throughout China.
''The secret of US success is neither Wall Street nor Silicon Valley, but its long-surviving rule of law and the system behind it,'' he says. ''The American system is said to be 'designed by genius and for the operation of the stupid'.
''A bad system makes a good person behave badly while a good system makes a bad person behave well. Democracy is the most urgent thing, without it there can be no sustainable rise.''
General Liu's latest writings are extraordinary by any standards. His article urges China to shift its strategic focus from the country's developed coastal areas, including Hong Kong and Taiwan - ''the renminbi belt'' - towards resource-rich Central Asia.
But he argues that China will never have strategic reach by relying on wealth alone. ''A nation that is mindful only of the power of money is a backward and stupid nation,'' he writes. ''What we could believe in is the power of the truth.
''The truth is knowledge and knowledge is power.''
But such national power can only come with political transformation. ''In the coming 10 years, a transformation from power politics to democracy will inevitably take place,'' he says.
General Liu inverts the lesson that Chinese politicians have traditionally drawn from the collapse of the Soviet Union - that it was caused by too much political reform - by arguing that reform arrived too late.
It will be interesting to keep an eye on General Liu. How he fares could be an important telltale to the future of China.
If You Want to Turn Those Polls Into Something, You Need to Fix What's Broken
There's something telling in the way Canadian polls on the federal parties seesaw back and forth. From what I've seen they're usually tied to Harper screwups. Harper goes ideologue and his numbers dip, sometimes enough to bring the Libs into 'statistical tie' territory. Harper backs off and his modest lead returns. It's like clockwork.
What this seems to suggest is that Harper drives the polls. In other words, the Libs can expect to win when Harper self-destructs. That's unacceptable.
What the polls appear to show is that the Libs need to focus not on Harper's failures but their own. Michael Ignatieff should be seizing the initiative, taking the fight to Harper. He ought to be acting much like Harper did when he took down Paul Martin. Two problems - one, you can't really do that on the beer'n burger circuit, and, two, that's tough to pull off when you've positioned yourself so closely to your opponent.
What issues do the Libs have where they're so superior to Harper they'll motivate disenchanted, disengaged voters to show up at the polls to dump the Tories? That's the only place the Libs are going to find the votes they need to retake power - the disengaged voter who has simply tuned out federal politics. What electoral arrows do the Libs currently have in their quiver? Arts funding, daycare? C'mon, get real. You're not going to beat Steve over the head with that stuff.
What about Afghanistan? Martin might have been hoodwinked into the Kandahar gig but Harper embraced it, made it his very own. Had the Libs stood their ground on the 2009 deadline, it might have cost them a bit initially but it would have stuck Harper with that foolish misadventure and cost him dearly afterward. Instead he squirmed right off that hook and now it's Ignatieff and Rae looking to drag out this fiasco. Good issue, dead loss for the Libs.
The economy? Ever since the great recession landed in 2008 the Libs have abjectly failed to present an alternative economic initiative. Instead Ignatieff was forced to back the Harper-Ignatieff Pinata budget and, even then, made a fool out of the Liberal opposition with his grandiose but hollow threats about putting Harper "on probation." Geez that makes me wince every time I recall it. No, sorry, way too close to Harper. No room to swing even if you knew how to land a punch.
How about the environment, Canada's existential threat of the 21st century? The Tories past paid dearly for accusing Jean Chretien of speaking out of two sides of his mouth but the Libs have painted themselves in just that corner on this one. You cannot be a Tar Sands booster and appear serious about fighting climate change. It can't be done. The IgLibs have declared themselves inveterate Fossil Fuelers and they have failed to exploit Harper's vulnerability on global warming lest they reveal their own. Once again, way too close to Harper.
Unfortunately there really is nothing useful for the Liberals at the centre-right. It used to be the Libs succeeded by controlling the centre where, as needed, they could force the Tories farther to the right. Now it's Harper who has control, who has managed to move to the centre-right where he's virtually immune to any effective IgLib opposition. By blurring the distinction between Tory and Liberal, Harper ensures a disengaged, indifferent electorate and that's just what he needs. It allows the Tories to retain power and to enjoy a complacent, timid opposition that, more often than not, can be maneuvered into advancing his agenda, bit by bit.
It's sad, really, to see this party so continuously mauled by a guy like Steve Harper but the Libs have no one to blame for that but themselves - and their leader. Until you Libs fix what's broken you'll just have to sit around and hope Harper self-destructs. Good luck with that.
What this seems to suggest is that Harper drives the polls. In other words, the Libs can expect to win when Harper self-destructs. That's unacceptable.
What the polls appear to show is that the Libs need to focus not on Harper's failures but their own. Michael Ignatieff should be seizing the initiative, taking the fight to Harper. He ought to be acting much like Harper did when he took down Paul Martin. Two problems - one, you can't really do that on the beer'n burger circuit, and, two, that's tough to pull off when you've positioned yourself so closely to your opponent.
What issues do the Libs have where they're so superior to Harper they'll motivate disenchanted, disengaged voters to show up at the polls to dump the Tories? That's the only place the Libs are going to find the votes they need to retake power - the disengaged voter who has simply tuned out federal politics. What electoral arrows do the Libs currently have in their quiver? Arts funding, daycare? C'mon, get real. You're not going to beat Steve over the head with that stuff.
What about Afghanistan? Martin might have been hoodwinked into the Kandahar gig but Harper embraced it, made it his very own. Had the Libs stood their ground on the 2009 deadline, it might have cost them a bit initially but it would have stuck Harper with that foolish misadventure and cost him dearly afterward. Instead he squirmed right off that hook and now it's Ignatieff and Rae looking to drag out this fiasco. Good issue, dead loss for the Libs.
The economy? Ever since the great recession landed in 2008 the Libs have abjectly failed to present an alternative economic initiative. Instead Ignatieff was forced to back the Harper-Ignatieff Pinata budget and, even then, made a fool out of the Liberal opposition with his grandiose but hollow threats about putting Harper "on probation." Geez that makes me wince every time I recall it. No, sorry, way too close to Harper. No room to swing even if you knew how to land a punch.
How about the environment, Canada's existential threat of the 21st century? The Tories past paid dearly for accusing Jean Chretien of speaking out of two sides of his mouth but the Libs have painted themselves in just that corner on this one. You cannot be a Tar Sands booster and appear serious about fighting climate change. It can't be done. The IgLibs have declared themselves inveterate Fossil Fuelers and they have failed to exploit Harper's vulnerability on global warming lest they reveal their own. Once again, way too close to Harper.
Unfortunately there really is nothing useful for the Liberals at the centre-right. It used to be the Libs succeeded by controlling the centre where, as needed, they could force the Tories farther to the right. Now it's Harper who has control, who has managed to move to the centre-right where he's virtually immune to any effective IgLib opposition. By blurring the distinction between Tory and Liberal, Harper ensures a disengaged, indifferent electorate and that's just what he needs. It allows the Tories to retain power and to enjoy a complacent, timid opposition that, more often than not, can be maneuvered into advancing his agenda, bit by bit.
It's sad, really, to see this party so continuously mauled by a guy like Steve Harper but the Libs have no one to blame for that but themselves - and their leader. Until you Libs fix what's broken you'll just have to sit around and hope Harper self-destructs. Good luck with that.
No Canadian Troops in Afghanistan After 2011 - Here's Why
There are some prominent Liberals who envision Canadian forces continuing to serve in Afghanistan beyond 2011 in a non-combat/training role. In Afghanistan there is no mission for Canadian soldiers that won't be a combat mission. That's the reality when your enemy is on the offensive, holds the initiative and has relatively free reign of the territory.
How many Canadian soldiers have died in direct combat with the Taliban? Contrast that to how many of our troops have lost their lives to the by-now infamous "IED" or improvised explosive device. That's how the Taliban prefers to bring the war to Western forces - stealthily and remotely.
I remember a few years ago watching an interview with a Canadian combat engineer whose job was to disarm IEDs. Asked where the Talibs were getting the high explosives and other materials to make the devices, the soldier replied that Afghanistan was awash in the stuff after decades of war. The only component that was hard to get, he claimed, were the "C" and "AA" cell batteries for the detonators. They had to be trekked in from Pakistan.
No matter where our soldiers are based, even on a training mission, they have to secure the territory around them to ward off mortar and rocket attacks. That means patrolling and that means trolling for IEDs. That means more dead Canadian troops. That's unacceptable.
Those who advocate a continued Canadian presence in Afghanistan are dishonest or delusional. They've completely forgotten why we went to Kandahar - to take pressure off the Americans when Bush/Cheney decided to go play in the sandbox of Iraq instead. That's why we committed to go there for a specified term of years. We weren't there to win the war, we weren't there to achieve peace for the Afghans. We were there to plug a hole for a few years.
Remember when we were scheduled to leave in 2009? Remember when the former Liberal leader put his foot down and insisted we stay with that deadline - until he didn't? That's how we got a new deadline, 2011. We gave the Americans two more years.
That's a lot of giving for a place like Afghanistan. The casualties actually have been pretty modest compared to previous wars Canada has fought. In earlier wars there were several instances when we suffered more dead in one day - or one night. But those wars meant something. We weren't fighting to defend a thoroughly rotten government like Hamid Karzai's. We weren't fighting to preserve a narco-state. We weren't fighting someone else's civil war.
We need to train Afghan troops. Now that's borderline hilarious. What exactly has prevented us from fielding an effective Afghan army over the past 8 years? We are, after all, amidst one of the most warlike peoples in the world - correction, four or five of the most warlike peoples in the world. Warlike Pashtun, warlike Tajik, warlike Hazara, warlike Uzbek, warlike Baloch, warlike Turkmen. If you're not warlike in Afghanistan, you're an historical footnote. But there's your first clue. You cannot build a lasting, reliable, national army in a country rent by tribalism and warlordism. We have created something akin to a Tajik national army in Afghanistan but they're the ancient, mortal enemies of the Pashtun and they've got scores to settle. Think that won't drive Pashtuns into the arms of their home team, the Talibs? A square peg and a round hole.
Some years back a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer told the senators that there has never been a successful Muslim state that didn't first overcome both warlordism and tribalism. Never has been, never will be. There's your second clue. Eight years ago we created a state that enshrined both and stuffed it behind the gossamer veil of a popularly elected democracy that never was more than an illusion. What we created ensured that our past eight years in Afghanistan were really nothing more than us battling one side of their unresolved civil war with no way of winning. Another square peg, another round hole.
