Waterboarding is a war crime. That was settled in American law a good long time ago. Waterboarding is torture. Torture, in the context of armed conflict, is a war crime. George w. Bush has freely acknowledged that, despite repeated claims that "America doesn't torture," he did authorize the use of torture in the interrogation of al Qaeda suspects.
Bush claims the waterboarding disrupted al Qaeda plots and saved lives, a claim that is long disputed. In any case he's American and Americans are outside international law, not above it, just outside it as in "outlaw." That was their choice and they took it.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Now Here's Something You Probably Never Knew About Australia
It seems that the Australian Capital Territory doesn't have any criminal law prohibiting bestiality. That's all that's saving Australian Rugby League star, Joel Monaghan, from prosecution after a photo became public of him literally "screwing the pooch."
It seems to have happened in the course of a drunken, end of season rugby revel called "Mad Monday." Monaghan's agent described it as a "prank played on an absent teammate" who happened to own the dog. Prank? No, I don't think so.
Maybe those Australians should look to see what else might be missing from their criminal laws.
It seems to have happened in the course of a drunken, end of season rugby revel called "Mad Monday." Monaghan's agent described it as a "prank played on an absent teammate" who happened to own the dog. Prank? No, I don't think so.
Maybe those Australians should look to see what else might be missing from their criminal laws.
For This, Heads Should Roll
That a young Chinese man masquerading as an old Caucasian man managed to board an Air Canada flight certainly raises a few questions. That three Air Canada cabin crew ignored a passenger who warned them about the disguised man - while the plane was still on the ground in Hong Kong - rings alarm bells.
35-year old clothing retail production manager, [Nuray Kurtur-Balas], says she told the flight attendants the passenger’s heavily wrinkled face looked like plastic and didn’t match his young looking hands.
She says one flight attendant complimented her on her observation, another said he’d look into it, and the third said the man might have a medical condition—but no action was taken.
It was only after the flight took off and the man removed his mask that the air crew alerted authorities to meet the plane when it landed in Vancouver.
This is utter nonsense. That cabin crew should have informed their captain immediately about the passenger's observations and that aircraft ought to have remained safely on the ground until the issue was cleared up. Heads should roll for this.
35-year old clothing retail production manager, [Nuray Kurtur-Balas], says she told the flight attendants the passenger’s heavily wrinkled face looked like plastic and didn’t match his young looking hands.
She says one flight attendant complimented her on her observation, another said he’d look into it, and the third said the man might have a medical condition—but no action was taken.
It was only after the flight took off and the man removed his mask that the air crew alerted authorities to meet the plane when it landed in Vancouver.
This is utter nonsense. That cabin crew should have informed their captain immediately about the passenger's observations and that aircraft ought to have remained safely on the ground until the issue was cleared up. Heads should roll for this.
We Just Have to Get Past "Cheap"
Our addiction to fossil fuels, especially coal and petroleum, is based on one thing - price. Today, at least, fossil fuels deliver the greatest bang for the buck and, for that advantage, most of us would prefer to stick with them. Hydrocarbon fuels may contribute enormously to global warming but, hey, don't ask me to pay more for clean and don't you dare ask me to give up my SUV either.
Today's New York Times reports that green energy is taking a kicking over cost in the current market:
"...Invenergy, had a contract to sell power to a utility in Virginia, but state regulators rejected the deal, citing the recession and the lower prices of natural gas and other fossil fuels.
“The ratepayers of Virginia must be protected from costs for renewable energy that are unreasonably high,” the regulators said. Wind power would have increased the monthly bill of a typical residential customer by 0.2 percent.
Even as many politicians, environmentalists and consumers want renewable energy and reduced dependence on fossil fuels, a growing number of projects are being canceled or delayed because governments are unwilling to add even small amounts to consumers’ electricity bills.
Deals to buy renewable power have been scuttled or slowed in states including Florida, Idaho and Kentucky as well as Virginia. By the end of the third quarter, year-to-date installations of new wind power dropped 72 percent from 2009 levels, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group.