The only conceivable purpose of training an Afghan National Army is to create an indigenous force to continue the war we've been waging so haplessly these past 8+ years. There's your third clue. Since we sent the Taliban packing across the border there have been two wars waged in Afghanistan, our war and their war. Unfortunately we've fought but one of them, our war. Square peg, round hole.
Our war is the military war, the type of war Western armies are trained and equipped to fight. Our war is the type fought with tanks and artillery and close air support. Our war anticipates fighting an enemy also armed with tanks and artillery and aerial firepower. But in Afghanistan our enemy doesn't have any tanks or artillery or attack helicopters or strike fighters. They don't even have but a fraction of our numbers. Why not? Because they don't need those things.
They would only need all that high-tech firepower if they intended to defeat us in our war, the military war, but they don't intend to defeat us. They're relying on time to bring us down. It's a hackneyed phrase but it's oh so true - we have all the weapons, they have all the time.
They also know that they can win their war and that's the one that ultimately decides the issue. Theirs is the political war, the war for the hearts and minds of the locals. We're not fighting their war. If we were, we'd have flooded the countryside with 300,000 soldiers or more back in 2002/2003 when they might have made a difference. To defeat them in their war demanded that we field a massive force large enough to secure the civilian population and prevent them from falling under the sway of the Taliban. We didn't even try. They won their war by forfeit.
In a world in turmoil, Afghanistan cannot be the focus of the West for very long before we begin sacrificing our interests and committments elsewhere. The lead partner, America, has been funding these misadventures for almost a decade now entirely on someone else's dime. Bush/Cheney waged two foreign wars and gave tax cuts to the rich funded entirely out of foreign borrowings. If that sounds insane, it is. It's the sort of madness you get from ideologues. You don't have to look further than our own Furious Leader to see that.
The Taliban's war is cheap. They can fund it out of their country's own poppy fields. The West's war is very, very expensive and there aren't many players today that aren't facing heavy deficits at home. Maybe America sees some future geo-political payoff from the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAPI) to secure control of the Caspian Basin oil and gas reserves for America and her regional allies, but for Canadians Afghanistan is just a hole into which to throw huge bags of money and scores of lives.
The RAND Corporation, oracle to the White House and the Pentagon, has already run its own assessment of our Afghan war and concluded that we've lost. No matter how many artillery barrages and air strikes we call in tomorrow, from here on in it's all just banging on a drum.
So it seems that Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff in arguing for a post 2011-role for Canadian troops in Afghanistan are either delusional or outright dishonest. If the pair of them at this late stage are intent on using this screwed-up war as some political football that's simply despicable. Dishonest or delusional it doesn't really matter to me except as yet another reminder of why I parted company with the only federal party I have supported since I began voting forty years ago.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
U.N. Condemns Khadr Trial
It's official. The United States is the first country since World War II to try someone before a military tribunal for acts allegedly committed while he was a minor. Of course, then again, Omar Khadr is accused of killing an American and that obviously puts his purported offence in an entirely different level. The United Nations wasted no time in condemning the trial. From Reuters Alternet:
The United Nations said the trial is of dubious legality and could set a dangerous precedent for child soldiers worldwide.
"Juvenile justice standards are clear -- children should not be tried before military tribunals," said Radhika Coomaraswamy, the U.N. special envoy for children in armed conflict.
But the military officers in the jury pool indicated they saw no problem with trying Khadr.
"Does anyone believe that juveniles should not be prosecuted for violent offenses?" Prosecutor Jeff Groharing asked them. "Does anyone feel the accused should be held to a different standard because he was 15 years old at the time of the alleged offenses?"
None said they held those beliefs.
One needn't have sympathy with Khadr to understand the prohibition against prosecuting child soldiers. Invariably they are victims, coerced into fighting and international agreements require they be treated that way. This is however the United States military which, over the past decade, has repeatedly demonstrated a skewed grasp of international law.
The United Nations said the trial is of dubious legality and could set a dangerous precedent for child soldiers worldwide.
"Juvenile justice standards are clear -- children should not be tried before military tribunals," said Radhika Coomaraswamy, the U.N. special envoy for children in armed conflict.
But the military officers in the jury pool indicated they saw no problem with trying Khadr.
"Does anyone believe that juveniles should not be prosecuted for violent offenses?" Prosecutor Jeff Groharing asked them. "Does anyone feel the accused should be held to a different standard because he was 15 years old at the time of the alleged offenses?"
None said they held those beliefs.
One needn't have sympathy with Khadr to understand the prohibition against prosecuting child soldiers. Invariably they are victims, coerced into fighting and international agreements require they be treated that way. This is however the United States military which, over the past decade, has repeatedly demonstrated a skewed grasp of international law.
Mr. Cameron, This Is NOT Going to Go Down Well
The BBPA blames the forecast increases on poor barley harvests in eastern Europe and Russia and a whopping 26% increase in beer duties over the past two years.
Britain is bracing for hefty across-the-board price increases on everything from gasoline to bread. Russia's wheat failures and the resulting export ban, blamed on drought, have sent world prices soaring. Higher taxes on petroleum are predicted to see gasoline prices climb steadily through 2011.
While the Cameron government plainly cannot be held responsible for Russia's wheat collapse, it is in the crosshairs for the mess Tony Blair left in embracing all things American, including casino capitalism. I still don't know how he's going to get past the beer thing.
How Russia Fights Forest Fires
We're going to be paying a lot more attention to forest fire fighting thanks to global warming. Russia is not only experiencing its own problems but it's working to get a share of the water bomber market. This is the Beriev Be-200 water bomber which, while it may have close-in limitations compared to Bombardier's smaller, turbo-prop CL-415, is coming to be a frequent visitor to countries like Greece and Spain.
28,000 Dead - Mexico Yells "Uncle"
First it was Mexican president Felipe Calderone, now it's his predecessor Vincente Fox raising the idea of legalizing the production, distribution and sale of drugs in their country. Mexico remains mired in a vicious drug war between gangs and the government that has claimed 28,000 lives in recent years. Despite the government's efforts the gangs have grown increasingly powerful and increasingly bold aided, in no small part, by widespread police corruption.
Neither Calderone nor Fox will come right out and advocate for legalization. Both present it as an issue that should be debated. Mexico is keeping a wary eye on California where voters will decide in November whether to legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana and allow the state to tax sales.
Regardless of one's position on legalizing or decriminalizing drugs of any kind, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the "War on Drugs" initiated by Richard Nixon in 1970 hasn't worked. Unfortunately the prohibitionists don't have a Plan B and the high-level narcotics industry has learned to thrive under the existing system. While interdiction and eradication efforts can claim some successes, so long as there is a market for the drugs and massive profits to be derived, there will always be ample supply reaching the end consumer.
Nixon and every president since then has been highly successful at stuffing their prisons full of drug users but that too hasn't made a dent in the trafficking even as it has created an enormous drain on already debt-ridden states.
Leaders of the drug-importing states really have but two choices. Stick with the current, failed approach, which is really just treading water, or decriminalizing the production and possession of some, but not all, street drugs. Marijuana is the obvious candidate for decriminalization, something that Paul Martin was willing to recognize. Ideologues like Harper, naturally, prefer to step up Plan A and simply build more prisons ...except in Afghanistan where we stand by and allow our supposed ally to produce just as much illicit opium as it likes for processing into heroin and delivery to our own streets. Wait a minute, doesn't that make Harper complicit in heroin trafficking? No wonder he won't decriminalize drugs.
Photo - LA Times - 3 federal police officers gunned down by drug gangs
Monday, August 09, 2010
The Right to Survival
The impacts of climate change are sparking a debate on just what is a "human right"?
Some nations want adequate supply of potable freshwater declared a human right. Not surprisingly that's something supported by countries with severe freshwater threats and dismissed by nations particularly well water-endowed, such as our very own.
India is now debating whether food should be a right guaranteed to all of its people. For India that's not a rhetorical debate. As pointed out in a New York Times article, India's eight poorest states have more people living in poverty than Africa's 26 poorest countries.
For the governing Indian National Congress Party, which has staked its political fortunes on appealing to the poor, this persistent inability to make government work for [the poor] ...has set off an ideological debate over a question that once would have been unthinkable in India: Should the country begin to unshackle the poor from the inefficient, decades-old government food distribution system and try something radical, like simply giving out food coupons, or cash?
The rethinking is being prodded by a potentially sweeping proposal that has divided the Congress Party. Its president, Sonia Gandhi, is pushing to create a constitutional right to food and expand the existing entitlement so that every Indian family would qualify for a monthly 77-pound bag of grain, sugar and kerosene. Such entitlements have helped the Congress Party win votes, especially in rural areas.
These are largely internal debates now but, as our reaction to the water question clearly shows, there's a growing sense of unease among the "haves" to future demands from the "have nots." Do not doubt for a minute that, in a world where the burden of seven billion mouths to feed has already exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet's renewable resources, that faint whisper of calls for redistribution and equitable allocations, is bound to turn into a clamour. It's just a matter of time. And that's when we'll see just what kind of people we Canadians really are.
Some nations want adequate supply of potable freshwater declared a human right. Not surprisingly that's something supported by countries with severe freshwater threats and dismissed by nations particularly well water-endowed, such as our very own.
India is now debating whether food should be a right guaranteed to all of its people. For India that's not a rhetorical debate. As pointed out in a New York Times article, India's eight poorest states have more people living in poverty than Africa's 26 poorest countries.
For the governing Indian National Congress Party, which has staked its political fortunes on appealing to the poor, this persistent inability to make government work for [the poor] ...has set off an ideological debate over a question that once would have been unthinkable in India: Should the country begin to unshackle the poor from the inefficient, decades-old government food distribution system and try something radical, like simply giving out food coupons, or cash?
The rethinking is being prodded by a potentially sweeping proposal that has divided the Congress Party. Its president, Sonia Gandhi, is pushing to create a constitutional right to food and expand the existing entitlement so that every Indian family would qualify for a monthly 77-pound bag of grain, sugar and kerosene. Such entitlements have helped the Congress Party win votes, especially in rural areas.
These are largely internal debates now but, as our reaction to the water question clearly shows, there's a growing sense of unease among the "haves" to future demands from the "have nots." Do not doubt for a minute that, in a world where the burden of seven billion mouths to feed has already exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet's renewable resources, that faint whisper of calls for redistribution and equitable allocations, is bound to turn into a clamour. It's just a matter of time. And that's when we'll see just what kind of people we Canadians really are.