The long range problem is that allowing the fate of green energy to hinge on price fluctuations for non-renewable fossil fuels, denies alternative fuels the market stability they need to survive, much less succeed and thrive. This short-sighted neglect sacrifices long term benefits for temporary savings. I guess that's the way we run our societies today which is probably an object lesson for just how well we're going to meet the challenges of this century.
Today's New York Times reports that green energy is taking a kicking over cost in the current market:
"...Invenergy, had a contract to sell power to a utility in Virginia, but state regulators rejected the deal, citing the recession and the lower prices of natural gas and other fossil fuels.
“The ratepayers of Virginia must be protected from costs for renewable energy that are unreasonably high,” the regulators said. Wind power would have increased the monthly bill of a typical residential customer by 0.2 percent.
Even as many politicians, environmentalists and consumers want renewable energy and reduced dependence on fossil fuels, a growing number of projects are being canceled or delayed because governments are unwilling to add even small amounts to consumers’ electricity bills.
Deals to buy renewable power have been scuttled or slowed in states including Florida, Idaho and Kentucky as well as Virginia. By the end of the third quarter, year-to-date installations of new wind power dropped 72 percent from 2009 levels, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group.
The long range problem is that allowing the fate of green energy to hinge on price fluctuations for non-renewable fossil fuels, denies alternative fuels the market stability they need to survive, much less succeed and thrive. This short-sighted neglect sacrifices long term benefits for temporary savings. I guess that's the way we run our societies today which is probably an object lesson for just how well we're going to meet the challenges of this century.
The New York Times Sums Up the Khadr Farce Quite Nicely
Rightwing thugs in Canada (and they're not all Tories either) haven't got the guts to denounce Omar Khadr's Kangaroo Kourt but today's editorial in The New York Times does just that - and very powerfully.
It is perhaps the best summation of this travesty yet published. Read "Warped Justice."
It is perhaps the best summation of this travesty yet published. Read "Warped Justice."
Monday, November 08, 2010
Senator Wallin Declares Afghanistan "Winnable"
Harper appointee Pam Wallin declared in yesterday's National Post that Afghanistan has been a grand success. She says she "couldn't agree more" with Brigadier General Jonathan Vance who opined, "[I]t is entirely winnable. It just takes a lot of time, focus and patience."
To me, Vance's pronouncement seemed to say that Afghanistan might be winnable by someone else at some time in the distant future. These days generals don't seem to wage wars they might have to win or lose before they can safely retire. But they always know that somebody can win it, eventually, if they only have lots of time, and focus and patience.
Of course a lot depends on how you define 'win'. When we got into this adventure almost a decade ago, 'win' meant we would 1) drive the Taliban out, 2) track down bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda, 3) establish a viable, democratic central government, 4) raise, equip and train an Afghan National Army, and 5) institute Western liberal human rights and, in particular, women's rights.
Nine plus years later, how have we fared? The Taliban are resurgent; bin Laden is apparently alive and keeping busy in Pakistan; al Qaeda has spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa; we have a criminal enterprise in lieu of a viable government in Kabul operated by a totally corrupt bureaucracy, judiciary and security service; the country has morphed into a narco-state; Afghan soldiers desert at roughly the same rate as we manage to train them; and the warlords we empower have restored Islamist fundamentalism to the countryside crushing all the nonsense about women's and human rights.
To me, Vance's pronouncement seemed to say that Afghanistan might be winnable by someone else at some time in the distant future. These days generals don't seem to wage wars they might have to win or lose before they can safely retire. But they always know that somebody can win it, eventually, if they only have lots of time, and focus and patience.
Of course a lot depends on how you define 'win'. When we got into this adventure almost a decade ago, 'win' meant we would 1) drive the Taliban out, 2) track down bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda, 3) establish a viable, democratic central government, 4) raise, equip and train an Afghan National Army, and 5) institute Western liberal human rights and, in particular, women's rights.