It's Just a Stage They're Going Through
Kevin Phillips in his 2005 book American Theocracy offers a fascinating examination of the parallels in superpower supernovas. From the Age of Sail through the Age of Coal and, now, the Age of Oil, superpowers have risen - and fallen - in similar fashion. Two hallmarks seen in Britain's decline and now at the forefront of America's are religious zealotry and militarism.
At the closing days of their empire, many Brits thought themselves in a unique relationship to their god. Britain and the British people were divinely chosen to bring light to the world, to shape lesser nations and their peoples. Sound familiar?
Militarism seems ever popular at the end of a superpower run, the last hurrah of global supremacy. Empires spend fortunes they can't afford, sometimes money they don't have, on elaborate and highly popular shows of force to temporarily mask decline. Phillip of Spain sent his Armada to conquer underdog Britain but Elizabeth prevailed and Phillip had to preside over the bankruptcy of imperial Spain.
Britain's imperial ventures likewise brought it to ruin. We don't often hear of it in our Churchillian narrative but Winston and his war cabinet were fully prepared to seek terms from Hitler very early in the war when it became apparent that their country was flat broke. This is well chronicled in Clive Ponting's 1940, Myth and Reality. Churchill's gang were quite prepared to cede control of Europe and big hunks of their empire if need be. They fought on only when Roosevelt bailed them out but that laid the foundation for America's postwar ascendancy.
Look at America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Stiglitz estimates, Washington has likely squandered three trillion dollars of America's declining wealth on those misadventures. Three trillion dollars of borrowed money. Not internally borrowed money - Americans didn't buy three trillion dollars worth of government savings bonds - but money borrowed from foreign lenders and a big hunk of that from America's own ascendant rival, China. These wars of whim have cost America far more than the Vietnam war, entirely on borrowed money, at the same time an uber-right government decided to lavish big tax cuts on its elite rich.
America, like Britain half a century before it, is broke. A recent report lamented how in many rural areas, once paved roads are being returned to gravel because there's no money to maintain them. One state is considering making Grade 12 optional, others are steadily shortening the school year. America's insane prison fetish is likewise breaking the bank. Across the country infrastructure is failing. And it's not just Washington that's in trouble. So are most state governments and a great many municipalities.
Phillips documents that a surefire sign that a superpower is finished comes when its economy switches from manufacturing to a FIRE (finance,insurance,real estate) based economy. That is when the dominant country seeks to enrich its rentier class, its elite, by outsourcing its manufacturing base in search of cheap labour. It's a technique to maximize corporate revenues and shareholder dividends but at a huge, usually unnoticed cost. The cancer it brings is that the dominant nation invests its wealth into growing its rival's economy and, in the process, pays for that rival's ascendancy. Welcome to America in the 21st century.
Countries in the position America finds itself in today tend to go a little mad. It's hard, it's really scary, when you've been brought up to absolutely believe you're Number One, God's chosen instrument on earth, overseer of all others, to find that pedestal crumbling beneath your feet. That's not something you can adjust to easily. Some people do go a little mad. Take a look at America's Tea Party movement. That defines "bat shit crazy." Look at the Americans who look to Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin for leadership. There's cave guano on the brain, big time.
The greatest uncertainty today is how America will manage its decline. As Britain showed that can be done quite well or, as Spain showed, quite horribly. France emerged from WWII not humbled and wiser but intent on reclaiming its pre-war empire, by force if necessary. The French fought for years in Algeria and Vietnam only to be driven out. Britain, by contrast, went for a relatively orderly, more or less peaceful, dismantling of its empire and was considerably more successful than the French.
In stepping down from the superpower pedestal instead of waiting for it to collapse, Britain entered a period of decline that was both managed and limited. America took over and shouldered the burden the Brits could no longer carry. For a generation or two, the Brits and other Euros lagged well behind America in material wealth but they made up for that with a better quality of life.
To us on the outside looking in, 21st century America may appear a bit crazy because it is. What's happening today in the US is just a stage they're going through. What we must do is recognize what's happening with our cousins to the south and do what we can not to get swept up in it. If the guy next door starts wearing six-shooters and circles around his backyard, naked, banging pots and pans, you might want to skip your invitation to his barbecue. Will Canada's leaders have the foresight to keep our distance?
I guess what troubles me most is that America's decline is happening at the worst possible time. With the environmental threats settling in on us, the world needs a clear-headed, decisive America not one wrapped up in angry delusion, denial and fundamentalist mysticism. America is in no shape to meet the challenge that's coming, that cannot be shirked or ignored, a challenge that cannot be met by force of arms. Britain, in dismantling its empire, arguably left the world a somewhat better place. America does not seem destined to follow Britain's path.
In fact, America is poised to turn its decline into a freefall. At all levels of government a form of nihilism has set in, one that promises to turn America into a train wreck. It's been the subject of much commentary from the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. Krugman wrote of it in yesterday's New York Times. It's a scary look at a country gone mad.
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Friday, August 06, 2010
"Too Fragile" For Vote
According to Furious Leader, Canada's economy is just too fragile to weather an "unnecessary election." Reliable sources at the mannequin factory where Mr. Harper has his hair done report the fragility of the Canadian economy became apparent to the prime monster upon his reading the latest Ekos poll showing his government's popularity in the toilet.
Bring out the oracles. Cast bones, read entrails. Steve figures he can't engineer a reliable election crisis right now, that much is obvious. This is, after all, the Prince of Political Darkness, Master of Opportunity. If Steve thought he had the slightest chance of a breakthrough win at the polls, he'd jettison the Canadian economy into the nearest ditch in his race to Rideau Hall.
So, just what are the Harper Tories going to do to shore up Canada's economy? What great policy vision do they have in store for us? This is, after all, the very same, highly-trained economist who was totally blindsided as this global recession all too obviously barreled our way. This is the same genius who told Canadians to fear not and instead take advantage of "bargains" in the stock market as it went into freefall. Then he responded to it with that equally dim-witted Pinata "stimulus" budget that squandered untold billions of deficit bucks pointlessly. The very same five-watt bulb who positively gloated at how Canada had bested our G8 rivals in coming through the recession relatively unscathed. This is a persistently, profoundly stupid man with neither vision nor ability to lead the country to high ground.
Once again Harper's ace in the hole may be the opposition leader, Mr. Ignatieff. When the recession first hit and Harper locked down Parliament, Iggy took the time off as a holiday to write a book on his mother's family rather than formulating a Liberal stimulus/recovery proposal to confront Harper when he could no longer hide behind the Governor General's skirts. That left the IgLibs with no choice but to back Harper's pathetic Pinata Budget although with many dire warnings that later made the Liberal leader look just plain silly when he kept having to retreat from his own words. (Can you say "On Probation?") Then, to make up for lost time and missed opportunities, Iggy convened a thinkers' conference last spring. What came of that? Daycare and funding for the arts? Oh yeah, that'll win elections.
So it seems once again the Libs have an opportunity to wrestle the economy issue from the clumsy fingers of a demonstrated dolt. And where is the Liberal leader? Oh yeah, he's on a bus tour and I'm sure not one Canadian in fifty can say where and even fewer could care less. I guess it could be worse. Liberal fortunes have actually improved since their leader disappeared from view.
I will begrudgingly say this for Harper. He's probably right about the fragility of the Canadian economy. Responsibility for some of that lies directly at his and Ignatieff's feet. While Harper's fiscal incompetence has been repeatedly demonstrated and chronicled, he can take comfort in knowing that his sole rival has done nothing to show he could do the slightest bit better.
Maybe it's the weakness of Parliament that renders our economy too fragile for an election.
Bring out the oracles. Cast bones, read entrails. Steve figures he can't engineer a reliable election crisis right now, that much is obvious. This is, after all, the Prince of Political Darkness, Master of Opportunity. If Steve thought he had the slightest chance of a breakthrough win at the polls, he'd jettison the Canadian economy into the nearest ditch in his race to Rideau Hall.
So, just what are the Harper Tories going to do to shore up Canada's economy? What great policy vision do they have in store for us? This is, after all, the very same, highly-trained economist who was totally blindsided as this global recession all too obviously barreled our way. This is the same genius who told Canadians to fear not and instead take advantage of "bargains" in the stock market as it went into freefall. Then he responded to it with that equally dim-witted Pinata "stimulus" budget that squandered untold billions of deficit bucks pointlessly. The very same five-watt bulb who positively gloated at how Canada had bested our G8 rivals in coming through the recession relatively unscathed. This is a persistently, profoundly stupid man with neither vision nor ability to lead the country to high ground.
Once again Harper's ace in the hole may be the opposition leader, Mr. Ignatieff. When the recession first hit and Harper locked down Parliament, Iggy took the time off as a holiday to write a book on his mother's family rather than formulating a Liberal stimulus/recovery proposal to confront Harper when he could no longer hide behind the Governor General's skirts. That left the IgLibs with no choice but to back Harper's pathetic Pinata Budget although with many dire warnings that later made the Liberal leader look just plain silly when he kept having to retreat from his own words. (Can you say "On Probation?") Then, to make up for lost time and missed opportunities, Iggy convened a thinkers' conference last spring. What came of that? Daycare and funding for the arts? Oh yeah, that'll win elections.
So it seems once again the Libs have an opportunity to wrestle the economy issue from the clumsy fingers of a demonstrated dolt. And where is the Liberal leader? Oh yeah, he's on a bus tour and I'm sure not one Canadian in fifty can say where and even fewer could care less. I guess it could be worse. Liberal fortunes have actually improved since their leader disappeared from view.
I will begrudgingly say this for Harper. He's probably right about the fragility of the Canadian economy. Responsibility for some of that lies directly at his and Ignatieff's feet. While Harper's fiscal incompetence has been repeatedly demonstrated and chronicled, he can take comfort in knowing that his sole rival has done nothing to show he could do the slightest bit better.
Maybe it's the weakness of Parliament that renders our economy too fragile for an election.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Athabasca Emissions Set to Triple by 2020
Our planet's filthiest fossil fuel project, the Athabasca Tar Sands, are poised to get astonishingly worse and all within just one decade.
The Pembina Institute has released a report concluding that Tar Sands greenhouse gas emissions are "out of control." From The Tyee:
Carbon output more than doubled between 1990 and 2008. And the Calgary-based think tank warns the latest numbers could nearly triple by 2020.
...From 1990 to 2008, total greenhouse gases from the oil sands shot up 121 percent, Pembina concludes.
Industry sources project huge production increases in coming years. Much of that will come from in-situ projects (essentially injecting high pressure steam deep underground).
On average, this method produces 91 kg of CO2 per barrel of oil – compared to 36 kg for mining, Pembina concludes. And that doesn't include emissions from the intensive upgrading process.
More in-situ, combined with growing U.S. demand, means huge spikes in carbon. That creates serious “implications” for Canadian and American attempts to fight climate change, the report says.
Both countries have pledged to reduce carbon emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Canada risks falling far short of its target, Pembina warns.
“If emissions rise as projected under Environment Canada’s business-as-usual scenario,” the report reads, “they will reach 28 per cent above 2005 levels by 2020, with oil sands expansion accounting for nearly half of the projected increase.”
So, with the environmental indifference to the Tar Sands of the Conservatives and the Liberals, Canada is certain to remain a global climate change pariah only on a much higher order. And, don't forget, carbon emissions are just one part of the environmental catastrophe that is the Athabasca Tar Sands. Think of all those wonderful new tailing ponds that will be needed. Think of all the heavy metals and other toxins that will be released into the atmosphere. Think of all the carcinogens and toxins leaching into the groundwater. Why it's a good thing Alberta can't find some way to bill Saskatchewan for all that acid rain. And don't forget about all the freshwater and conventional energy they'll need to keep turning that tar into synthetic oil.
To all my former Liberal brethren, you have to make your current leadership wake up and listen. This is your Canada as much as Mr. Ignatieff's and it's the only Canada your kids and grandkids will have. Your leader's embrace of the Tar Sands is wrong-headed and seriously detrimental to our country and our people. You need to tell Mr. Ignatieff that any Tar Sands policy that puts expansion of Athabasca ahead of environmental remediation is simply unacceptable and that Canada's already modest targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions must be met even if that means not becoming a fossil fuel superpower. Tell Ignatieff he's got to give it up.
Good News. Tories Almost as Weak as Liberals
Ekos has the Conservatives down 3, the Libs up 3, for a statistical tie. Tories still lead everywhere except the Maritimes, Quebec and BC (where they're tied with the NDP). Maybe keeping Mikey sequestered on a bus isn't such a bad idea. Maybe it has something to do with Harper's protracted absence from the public eye and Canadians having to watch the lunacy dished out by Peter MacKay and Stockwell Day.
Who knows, who cares? In the Harper/Ignatieff era if you don't like today's polls, wait for tomorrow's.
Now I'm no political scientist but this seesaw in the midst of Canada's political doldrums suggests the voting public is waiting for some party to produce policies that resonate with them and that they can embrace. Vision has always been Harper's short suit and the Libs are fools if they don't hit Furious Leader where he's weakest. So Michael, have you got anything to promote beyond arts funding?
Who knows, who cares? In the Harper/Ignatieff era if you don't like today's polls, wait for tomorrow's.
Now I'm no political scientist but this seesaw in the midst of Canada's political doldrums suggests the voting public is waiting for some party to produce policies that resonate with them and that they can embrace. Vision has always been Harper's short suit and the Libs are fools if they don't hit Furious Leader where he's weakest. So Michael, have you got anything to promote beyond arts funding?
What Runs Through the Mind of David Petraeus?
David Petraeus is a pretty good general until, that is, he doesn't take his own advice.
Petraeus headed the team of military and civilian scholars who produced the US military's new counterinsurgency field manual FM3-24. The beauty of that work is that it had very little that could called new. Instead it was a distillation of the lessons learned in centuries of fighting insurgencies.
Unfortunately, FM3-24 was never taken to heart in Afghanistan which is one reason that war has gone so poorly for the West. In fact, we've made pretty much "every mistake in the book" - far too few troops occupying the country for far too long while dependent on heavy firepower to compensate for inadequate numbers all the while unable to secure the civilian population from the insurgent/rebels. That's a lot of mistakes, enough to all but guarantee failure.
Now Petraeus, apparently forgetting the other side's playbook, wants to add another mistake. He wants to publicize civilian deaths caused by the Taliban. Bad move. The reason insurgents use terror against civilian populations is to undermine the public's confidence in the ability of their government and counterinsurgency forces to protect them. It's kind of quirky but the locals tend to blame our side for letting them down even as they accept the inevitability of having to accommodate the insurgents. When we can't stop the bad guys from getting at them, we lose. When we launch a publicity campaign to tell the citizenry just how successful the bad guys are at getting at them well - it's just plain dumb.
The fundamental goal of any insurgency is to drive a wedge between the civilian population and their government. As that wedge is driven deeper, public support bleeds from the government and passes to the rebels. Eventually a critical mass is reached when the government side has lost the hearts and minds of its people and then it's game over save for the inevitable period in which the government side keeps shelling and bombing pointlessly, further angering and alienating the civilian population.
The insurgents drive that wedge deeper when they become able to occupy territory and establish their own rival authority with judicial, administrative and security functions. Especially when, as in the case of Afghanistan, the central government does all of those things so poorly, it's relatively easy for the insurgent/rebels to be accepted as legitimate.
And we just keep on helping the Taliban hammer their wedge home when we whack Afghan civilians by the dozen with our heavy firepower - air strikes and artillery barrages. Last week we took out 40+ in one strike. Today it's reported we bagged another dozen civilians in a night time operation in Nangahar province.
We don't exterminate Afghan civilians for the sake of killing civilians. We do it because we think we're killing Talibs. But it's the very nature of insurgents to insinuate themselves among their civilian population, to goad us into raining down heavy weapon strikes on the locals. It shows the locals that (a) we can't protect them from the Taliban who come into their midst and (b) that we're as great a threat as the insurgents. Then there's (c) - that unique Afghan thing about revenge and our ability to transform neutral civilians into our mortal enemies by killing off their kinfolk.
It's disturbing to hear Petraeus wanting to publicize Taliban atrocities. It's as though he's run out of ideas of how to challenge the rebels. I don't think he'd try this ploy if he didn't consider this war all but lost. It's a high-risk gambit, the sort that only appeals to those who believe they have nothing left to lose. Well at least he no longer has to worry about a presidential bid in 2012.
Petraeus headed the team of military and civilian scholars who produced the US military's new counterinsurgency field manual FM3-24. The beauty of that work is that it had very little that could called new. Instead it was a distillation of the lessons learned in centuries of fighting insurgencies.
Unfortunately, FM3-24 was never taken to heart in Afghanistan which is one reason that war has gone so poorly for the West. In fact, we've made pretty much "every mistake in the book" - far too few troops occupying the country for far too long while dependent on heavy firepower to compensate for inadequate numbers all the while unable to secure the civilian population from the insurgent/rebels. That's a lot of mistakes, enough to all but guarantee failure.
Now Petraeus, apparently forgetting the other side's playbook, wants to add another mistake. He wants to publicize civilian deaths caused by the Taliban. Bad move. The reason insurgents use terror against civilian populations is to undermine the public's confidence in the ability of their government and counterinsurgency forces to protect them. It's kind of quirky but the locals tend to blame our side for letting them down even as they accept the inevitability of having to accommodate the insurgents. When we can't stop the bad guys from getting at them, we lose. When we launch a publicity campaign to tell the citizenry just how successful the bad guys are at getting at them well - it's just plain dumb.
The fundamental goal of any insurgency is to drive a wedge between the civilian population and their government. As that wedge is driven deeper, public support bleeds from the government and passes to the rebels. Eventually a critical mass is reached when the government side has lost the hearts and minds of its people and then it's game over save for the inevitable period in which the government side keeps shelling and bombing pointlessly, further angering and alienating the civilian population.
The insurgents drive that wedge deeper when they become able to occupy territory and establish their own rival authority with judicial, administrative and security functions. Especially when, as in the case of Afghanistan, the central government does all of those things so poorly, it's relatively easy for the insurgent/rebels to be accepted as legitimate.
And we just keep on helping the Taliban hammer their wedge home when we whack Afghan civilians by the dozen with our heavy firepower - air strikes and artillery barrages. Last week we took out 40+ in one strike. Today it's reported we bagged another dozen civilians in a night time operation in Nangahar province.
We don't exterminate Afghan civilians for the sake of killing civilians. We do it because we think we're killing Talibs. But it's the very nature of insurgents to insinuate themselves among their civilian population, to goad us into raining down heavy weapon strikes on the locals. It shows the locals that (a) we can't protect them from the Taliban who come into their midst and (b) that we're as great a threat as the insurgents. Then there's (c) - that unique Afghan thing about revenge and our ability to transform neutral civilians into our mortal enemies by killing off their kinfolk.
It's disturbing to hear Petraeus wanting to publicize Taliban atrocities. It's as though he's run out of ideas of how to challenge the rebels. I don't think he'd try this ploy if he didn't consider this war all but lost. It's a high-risk gambit, the sort that only appeals to those who believe they have nothing left to lose. Well at least he no longer has to worry about a presidential bid in 2012.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
I Know - Let's Make It a Crime Not to Report a Crime!
Okay Stock, here's the logic bomb about to go off in your decidedly understuffed cranium - we don't usually manage to arrest, try and convict people for unreported or undetected crimes. The wheels of our criminal justice system don't begin to turn until somebody notices something. Until that happens you're lacking a customer.
But Furious Leader wants those new prisons, lots of extra prisons, so you're going to have to fill them somehow. Here's an idea. Make it a crime, punishable by a lengthy term in the Greybar Hotel, not to report a crime. You might even set up a system to reward people who turn in others for not reporting crimes. A free deck for the cottage of every informer. And look at the terrific bonus - you get to punish the victim and what Conservative doesn't simply love that?
Yep, in no time you'll have no end of new inmates to swell the prison ranks. Problem solved.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
We Get Readers
This blog gets almost as many American visitors as Canadian. Every so often I check who is visiting and from where.
Today's crop includes: The Executive Office of the President USA checking out "Pakistan President Declares Afghan War Lost"; Att Chief Security Office apparently interested in Sunday's piece on David Stockman's repentance on supply side/trickle down economics; and the US Environmental Protection Agency on yesterday's piece about "The most irresponsible policy Iggy has ever foisted on the Liberal Party" (aka the Tar Sands).
I get the odd hit from "Langley, Virginia" - home of the CIA, the Pentagon and even the Sergeant at Arms of the US Senate. As far as I can tell, the White House is a first for me. Swoon!
Today's crop includes: The Executive Office of the President USA checking out "Pakistan President Declares Afghan War Lost"; Att Chief Security Office apparently interested in Sunday's piece on David Stockman's repentance on supply side/trickle down economics; and the US Environmental Protection Agency on yesterday's piece about "The most irresponsible policy Iggy has ever foisted on the Liberal Party" (aka the Tar Sands).