Nine plus years later, how have we fared? The Taliban are resurgent; bin Laden is apparently alive and keeping busy in Pakistan; al Qaeda has spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa; we have a criminal enterprise in lieu of a viable government in Kabul operated by a totally corrupt bureaucracy, judiciary and security service; the country has morphed into a narco-state; Afghan soldiers desert at roughly the same rate as we manage to train them; and the warlords we empower have restored Islamist fundamentalism to the countryside crushing all the nonsense about women's and human rights.
Russians Sound Warning on Arctic Seabed Drilling
For Russians to be fretting over the perils of Arctic seabed drilling seems incongruous given Moscow's thirst for northern oil and gas but maybe that makes it all the more worth heeding.
" Shared by Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Russia and the United States, the Arctic may hold around one-fifth of the world's untapped oil and gas reserves according to a U.S. Geological survey. The past few years have seen a rush of activity in the region, with UK oil explorer Cairn Energy drilling for oil off the west coast of Greenland and Norway's Statoil, one of the world's largest offshore oil producers, pushing further and further up the Nordic country's serpentine coastline, drilling wells inside the Arctic Circle beneath both the Norwegian and Barents Seas.
...The rewards could be huge. Russia, the world's top oil producer with output of more than 10 million barrels of oil per day (bpd), estimates that its Arctic zone holds around 51 billion tonnes of oil, or enough to fully meet global oil demand for more than four years, as well as 87 trillion cubic meters of natural gas.
...But even as Russia opens its northern waters to exploration, there's reason to pause. In the wake of BP's catastrophic leak in the Gulf of Mexico this spring, Russian officials and experts warn an oil spill under the ice could turn out far worse than one in warmer deepwater climates. Arctic conditions -- remoteness, fragile ecosystems, darkness, sub-zero temperatures, ice, high winds -- make dealing with an oil spill a massive task.
It's not that a spill is more likely in the Arctic than in a warmer, deep-water locale, says Nils Masvie, a director at Norwegian offshore risk-assessment firm Det Norske Veritas. "But you cannot extrapolate and say the risk is the same in a cold climate. No, the risk is higher."
That's because it's so much harder to manage a spill and offshore emergency in the ice and dark. "" Sometimes search and rescue operations stop in the evening because it is too dark, resuming again at eight o'clock when the light returns. But if something happens on the Arctic Barents Sea in November it would be, 'OK, we'll come back for you in March,'" says Masvie.
It's hard to imagine the Petro-Pols of Parliament Hill saying no to seabed drilling in Canada's Arctic sector. They should, but they won't.
Read more here.
" Shared by Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Russia and the United States, the Arctic may hold around one-fifth of the world's untapped oil and gas reserves according to a U.S. Geological survey. The past few years have seen a rush of activity in the region, with UK oil explorer Cairn Energy drilling for oil off the west coast of Greenland and Norway's Statoil, one of the world's largest offshore oil producers, pushing further and further up the Nordic country's serpentine coastline, drilling wells inside the Arctic Circle beneath both the Norwegian and Barents Seas.
...The rewards could be huge. Russia, the world's top oil producer with output of more than 10 million barrels of oil per day (bpd), estimates that its Arctic zone holds around 51 billion tonnes of oil, or enough to fully meet global oil demand for more than four years, as well as 87 trillion cubic meters of natural gas.
...But even as Russia opens its northern waters to exploration, there's reason to pause. In the wake of BP's catastrophic leak in the Gulf of Mexico this spring, Russian officials and experts warn an oil spill under the ice could turn out far worse than one in warmer deepwater climates. Arctic conditions -- remoteness, fragile ecosystems, darkness, sub-zero temperatures, ice, high winds -- make dealing with an oil spill a massive task.
It's not that a spill is more likely in the Arctic than in a warmer, deep-water locale, says Nils Masvie, a director at Norwegian offshore risk-assessment firm Det Norske Veritas. "But you cannot extrapolate and say the risk is the same in a cold climate. No, the risk is higher."