I get the odd hit from "Langley, Virginia" - home of the CIA, the Pentagon and even the Sergeant at Arms of the US Senate. As far as I can tell, the White House is a first for me. Swoon!
The Warfare State
"Talking of patriotism what humbug it is. It is a word that always commemorates a robbery."
- Mark Twain
Eisenhower once warned his countrymen of the ascendancy of what he called a "military-industrial complex." That was then, this is now. Today's America has a military-industrial-warfighting complex. It has added a large, powerful and influential mercenary arm to the mix who usually go under the benign title of "contractor." Today's contractors can do everything from combat missions to recconnaisance and intelligence gathering and who knows what else?
Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, warfighting companies like Blackwater thrived and grew and became very, very wealthy. For them, war is highly profitable and about the only thing they need fear is peace. And the mercenary business along with the traditional military industrial base have become an integral component of America's economy. The question is whether America is now addicted to war.
Former CIA consultant, professor of international relations and and author, Chalmers Johnson, warns that his country is teetering on an abyss:
"...the political system of the United States today, history tells us, is one of the most unstable combinations there is -- that is, domestic democracy and foreign empire -- that the choices are stark. A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist, but it can't be both. If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our system was modeled, like the old Roman Republic, it will lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship."
"...Militarism is the -- what the social side has called the “intervening variable,” the causative connection. That is to say, to maintain an empire requires a very large standing army, huge expenditures on arms that leads to a military-industrial complex, and generally speaking, a vicious cycle sets up of interests that lead to perpetual series of wars.
It goes back to probably the earliest warning ever delivered to us by our first president, George Washington, in his famous farewell address. It’s read at the opening of every new session of Congress. Washington said that the great enemy of the republic is standing armies; it is a particular enemy of republican liberty. What he meant by it is that it breaks down the separation of powers into an executive, legislative, and judicial branches that are intended to check each other -- this is our most fundamental bulwark against dictatorship and tyranny -- it causes it to break down, because standing armies, militarism, military establishment, military-industrial complex all draw power away from the rest of the country to Washington, including taxes, that within Washington they draw it to the presidency, and they begin to create an imperial presidency, who then implements the military's desire for secrecy, making oversight of the government almost impossible for a member of Congress, even, much less for a citizen."
Maddow's guest, Andrew J. Bacevich, believes America has to free itself of a culture of delusion heralded in the myth of American exceptionalism. Bacevich claims that most of what ails, and threatens, America was foreseen by Reinhold Neibuhr. His lecture is worth reading and can be found here.
"Since the end of the Cold War the management of history has emerged as the all but explicitly stated purpose of American statecraft. In Washington, politicians speak knowingly about history's clearly discerned purpose and about the responsibility of the United States, at the zenith of its power, to guide history to its intended destination.
In Niebuhr's view, although history may be purposeful, it is also opaque, a drama in which both the story line and the dénouement remain hidden from view. The twists and turns that the plot has already taken suggest the need for a certain modesty in forecasting what is still to come. Yet as Niebuhr writes, "modern man lacks the humility to accept the fact that the whole drama of history is enacted in a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or management."
Such humility is in particularly short supply in present-day Washington. There, especially among neoconservatives and neoliberals, the conviction persists that Americans are called up on to serve, in Niebuhr's most memorable phrase, "as tutors of mankind in its pilgrimage to perfection."
If, as some argue, America's economy is now married to the warfare state, if some version of Orwellian war without end has taken hold in the United States, what does that mean for America's allies, particularly Canada? We're not only their allies, we're their neighbour and we're each other's largest trading partners. Bush I and Bush II fashioned this notion of "coalitions of the willing" which were, all too often, coalitions of the mildly coerced that at times resembled an American Foreign Legion. Do we need lines of demarcation to distinguish America's interests from Canada's. We're just getting through our stint in Afghanistan. Can we afford another reckless adventure like that? Wouldn't it be great if we had leaders who weren't too timid to debate these issues?
(Graphic - Mark Twain was a fierce opponent of American imperialism. He was a severe critic of the warfare state and, during his country's conquest of the Phillipines, he suggested America should make a special flag for that country, "white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and cross-bones.")
Plenty of Species But Dwindling Numbers
Scientists calculate our planet supports 230,000 marine species. That's a lot. That's the good news. The bad news is that the scientists who logged all these species found, in the course of their research, that many fish populations have plummeted by 90-95% of their normal numbers. From The Guardian:
"Published today, a 10-year study of the diversity, distribution and abundance of life in the world's oceans attempts just that. The Census of Marine Life, which hopes to paint a baseline of marine life, estimates there are more than 230,000 species in our oceans.
The surveys have also highlighted major areas of concern for conservationists. "In every region, they've got the same story of a major collapse of what were usually very abundant fish stocks or crabs or crustaceans that are now only 5-10% of what they used to be," said Mark Costello of the Leigh Marine Laboratory, University of Auckland in New Zealand. "These are largely due to over-harvesting and poor management of those fisheries. That's probably the biggest and most consistent threat to marine biodiversity around the world."
The main threats to date include overfishing, degraded habitats, pollution and the arrival of invasive species. But more problems are around the corner: rising water temperatures and acidification thanks to climate change and the growth in areas of the ocean that are low in oxygen and, therefore, unable to support life."
When it comes to mankind, once again it's the poorest and most vulnerable who take it in the neck from collapsing fish stocks. The world's poor tend to rely on fish as their main, often only source of animal protein. But poor people can't afford the expensive technology the rich people have for intensively harvesting declining fish stocks. And once those fish are gone, well.... we move on to keep fishing down the food chain while the poor people get to enjoy their empty waters. Neat, eh?
"Published today, a 10-year study of the diversity, distribution and abundance of life in the world's oceans attempts just that. The Census of Marine Life, which hopes to paint a baseline of marine life, estimates there are more than 230,000 species in our oceans.
The surveys have also highlighted major areas of concern for conservationists. "In every region, they've got the same story of a major collapse of what were usually very abundant fish stocks or crabs or crustaceans that are now only 5-10% of what they used to be," said Mark Costello of the Leigh Marine Laboratory, University of Auckland in New Zealand. "These are largely due to over-harvesting and poor management of those fisheries. That's probably the biggest and most consistent threat to marine biodiversity around the world."
The main threats to date include overfishing, degraded habitats, pollution and the arrival of invasive species. But more problems are around the corner: rising water temperatures and acidification thanks to climate change and the growth in areas of the ocean that are low in oxygen and, therefore, unable to support life."
When it comes to mankind, once again it's the poorest and most vulnerable who take it in the neck from collapsing fish stocks. The world's poor tend to rely on fish as their main, often only source of animal protein. But poor people can't afford the expensive technology the rich people have for intensively harvesting declining fish stocks. And once those fish are gone, well.... we move on to keep fishing down the food chain while the poor people get to enjoy their empty waters. Neat, eh?
Pakistan President Declares Afghan War Lost to the West
If you've wondered why there's so much duplicity, double-dealing on the part of Pakistan and even the Karzai government in Kabul, the answer is really quite simple. They're there and they know exactly how well the West's war against the Taliban is going and, most importantly, they realize they're still going to be there to deal with the aftermath when we're long gone. They know what it's like when the West moves on and forgets them as it did once the Soviets were driven out.
In a move jammed full of significance, they're beginning to speak their minds. This morning's Guardian has Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari coming right out and declaring that, as far as Afghanistan goes, the West has already lost:
"The U.S.-led coalition's battle against the Taliban has already been lost because of its failure to win over the Afghan people, Pakistan's president warned before talks with the British prime minister, who has accused Pakistan of exporting terrorism.
In an interview published online Tuesday by French daily Le Monde, President Asif Ali Zardari — widow of Benazir Bhutto — said the coalition "underestimated the situation on the ground and was not conscious of the scale of the problem" against the Taliban largely because "we have lost the battle to conquer the heart and soul" of the Afghan people."
We're now in that awkward stage where we keep bashing away in the military war, the one in which we cannot be defeated, well after the war that matters, the political war, has been lost. Much as there's not a lot to like in Zardari, he's right. We underestimated the situation on the ground from the day we got there and we're still doing it eight years later. We've never grasped the scale of the problem posed by the Taliban in a nation we allowed to remain plagued by warlordism and tribalism and corruption. And because of our hubris we've lost the battle to conquer the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Even Petraeus has said once you've lost the locals, it's over.
So let's not be too harsh over their double-dealing. They won't have to play both sides once our side leaves.
In a move jammed full of significance, they're beginning to speak their minds. This morning's Guardian has Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari coming right out and declaring that, as far as Afghanistan goes, the West has already lost:
"The U.S.-led coalition's battle against the Taliban has already been lost because of its failure to win over the Afghan people, Pakistan's president warned before talks with the British prime minister, who has accused Pakistan of exporting terrorism.
In an interview published online Tuesday by French daily Le Monde, President Asif Ali Zardari — widow of Benazir Bhutto — said the coalition "underestimated the situation on the ground and was not conscious of the scale of the problem" against the Taliban largely because "we have lost the battle to conquer the heart and soul" of the Afghan people."
We're now in that awkward stage where we keep bashing away in the military war, the one in which we cannot be defeated, well after the war that matters, the political war, has been lost. Much as there's not a lot to like in Zardari, he's right. We underestimated the situation on the ground from the day we got there and we're still doing it eight years later. We've never grasped the scale of the problem posed by the Taliban in a nation we allowed to remain plagued by warlordism and tribalism and corruption. And because of our hubris we've lost the battle to conquer the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Even Petraeus has said once you've lost the locals, it's over.
So let's not be too harsh over their double-dealing. They won't have to play both sides once our side leaves.
If Athabasca It Must Be - At Least Do It Right
If the Liberals insist on supporting the Athabasca Tar Sands, here's how they should go about it.
Shift priorities from expansion of the project to instead tie environmental remediation (the lot of it - water usage, natural gas usage, tailing ponds and CO2 and heavy metals emissions) to expansion. "Make your bed, clean your room, then we'll talk."
Big Oil won't like it, Stelmach's Alberta Tories won't like it, Harper's bunch won't like it either but, Mike, let's be realistic - you're not going to get their votes anyway. Big Oil won't like being in the "put up or shut up" box. They've been promising to clean up their ways - forever. Long on promises, very short on action. Stelmach won't like it but, hey, what's wrong with that? As for Harper, if you play your cards right you could give him fits.
Promise a full and open environmental assessment of the Tar Sands including the Athabasca and Peace Rivers, the tailing ponds, the realistic prospects for carbon capture and sequestration, Upgrader Valley and the associated transportation and pipeline systems. You might even point out there hasn't really been a comprehensive assessment yet, at least not one that hasn't been utterly laughable. It's a reasonable policy and the Libs will get a lot of support from Canadians who are angry and frustrated at our country having been transformed into a global environmental pariah.
Be prepared for a lot of push back from the province and Big Oil. They'll push back as hard as they can because they don't have any choice. A rigorous and wide-reaching environmental evaluation puts their adventure, at least the way they've run it so far, in real jeopardy. It would undo the wildly and deliberately untrue public relations cloak they've crafted for the Tar Sands to hide reality from the Canadian people. Most of all they would fear that information getting into American hands.
Sooner or later the Liberals have to stand up to the Tories and Athabasca is a good place to do just that. It's a good place because you can stand up to them by being reasonable. Those who oppose this would be those who look unreasonable, irresponsible, greedy and deceitful. Does it get any better than that? And all you're really doing is scrutinizing them and their ways. It's being dragged out into the light of day that they most fear.
And, while you're at it, take a look at the proposed tanker pipeline and whether we really want heavily laden oil tankers plying the treacherous waters of the Second Narrows and Vancouver's inner harbour.
Shift priorities from expansion of the project to instead tie environmental remediation (the lot of it - water usage, natural gas usage, tailing ponds and CO2 and heavy metals emissions) to expansion. "Make your bed, clean your room, then we'll talk."
Big Oil won't like it, Stelmach's Alberta Tories won't like it, Harper's bunch won't like it either but, Mike, let's be realistic - you're not going to get their votes anyway. Big Oil won't like being in the "put up or shut up" box. They've been promising to clean up their ways - forever. Long on promises, very short on action. Stelmach won't like it but, hey, what's wrong with that? As for Harper, if you play your cards right you could give him fits.
Promise a full and open environmental assessment of the Tar Sands including the Athabasca and Peace Rivers, the tailing ponds, the realistic prospects for carbon capture and sequestration, Upgrader Valley and the associated transportation and pipeline systems. You might even point out there hasn't really been a comprehensive assessment yet, at least not one that hasn't been utterly laughable. It's a reasonable policy and the Libs will get a lot of support from Canadians who are angry and frustrated at our country having been transformed into a global environmental pariah.
Be prepared for a lot of push back from the province and Big Oil. They'll push back as hard as they can because they don't have any choice. A rigorous and wide-reaching environmental evaluation puts their adventure, at least the way they've run it so far, in real jeopardy. It would undo the wildly and deliberately untrue public relations cloak they've crafted for the Tar Sands to hide reality from the Canadian people. Most of all they would fear that information getting into American hands.
Sooner or later the Liberals have to stand up to the Tories and Athabasca is a good place to do just that. It's a good place because you can stand up to them by being reasonable. Those who oppose this would be those who look unreasonable, irresponsible, greedy and deceitful. Does it get any better than that? And all you're really doing is scrutinizing them and their ways. It's being dragged out into the light of day that they most fear.
And, while you're at it, take a look at the proposed tanker pipeline and whether we really want heavily laden oil tankers plying the treacherous waters of the Second Narrows and Vancouver's inner harbour.
Monday, August 02, 2010
The Most Irresponsible Policy Iggy Has Ever Foisted on His Party
And that, of course, would be his promotion of the Athabasca Tar Sands and his dream of bitumen transforming Canada into a fossil fuel superpower for the 21st century.
Either Ignatieff can't be bothered to really look into this environmental debacle or he's willing to shrug it off as a cost of doing political business. Oh he'll pay lip service to controlling the carbon emissions or solving the "water problem" but he won't come up with any concrete requirements. He's apparently unwilling to tie Tar Sands expansion to a requirement that the existing mess be cleaned up, an ommision that speaks for itself.
The trouble Iggy and the other Fossil Fuelers face is that, finally, word is getting out about what's really going on in Athabasca, the filthiest fossil fuel project in the world. People like Andrew Nikiforuk are dragging the Tar Sands, Big Oil and their political shills out into the light. Writing in the latest The Tyee, Nikiforuk explores the lengths the Alberta government has gone to conceal the facts of Athabasca. Here are a few pearls from the article.
"In a no-nonsense letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, noted that the carbon intensity of U.S. transportation fuel could increase by as much as 37 per cent if the country shifts to dirty tar sands crude. The great snake [pipeline] and its diluted stream of bitumen would also act as a damper on clean energy investments.
Waxman also calculated that the pipeline, by doubling tar sands imports to more than three million barrels a day, would add the carbon equivalent of "18 million passenger vehicles to the roads." Waxman concluded that importing more of "the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available" would simply erase the benefits of new motor vehicle standards to reduce pollution...
...the EPA’s Cynthia Giles also focused on bitumen's nasty emissions and demanded more studies on the pipeline's impacts. Giles calculated that a barrel of refined bitumen makes 181 kilograms of greenhouse gases, while conventional U.S. crude makes only 99 kilograms.
...Now the well-reported Canadian claim that bitumen is only 10 per cent dirtier comes from an arm of the carboniferous Alberta government: the Alberta Energy Research Institute. PR guys renamed the institute Alberta Innovates this year and gave it a lovely new mandate to produce clean energy with a low carbon footprint or what it calls "market-ready, ecologically responsible energy." No matter. Albertans can only pray that the group will provide clean data and achieve its mandate."
Nikiforuk explores at length how the Alberta government and Big Oil ginned up the laughable "10 per cent" claim.
"Most of the models cherry-picked data. While some studies excluded CO2 emissions from tailing ponds, flaring, venting and fugitive emissions (leaks), others didn't acknowledge the striking variance in the quality of bitumen being mined or steamed. (The cleanest has already been exported.) Many excluded vital steam to oil ratios (a signature of energy and carbon intensity). Some ignored the fact that it takes 1.2 barrels of bitumen to make one barrel of crude. None included CO2 emissions from the construction or decommissioning of facilities. Hardly any included the destruction of peat lands, an incredibly important carbon sink.
In other words, Alberta's 10 per cent claim was purely a propaganda exercise.
... the Americans aren't going to wait for their number one oil supplier to cook up any more misleading data. The U.S. National Energy Technology Lab, which has no investment in bitumen exports, has already calculated that diesel fuel refined from bitumen creates 244 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional sources.
...when U.S. customers ask their Canadian crack dealers direct questions about the quality of their exports, it's best to come clean about what's going into the pipe. Yet transparency and good public data on bitumen's growing carbon liabilities don't really exist. It appears that industry and government have a Saudi fear of transparency. Why? Because some operators in the tar sands are much dirtier than others and the industry increasingly behaves like a fanatical drug cartel that only tolerates conformity and silence."
Why in hell is Ignatieff so eager to lash the Liberal Party to this eco-nightmare? Is his judgment so weak that he doesn't realize he's almost certainly going to be overtaken by reality as the mask of secrecy and deceit is stripped away from the Tar Sands? If the petro-state of Alberta with all the muscle of Big Oil have lost control of the Tar Sands narrative, does Iggy not realize the potential damage he might inflict on the Liberal Party with his inane policy? And what of the Liberal Party rank and file? Are they willing to stomach this nonsense? Does Iggy really speak for them? Does he speak for Canada? Or is he actually speaking for Bay Street and Big Oil?
Either Ignatieff can't be bothered to really look into this environmental debacle or he's willing to shrug it off as a cost of doing political business. Oh he'll pay lip service to controlling the carbon emissions or solving the "water problem" but he won't come up with any concrete requirements. He's apparently unwilling to tie Tar Sands expansion to a requirement that the existing mess be cleaned up, an ommision that speaks for itself.
The trouble Iggy and the other Fossil Fuelers face is that, finally, word is getting out about what's really going on in Athabasca, the filthiest fossil fuel project in the world. People like Andrew Nikiforuk are dragging the Tar Sands, Big Oil and their political shills out into the light. Writing in the latest The Tyee, Nikiforuk explores the lengths the Alberta government has gone to conceal the facts of Athabasca. Here are a few pearls from the article.
"In a no-nonsense letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, noted that the carbon intensity of U.S. transportation fuel could increase by as much as 37 per cent if the country shifts to dirty tar sands crude. The great snake [pipeline] and its diluted stream of bitumen would also act as a damper on clean energy investments.
Waxman also calculated that the pipeline, by doubling tar sands imports to more than three million barrels a day, would add the carbon equivalent of "18 million passenger vehicles to the roads." Waxman concluded that importing more of "the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available" would simply erase the benefits of new motor vehicle standards to reduce pollution...
...the EPA’s Cynthia Giles also focused on bitumen's nasty emissions and demanded more studies on the pipeline's impacts. Giles calculated that a barrel of refined bitumen makes 181 kilograms of greenhouse gases, while conventional U.S. crude makes only 99 kilograms.
...Now the well-reported Canadian claim that bitumen is only 10 per cent dirtier comes from an arm of the carboniferous Alberta government: the Alberta Energy Research Institute. PR guys renamed the institute Alberta Innovates this year and gave it a lovely new mandate to produce clean energy with a low carbon footprint or what it calls "market-ready, ecologically responsible energy." No matter. Albertans can only pray that the group will provide clean data and achieve its mandate."
Nikiforuk explores at length how the Alberta government and Big Oil ginned up the laughable "10 per cent" claim.
"Most of the models cherry-picked data. While some studies excluded CO2 emissions from tailing ponds, flaring, venting and fugitive emissions (leaks), others didn't acknowledge the striking variance in the quality of bitumen being mined or steamed. (The cleanest has already been exported.) Many excluded vital steam to oil ratios (a signature of energy and carbon intensity). Some ignored the fact that it takes 1.2 barrels of bitumen to make one barrel of crude. None included CO2 emissions from the construction or decommissioning of facilities. Hardly any included the destruction of peat lands, an incredibly important carbon sink.
In other words, Alberta's 10 per cent claim was purely a propaganda exercise.
... the Americans aren't going to wait for their number one oil supplier to cook up any more misleading data. The U.S. National Energy Technology Lab, which has no investment in bitumen exports, has already calculated that diesel fuel refined from bitumen creates 244 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional sources.