That's because it's so much harder to manage a spill and offshore emergency in the ice and dark. "" Sometimes search and rescue operations stop in the evening because it is too dark, resuming again at eight o'clock when the light returns. But if something happens on the Arctic Barents Sea in November it would be, 'OK, we'll come back for you in March,'" says Masvie.
It's hard to imagine the Petro-Pols of Parliament Hill saying no to seabed drilling in Canada's Arctic sector. They should, but they won't.
Read more here.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
"Behind the Wire" Training Role for Canada Post-2011
At least some Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan after the 2011 pullout from Kandahar. CTV reports that top brass say Canada will keep trainers in Afghanistan but that they'll operate "behind the wire." Maybe if we can keep the Afghan recruits behind the wire we can keep them from deserting.
Nato hopes to have a viable Afghan army trained, equipped and detoxed by no later than 2076.
Nato hopes to have a viable Afghan army trained, equipped and detoxed by no later than 2076.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
That Other Afghan Enemy - Desertion
As Western forces near the decade mark in their campaign in Afghanistan, the measure of their achievements has to be the Afghan National Army they've been training and equipping to take over so our troops can leave. So how's that going anyway? Yeah, well.... not quite so good as you might expect.
The Allies took just four years to raise land, air and sea forces to defeat Japan but in ten years we haven't managed to form an Afghan army capable of defending its central government against the Talibs.
Today's Sydney Morning Herald has a report about Afghan soldiers deserting in the belief that the Taliban will retake their country just as soon as the Americans leave. The deserters apparently want to get out to avoid being treated as traitors by the Taliban.
But that's just a newspaper account isn't it? Well, what about this item from British Forces News that reveals an astonishing 23% annual desertion rate among the ANA:
It doesn't look as though there are many Afghans willing to lay down their lives to defend the Karzai government. Unfortunately, we've never given them a government worth dying for.
The Allies took just four years to raise land, air and sea forces to defeat Japan but in ten years we haven't managed to form an Afghan army capable of defending its central government against the Talibs.
Today's Sydney Morning Herald has a report about Afghan soldiers deserting in the belief that the Taliban will retake their country just as soon as the Americans leave. The deserters apparently want to get out to avoid being treated as traitors by the Taliban.
But that's just a newspaper account isn't it? Well, what about this item from British Forces News that reveals an astonishing 23% annual desertion rate among the ANA:
It doesn't look as though there are many Afghans willing to lay down their lives to defend the Karzai government. Unfortunately, we've never given them a government worth dying for.
Canada's Ovens of Crime
This may be Harper's signature achievement - transforming Canada's prisons into ovens for baking hardcore criminals. Steve has a prison fetish and he's got it bad. Along with his sidekick "Kinky" Toews, they're on a real Law'n Order rampage and it's having the predictable results. This first paragraph from The Globe & Mail sums it up nicely:
The ombudsman for federal prisoners says the effects of harsher sentencing laws brought in by the Conservative government are being felt in overcrowded prisons, where interaction between staff and inmates is becoming increasingly rare and rehabilitation is undermined.
One thing about prisons is that they're all educational institutions. You go in there, you learn things, things you'll use later in life when you're back on the streets. When prisons are vile and overcrowded, it tends to be the inmate population that's doing the teaching and they're not passing along the skillset you and I might prefer.
The ombudsman for federal prisoners says the effects of harsher sentencing laws brought in by the Conservative government are being felt in overcrowded prisons, where interaction between staff and inmates is becoming increasingly rare and rehabilitation is undermined.
One thing about prisons is that they're all educational institutions. You go in there, you learn things, things you'll use later in life when you're back on the streets. When prisons are vile and overcrowded, it tends to be the inmate population that's doing the teaching and they're not passing along the skillset you and I might prefer.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Tories, Liberals stuck in 'trench warfare' says Ipsos Reid poll."
That's the headline and anyone who might find that depressing needs to clear their mind.
We have the Conservative's "A" team - Harper on the mound - stymied yet we can't clear the bases. You Libs had better start asking yourselves why. Don't give yourselves a relieved pat on the back because Harper still hasn't kicked you to the curb. He hasn't given up yet and you're really not that far from the curb in any case.
Time to start accepting a few well demonstrated facts. Iggy doesn't connect with the voting public. He might be linked to the virgin birth but that doesn't matter - the people who vote don't want the guy. That's it - it's called "democracy" - they're allowed to trash anyone who doesn't connect with them and that's today's Liberal Party of Canada and today's LPC "leader" Ignatieff.
A good many of us progressives, call us "Axworthy Liberals" if you like, have already voted with our feet. What have you got left? About enough to keep Harper in perpetual minority government range. Feel like you're really accomplishing anything that's remotely Liberal?
You guys don't need an Iggy, you need a Trudeau. Count Ignatieff is nothing remotely like Pierre. You can keep waiting for the spirit incarnation to visit your seance or you can come to your senses. I've left the party a good while ago so I really don't much care what you do.
We have the Conservative's "A" team - Harper on the mound - stymied yet we can't clear the bases. You Libs had better start asking yourselves why. Don't give yourselves a relieved pat on the back because Harper still hasn't kicked you to the curb. He hasn't given up yet and you're really not that far from the curb in any case.
Time to start accepting a few well demonstrated facts. Iggy doesn't connect with the voting public. He might be linked to the virgin birth but that doesn't matter - the people who vote don't want the guy. That's it - it's called "democracy" - they're allowed to trash anyone who doesn't connect with them and that's today's Liberal Party of Canada and today's LPC "leader" Ignatieff.
A good many of us progressives, call us "Axworthy Liberals" if you like, have already voted with our feet. What have you got left? About enough to keep Harper in perpetual minority government range. Feel like you're really accomplishing anything that's remotely Liberal?
You guys don't need an Iggy, you need a Trudeau. Count Ignatieff is nothing remotely like Pierre. You can keep waiting for the spirit incarnation to visit your seance or you can come to your senses. I've left the party a good while ago so I really don't much care what you do.
Friday Night Rhythms
I know it's pop but this song laid me flat the first time I heard it. It still does.
And, because it is Friday night and we're all progressive (aren't we?) one of my very favourite American rockers - Mellencamp
"The Beast" did not fail me again tonight. So I'll conclude with the late, great Warren Zevon and Jackson Brown - Mohammed's Radio. This is awesome
And, because it is Friday night and we're all progressive (aren't we?) one of my very favourite American rockers - Mellencamp
"The Beast" did not fail me again tonight. So I'll conclude with the late, great Warren Zevon and Jackson Brown - Mohammed's Radio. This is awesome
Air Canada Punked
He looked just like an old white guy when he boarded an Air Canada flight from Hong Kong to Vancouver on October 29. Once the plane was safely airborn, that old white guy went to the bathroom only to emerge as a 29-year old Chinese guy.
Apparently the man swapped boarding passes with a 55-year old American and used a frequent flier card as ID at the boarding gate.
Air Canada crew recovered the 'old man' mask the man discarded. I wonder who got to wear that for Halloween?
Now They're Coming Through Greece
African migrants, alright let's be honest - 'climate migrants', are now seeking the safety of Europe by travelling through Turkey into Greece. The European Union responded to Greek's plight this week by sending special EU border teams to help Greek authorities stem the influx of migrants.
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
It is the first time that a rapid-intervention border team has been deployed to an EU member state since the Frontex teams were created in 2007.
Frontex agreed to send the team of 175 officials last month after Greece asked the EU agency for help because of the increasing number of refugees - mainly from Africa and Afghanistan - attempting to cross the border to find their way into the EU.
Personnel and equipment from Germany, Romania, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Denmark will be deployed along the border. The mission is expected to last for two months and efforts will focus on policing a previously unguarded 12-kilometre river border between the towns of Nea Vyssa and Orestiada.
The Greek daily Kathimerini said more than 30,000 migrants had entered the EU across the narrow stretch of river. Frontex recorded a sixfold increase there in the number of immigrants trying to enter Greece in the second quarter of this year.