...when U.S. customers ask their Canadian crack dealers direct questions about the quality of their exports, it's best to come clean about what's going into the pipe. Yet transparency and good public data on bitumen's growing carbon liabilities don't really exist. It appears that industry and government have a Saudi fear of transparency. Why? Because some operators in the tar sands are much dirtier than others and the industry increasingly behaves like a fanatical drug cartel that only tolerates conformity and silence."
Why in hell is Ignatieff so eager to lash the Liberal Party to this eco-nightmare? Is his judgment so weak that he doesn't realize he's almost certainly going to be overtaken by reality as the mask of secrecy and deceit is stripped away from the Tar Sands? If the petro-state of Alberta with all the muscle of Big Oil have lost control of the Tar Sands narrative, does Iggy not realize the potential damage he might inflict on the Liberal Party with his inane policy? And what of the Liberal Party rank and file? Are they willing to stomach this nonsense? Does Iggy really speak for them? Does he speak for Canada? Or is he actually speaking for Bay Street and Big Oil?
It's Not a Scheme to Transfer Wealth
It's dispiriting to discover how many people believe the global warming initiative to be a scheme to transfer wealth from the developed world to the Third World. They're referring, of course, to the plan for the industrialized nations to create a fund to help the poorest and weakest countries cope with the climate change we have visited on them.
Whether it's South Asia, Africa or the South Pacific, the poorest nations are already wracked by floods, drought and related precipitation problems and sea level rise. Only the abjectly ignorant cannot understand our overwhelming role in their plight. We received great wealth from our carbon emitting activities, they didn't. As ill luck has it, however, they're the "first and worst" affected by the climate change we created. It's our good fortune in the northern nations to be the "last and least" affected by global warming.
On what possible basis can it be argued that we don't have a responsibility to those nations we've harmed? If you run over a pedestrian, are you not responsible for the injury and loss you cause? Is payment of damages a "scheme to transfer wealth?" Of course not.
Today's Sydney Morning Herald captures this misconception in an article headlined, "Pacific talks focus on $110b climate windfall." Windfall is such a loaded word. It suggests something unwarranted, undeserved. It rejects any notion of genuine entitlement. It's particularly offensive coming from such a coal-fueled nation as Australia.
Enough. The poorest and most vulnerable countries will need every penny of that money, and far more, if they hope to adapt to global warming. One thing the world doesn't need is unnecessary climate refugees migrating en masse elsewhere. Helping them cope is actually very beneficial to the rest of us, especially the richest countries.
This is not scheme, it's not a plot, there's nothing remotely underhanded to it. And it sure as hell isn't a windfall for the little countries hardest hit.
Whether it's South Asia, Africa or the South Pacific, the poorest nations are already wracked by floods, drought and related precipitation problems and sea level rise. Only the abjectly ignorant cannot understand our overwhelming role in their plight. We received great wealth from our carbon emitting activities, they didn't. As ill luck has it, however, they're the "first and worst" affected by the climate change we created. It's our good fortune in the northern nations to be the "last and least" affected by global warming.
On what possible basis can it be argued that we don't have a responsibility to those nations we've harmed? If you run over a pedestrian, are you not responsible for the injury and loss you cause? Is payment of damages a "scheme to transfer wealth?" Of course not.
Today's Sydney Morning Herald captures this misconception in an article headlined, "Pacific talks focus on $110b climate windfall." Windfall is such a loaded word. It suggests something unwarranted, undeserved. It rejects any notion of genuine entitlement. It's particularly offensive coming from such a coal-fueled nation as Australia.
Enough. The poorest and most vulnerable countries will need every penny of that money, and far more, if they hope to adapt to global warming. One thing the world doesn't need is unnecessary climate refugees migrating en masse elsewhere. Helping them cope is actually very beneficial to the rest of us, especially the richest countries.
This is not scheme, it's not a plot, there's nothing remotely underhanded to it. And it sure as hell isn't a windfall for the little countries hardest hit.
Iraq - Let The Games Begin
In March, Iraqis went to the polls to elect a new government. Four months later there's still no government. No party is able to form a working coalition. Worse still, many observers believe there's no hope of the impasse breaking before September.
This means America's combat mission in Iraq could wrap up while the country is effectively rudderless. Iyad Allawi notionally "won" the election, winning two more seats than Maliki, with the Iraq National Alliance placing third.
Although he's a secular Shiite, Allawi's Iraqiya coalition took first place thanks to a lot of Sunni support. Maliki's State of Law bloc and the INA are Shiite religious parties. Maliki's people believe he should retain power but Allawi isn't ready to accept that sort of coalition. Meanwhile the third-place INA is willing to form an all-Shiite coalition but only if Maliki is ousted. It's a standoff.
The situation is becoming predictably more violent in Iraq. Deaths in July hit 535, up from 284 the previous month. The violence is expected to worsen the longer the country goes without a government.
With the end of America's combat mission, the US is drawing down 15,000 troops. That will leave 50,000 GIs who are tasked with training Iraqi forces and protecting American installations. An agreement between Washington and Baghdad calls for those remaining troops to leave by the end of 2011.
There are some who think an outright civil war will break out when the last Americans leave, if not sooner. Among those most worried are the Kurds. The main conflict may be between the Sunni and Shia to the south but they're still all Arabs, not Kurds. Arab Iraq is none too happy with Kurdish claims to Kirkuk and its nearby oil fields.
If the Iraqis are having this much difficulty simply forming a government, how will they ever be able to put down a civil war? The situation begs the question of just what has America achieved in Iraq?
This means America's combat mission in Iraq could wrap up while the country is effectively rudderless. Iyad Allawi notionally "won" the election, winning two more seats than Maliki, with the Iraq National Alliance placing third.
Although he's a secular Shiite, Allawi's Iraqiya coalition took first place thanks to a lot of Sunni support. Maliki's State of Law bloc and the INA are Shiite religious parties. Maliki's people believe he should retain power but Allawi isn't ready to accept that sort of coalition. Meanwhile the third-place INA is willing to form an all-Shiite coalition but only if Maliki is ousted. It's a standoff.
The situation is becoming predictably more violent in Iraq. Deaths in July hit 535, up from 284 the previous month. The violence is expected to worsen the longer the country goes without a government.
With the end of America's combat mission, the US is drawing down 15,000 troops. That will leave 50,000 GIs who are tasked with training Iraqi forces and protecting American installations. An agreement between Washington and Baghdad calls for those remaining troops to leave by the end of 2011.
There are some who think an outright civil war will break out when the last Americans leave, if not sooner. Among those most worried are the Kurds. The main conflict may be between the Sunni and Shia to the south but they're still all Arabs, not Kurds. Arab Iraq is none too happy with Kurdish claims to Kirkuk and its nearby oil fields.
If the Iraqis are having this much difficulty simply forming a government, how will they ever be able to put down a civil war? The situation begs the question of just what has America achieved in Iraq?
Save Your Fear. You May Want It, Later.
Fear conditions people. It conditions them to surrender hard-won rights and freedoms to the unscrupulous. It turns them gullible and suppresses critical thinking as somehow disloyal. It evokes "just because" illogic. It is the elixir of the Wizards of No.
Bush-Cheney used fear and anger to persuade the American people that invading Iraq was "the right thing to do." Even after no weapons of mass destruction were found to exist, they continued to fall back on the "right thing to do" justification to defend their indefensible and oh so illegal war.
Uber-rightwingers like Harper know the value of fear and they use it all the time. It's what keeps them in the game. It's what shapes their legislative agenda. Here's a clear example, crime. Harper has used the fear of crime to justify his punishment and imprisonment fetish. Crime rates are steadily and happily declining but that's unimportant. What counts is the fear of crime you can instill in the public. Tell me that's not kinky. What's next Steve, nipple piercings?
There's another benefit to fearmongers. Fear makes a dandy substitute for vision and leadership. Make the citizenry fearful and angry enough and you're off the hook. Any bozo in the White House could pick up the phone and tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff to loose the hammers of hell on a place like Iraq - provided the public is suitably conditioned to see that country as a threat, to fear that country.
Then there's our own Furious Leader. What vision has he ever shown? None. The guy's an empty suit. Remember all those ideas he had before he became prime minister? Where did they go? Look at the way he's run elections since then. Instead of presenting clear platforms - the sort that require vision - he turns them into referenda on the opposition leader instead. He pumps his people up, makes them fearful of the opposition, and squeaks back in for another term having avoided any real assessment of the lousy, ever dodgy way he governs.
Another rarely considered quality of fear is that it's not limitless. Each of us can only handle so much fear. We have to be able to eat, to sleep. Life must go on. The more of your fear quota that's allocated to, say, fear of crime, fear of Muslims attacking your town, fear of creeping socialism (interesting how that's become a mortal threat again), fear of somebody taking your guns away - the less fear you have available for actual threats. Once your plate is full, who wants to hear about things like global warming, corporatism, environmental degradation or the encroachment on democracy by forces of oligarchy? That's why you need to save your fear. Keep it for things that matter.
Here's a suggestion. Don't be afraid. Save your fear for things that really matter like the need to defend democracy (something that's as old as democracy itself). Be fearful for your democracy. Be at least a little fearful of runaway global warming because we're all experiencing the taste of that lash right now and there's plenty worse to come.
Be fearful of threats that you can do something about. Use that fear to energize yourself to seek solutions or to demand that those in power come up with answers and take action. When you combine rational fear with courage and optimism, those whose stock in trade is manipulation have something of their own to fear - you.
Look at the United States during the "Red Scare" of the 50s or during the Bush-Cheney years if you have any doubts about the destructive power of fear. Realize that there are people who will exploit your fear as a weapon against you. Reject these creatures and their ways out of hand. Make them fearful of you because, inside, they're really cowards. That's why they have no real, coherent vision. Their type can only do things to you, not things for you so turf them. You deserve better and they have no intention of providing what you deserve.
We're at real risk if we let others manipulate us with fear. There's simply not enough fear to squander it on these guys.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Just Becuse
I was a sprout back then but I never have been able to shake this song:
And there's this
And there's this
No Mr. Gates. What's "Morally Wrong" Is the War You've Waged in Afghanistan
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has slammed Wikileaks posting of tens of thousands of classified war documents as "morally wrong."
If anyone should know about morally wrong it is Gates and his immediate predecessors, civilian and military, the people who've waged a hapless war in Afghanistan and have sent thousands of soldiers and civilians to their deaths in a war they were never fighting to win.