More people are trying to cross via Turkey because a previously used route from Libya to Italy was closed last year by a controversial bilateral agreement which allows Italian vessels to turn back migrants' boats caught at sea.
Europe has a long-running problem of migrants from west Africa who have fled north, many of them because rapacious European fishing fleets have collapsed the fish stocks in their local waters.
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
It is the first time that a rapid-intervention border team has been deployed to an EU member state since the Frontex teams were created in 2007.
Frontex agreed to send the team of 175 officials last month after Greece asked the EU agency for help because of the increasing number of refugees - mainly from Africa and Afghanistan - attempting to cross the border to find their way into the EU.
Personnel and equipment from Germany, Romania, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Denmark will be deployed along the border. The mission is expected to last for two months and efforts will focus on policing a previously unguarded 12-kilometre river border between the towns of Nea Vyssa and Orestiada.
The Greek daily Kathimerini said more than 30,000 migrants had entered the EU across the narrow stretch of river. Frontex recorded a sixfold increase there in the number of immigrants trying to enter Greece in the second quarter of this year.
More people are trying to cross via Turkey because a previously used route from Libya to Italy was closed last year by a controversial bilateral agreement which allows Italian vessels to turn back migrants' boats caught at sea.
Europe has a long-running problem of migrants from west Africa who have fled north, many of them because rapacious European fishing fleets have collapsed the fish stocks in their local waters.
Canada's Political & Military Leadership Betray the Troops
I posted this last night but it got lost in the overnight shuffle. I think it is important enough to repost.
If you ever wondered whether Canada's top brass and their senior political masters really "support the troops", wonder no more. They don't. In fact, when our soldiers bleed, when they get torn apart, often ruined for life - top Tories and top Generals see to it that the whole thing is swept under the carpet until statistics are released - on New Year's Eve when nobody's watching.
Scumbags. Scumbags in bemedalled uniforms and in tailored suits. The guys who don't bleed, and never will, collude to make sure your gentle minds don't have to be troubled by those who do - in our name. From TorStar:
" Gun shot wounds, buried bombs, vehicle rollovers, rocket attacks and suicide bombers.
...They are the very incidents that the military has tried to keep out of the public eye with its decision to keep details on wounded soldiers under wraps.
The policy of releasing the number of injured soldiers only once a year — on Dec. 31 — has obscured the intensity of fight facing Canadian soldiers, as well as the nature of the sometimes life-altering injuries. It has also given Canadians back home a mental buffer against the numbing realities of war — soldiers who fight hard also get hurt.
...The fact that injuries are kept out of the public eye illustrates how unaware Canadians are of the price being paid by soldiers in Afghanistan, said Senator Colin Kenny.
“In death, you hope it’s fast and very little suffering. But the suffering of the wounded goes on and on and on,” said Kenny, the former chair of the Senate defence committee.
“All you have to do is go out to the hospital to meet them. You’re looking at people with half their face gone or their mouth is wired up and their ankles are broken because of the force of the IED,” he said.
In addition, some soldiers complain that hiding the wounded prevents them from being recognized and celebrated for their physical sacrifices on behalf of Canada. In hospitals across the country, they are suffering and recovering alone and in silence, something that can contribute to their frustration, breed resentment and lead to mental health problems.
Defence officials defend the secrecy, saying it’s vital to safeguard operational security and keep insurgents in the dark about the toll their attacks are taking on Canadian troops.
I take this stuff personally. My own Dad was one of the horribly wounded from WWII yet he was one of the lucky ones. His wounds ought to have been mortal but he pulled through to live out his life on a tight rope of survival. Some of his friends weren't so lucky like many, many others.
Our military and parliamentary bosses see no end of utility in sending flagged-draped coffins in the back of hearses rolling down the outrageously named "highway of heroes" while they put the trouble cases, including those who had the misfortune to actually survive, out of sight, on the shelf to be recognized as statistics on December 31.
Operational security? My ass. More like a gaggle of uniformed ticket punchers who lack the decency to stand up for the minions they feed into the grinder. And they slam others for not "supporting the troops." But I'll bet they all have those fancy magnetic ribbons on their trunk lids too.