The Americans have, from the beginning, fought the Afghan war "on the cheap." In the most labour-intensive type of warfare of them all, counter-insurgency (COIN), they never mustered more than a third of the force needed for the job. They never had the force strength necessary to prevent the Taliban from morphing their conflict from an insurgency into a full-scale civil war. That was morally wrong.
The Americans betrayed Afghanistan when they pulled their troops out prematurely so that Bush could play in the sandbox of Iraq. That was morally wrong - boneheaded and morally wrong.
The Americans betrayed their own armed forces, their allies' and the Afghan people when they chose, persumably out of indifference, to perpetuate warlordism and tribalism in Afghanistan while turning a blind-eye to its narco-economy. Maybe they believed that was the best way to ensure a puppet government that would accomodate America's larger geo-political interests in South-Central Asia. Whatever the motivation, it was horribly morally wrong.
People like Robert Gates have no right denouncing anyone else for moral wrongs.
If anyone should know about morally wrong it is Gates and his immediate predecessors, civilian and military, the people who've waged a hapless war in Afghanistan and have sent thousands of soldiers and civilians to their deaths in a war they were never fighting to win.
The Americans have, from the beginning, fought the Afghan war "on the cheap." In the most labour-intensive type of warfare of them all, counter-insurgency (COIN), they never mustered more than a third of the force needed for the job. They never had the force strength necessary to prevent the Taliban from morphing their conflict from an insurgency into a full-scale civil war. That was morally wrong.
The Americans betrayed Afghanistan when they pulled their troops out prematurely so that Bush could play in the sandbox of Iraq. That was morally wrong - boneheaded and morally wrong.
The Americans betrayed their own armed forces, their allies' and the Afghan people when they chose, persumably out of indifference, to perpetuate warlordism and tribalism in Afghanistan while turning a blind-eye to its narco-economy. Maybe they believed that was the best way to ensure a puppet government that would accomodate America's larger geo-political interests in South-Central Asia. Whatever the motivation, it was horribly morally wrong.
People like Robert Gates have no right denouncing anyone else for moral wrongs.
Mr. "Supply-Side, Trickle Down Economics" Comes Clean
That was then, this is now.
Today, in an astonishing op-ed piece for The New York Times, this same David Stockman chronicles what he calls the Four Deformation of [America's] Apocalypse:
...The first of these started when the Nixon administration defaulted on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world. Now, since we have lived beyond our means as a nation for nearly 40 years, our cumulative current-account deficit — the combined shortfall on our trade in goods, services and income — has reached nearly $8 trillion. That’s borrowed prosperity on an epic scale.
It is also an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in 1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves. Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he said, and trade deficits will self-correct.
The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.
(Note - Stockman is right but there's more. Following WWII, every US President, Republican and Democrat, reduced the federal debt as a percentage of GDP, even during the Vietnam War. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II reversed all of that and more. Obama has had his hands tied by the fiscal nightmare he inherited from Junior Bush)
In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.
Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion.
...when ...the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.
By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier.
The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector. Here, Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation. As a result, the combined assets of conventional banks and the so-called shadow banking system (including investment banks and finance companies) grew from a mere $500 billion in 1970 to $30 trillion by September 2008.
But the trillion-dollar conglomerates that inhabit this new financial world are not free enterprises. They are rather wards of the state, extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives. They could never have survived, much less thrived, if their deposits had not been government-guaranteed and if they hadn’t been able to obtain virtually free money from the Fed’s discount window to cover their bad bets.
The fourth destructive change has been the hollowing out of the larger American economy. Having lived beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore. In the past decade, the number of high-value jobs in goods production and in service categories like trade, transportation, information technology and the professions has shrunk by 12 percent, to 68 million from 77 million. The only reason we have not experienced a severe reduction in nonfarm payrolls since 2000 is that there has been a gain in low-paying, often part-time positions in places like bars, hotels and nursing homes.
It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent.
What can you say? Stockman is dead right even if he is a few decades late in coming out of the fiscal closet. The financialization of America's economy and the export of its manufacturing sector have been its ruin just as they were the foundation for the ruin of previous economic superpower empires including the Spanish, the Dutch and the British too. The United States remains in thrall to casino capitalism, the hallmark of which is its enormous wealth inequality and all the social ills that spawns. It is this income inequality that Robert Reich contends dooms America to a future of destabilizing bubble economies.
We need to recognize that this perversion is just what our own Stephen Harper has long admired and praised. He may be slowly seeing the light of Liberal prudence. We'd better hope so.
Photo - Treasury Secretary Donald Regan, Ronald Reagan and Budget Director David Stockman
Can a Government Budget Be Canned for Gender Discrimination?
That's an intriguing issue that may soon be decided in Britain. The Cameron Conservatives are determined to slash about $16 billion (Cdn) in spending but MPs who approved the measure apparently didn't evaluate who would bear the brunt of those cuts. A women's movement argues 72% of the cuts impact women exclusively and they're taking the government to court over it. From The Sunday Observer:
...The Fawcett Society, which believes the plans "risk rolling back women's equality in the UK by a generation", is being represented by barristers from Matrix Chambers, which was co-founded by Cherie Booth, wife of the former prime minister Tony Blair. It follows research that suggested women would shoulder three quarters of the pain inflicted by the budget.
Karon Monaghan QC, one of the country's top equality and discrimination lawyers, will argue that by law MPs should have been able to look at such a study before voting on the budget. If there was any suggestion that moves would discriminate against women, then ministers would have had to take "urgent action" to mitigate the impact.
"This is not something we would do lightly," said Ceri Goddard, chief executive of the Fawcett Society. "We are really concerned that the government did not carry out a gender equality assessment and we believe they did not. That is why we are seeking a judicial review."
Britain introduced a gender equality law three years ago that requires an equality impact assessment to be conducted before policy decisions are taken. Sounds like not such a bad idea to me although the Brits do get carried away with some of this stuff.
...The Fawcett Society, which believes the plans "risk rolling back women's equality in the UK by a generation", is being represented by barristers from Matrix Chambers, which was co-founded by Cherie Booth, wife of the former prime minister Tony Blair. It follows research that suggested women would shoulder three quarters of the pain inflicted by the budget.
Karon Monaghan QC, one of the country's top equality and discrimination lawyers, will argue that by law MPs should have been able to look at such a study before voting on the budget. If there was any suggestion that moves would discriminate against women, then ministers would have had to take "urgent action" to mitigate the impact.
"This is not something we would do lightly," said Ceri Goddard, chief executive of the Fawcett Society. "We are really concerned that the government did not carry out a gender equality assessment and we believe they did not. That is why we are seeking a judicial review."
Britain introduced a gender equality law three years ago that requires an equality impact assessment to be conducted before policy decisions are taken. Sounds like not such a bad idea to me although the Brits do get carried away with some of this stuff.
A Day to Celebrate
Today marks the beginning of the ban on production, storage and use of cluster bombs. 107 countries have signed on to the ban. America, naturally, hasn't but it has promised to restrict the use of cluster bombs and their export.
Today is also the day that the Dutch cease their military role in Afghanistan and begin packing up to go home. Most of the Dutch force is expected to be back in the Netherlands by September.
Today is also the day that the Dutch cease their military role in Afghanistan and begin packing up to go home. Most of the Dutch force is expected to be back in the Netherlands by September.
Oh Deer! Just Leave'em Be.
The Vancouver Sun, BC flagship of the newly minted PostMedia chain, has a ridiculous article entitled "Doe-Eyed and Dangerous" about a supposed spike in deer attacks in British Columbia. The newspaper posits the increased attacks are the result of a big increase in urban deer populations.
Bollocks. The deer do attack - to defend their fawns against perceived predators such as your dog. The deer don't go after your dog, the dog has to come toward them.
It's not at all uncommon for me to see five or six deer in my front garden, chomping away at my perennials. In my neighbourhood we quite like the creatures and, short of outright feeding them, go out of our way to accommodate them. Even when we drive we're on the lookout for them and we always stop traffic both ways when they're crossing the street which probably has something to do with the fact that we never see a dead one lying on the side of the road - until the summer tourists arrive.
Some places, like Cranbrook, are considering a deer cull. Maybe they should consider culling the dimwits and their dogs that won't leave the deer be during fawning season.
Bollocks. The deer do attack - to defend their fawns against perceived predators such as your dog. The deer don't go after your dog, the dog has to come toward them.
It's not at all uncommon for me to see five or six deer in my front garden, chomping away at my perennials. In my neighbourhood we quite like the creatures and, short of outright feeding them, go out of our way to accommodate them. Even when we drive we're on the lookout for them and we always stop traffic both ways when they're crossing the street which probably has something to do with the fact that we never see a dead one lying on the side of the road - until the summer tourists arrive.
Some places, like Cranbrook, are considering a deer cull. Maybe they should consider culling the dimwits and their dogs that won't leave the deer be during fawning season.
The Census and Baby Seat Mentality
Living next door to Alberta can be pretty entertaining. At times it can be like watching people from another country, another planet even. Let me give you an example.
Years ago the "Rest of Canada" had laws requiring properly installed, properly certified baby seats to be in all cars used to transport infants. Guess who didn't? Full points if you guessed Alberta.
There was a movement in the Alberta legislature to mandate the use of babyseats but it was angrily resisted, with real indignance, by the Conservative government of the day. Their explanation? Why, forcing drivers to have proper car seats for infant passengers would intrude on their rights. Those sphincters actually stood right up on their hind legs and said that and said it again and again and again. Those uber-right mouthbreathers eventually relented but only after being dragged, kicking and screaming, through their own filth. If you ever needed a window into the dark, perverse mind of the far right, there it is.
So Harper is having his own baby seat hissy fit only over the census. Why should that surprise anyone. He's just running true to form for the uber right. Just be glad he's not throwing his poop at people - at least not yet.
Years ago the "Rest of Canada" had laws requiring properly installed, properly certified baby seats to be in all cars used to transport infants. Guess who didn't? Full points if you guessed Alberta.
There was a movement in the Alberta legislature to mandate the use of babyseats but it was angrily resisted, with real indignance, by the Conservative government of the day. Their explanation? Why, forcing drivers to have proper car seats for infant passengers would intrude on their rights. Those sphincters actually stood right up on their hind legs and said that and said it again and again and again. Those uber-right mouthbreathers eventually relented but only after being dragged, kicking and screaming, through their own filth. If you ever needed a window into the dark, perverse mind of the far right, there it is.
So Harper is having his own baby seat hissy fit only over the census. Why should that surprise anyone. He's just running true to form for the uber right. Just be glad he's not throwing his poop at people - at least not yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)