Scumbags. Tory scumbags, Canadian Forces scumbags.
If you ever wondered whether Canada's top brass and their senior political masters really "support the troops", wonder no more. They don't. In fact, when our soldiers bleed, when they get torn apart, often ruined for life - top Tories and top Generals see to it that the whole thing is swept under the carpet until statistics are released - on New Year's Eve when nobody's watching.
Scumbags. Scumbags in bemedalled uniforms and in tailored suits. The guys who don't bleed, and never will, collude to make sure your gentle minds don't have to be troubled by those who do - in our name. From TorStar:
" Gun shot wounds, buried bombs, vehicle rollovers, rocket attacks and suicide bombers.
...They are the very incidents that the military has tried to keep out of the public eye with its decision to keep details on wounded soldiers under wraps.
The policy of releasing the number of injured soldiers only once a year — on Dec. 31 — has obscured the intensity of fight facing Canadian soldiers, as well as the nature of the sometimes life-altering injuries. It has also given Canadians back home a mental buffer against the numbing realities of war — soldiers who fight hard also get hurt.
...The fact that injuries are kept out of the public eye illustrates how unaware Canadians are of the price being paid by soldiers in Afghanistan, said Senator Colin Kenny.
“In death, you hope it’s fast and very little suffering. But the suffering of the wounded goes on and on and on,” said Kenny, the former chair of the Senate defence committee.
“All you have to do is go out to the hospital to meet them. You’re looking at people with half their face gone or their mouth is wired up and their ankles are broken because of the force of the IED,” he said.
In addition, some soldiers complain that hiding the wounded prevents them from being recognized and celebrated for their physical sacrifices on behalf of Canada. In hospitals across the country, they are suffering and recovering alone and in silence, something that can contribute to their frustration, breed resentment and lead to mental health problems.
Defence officials defend the secrecy, saying it’s vital to safeguard operational security and keep insurgents in the dark about the toll their attacks are taking on Canadian troops.
I take this stuff personally. My own Dad was one of the horribly wounded from WWII yet he was one of the lucky ones. His wounds ought to have been mortal but he pulled through to live out his life on a tight rope of survival. Some of his friends weren't so lucky like many, many others.
Our military and parliamentary bosses see no end of utility in sending flagged-draped coffins in the back of hearses rolling down the outrageously named "highway of heroes" while they put the trouble cases, including those who had the misfortune to actually survive, out of sight, on the shelf to be recognized as statistics on December 31.
Operational security? My ass. More like a gaggle of uniformed ticket punchers who lack the decency to stand up for the minions they feed into the grinder. And they slam others for not "supporting the troops." But I'll bet they all have those fancy magnetic ribbons on their trunk lids too.
Scumbags. Tory scumbags, Canadian Forces scumbags.
Harper In a Hornet's Nest
Boeing and Dassault, the respective makers of the Super Hornet and Rafale jet fighters, argue they were unfairly treated in Harper's decision to buy the F-35 as Canada's next jet. Both companies claim their latest aircraft in fact meet Canada's stated requirements. They're probably right but don't expect that to change Harper's mind.
But what is with Harper's stealth fetish anyway? Canada won't be able to use the aircraft's stealth capabilities unless we're part of a NATO campaign or under the direction of the US Air Force.
A stealth aircraft is essentially blind. It can't use its radar because that would give it away and invite an enemy to fire upon it. So it relies on another aircraft, an AWACS, to be its eyes. The AWACS, based on the 50's era Boeing 707, has this massive radar dome. It spots the opposition's aircraft and relays that information to the stealth fighters along with instructions on which fighter is to attack which targets.
Canada, of course, doesn't have any AWACS, unless of course the Tories have concealed plans to buy them to support the F-35s. The price tag for an AWACS is about $270-million a pop which, come to think of it, might wind up cheaper than the final price of an F-35.
Speaking of costs, U.S. government officials said earlier this week that the Pentagon can expect to face increasing costs and further delays of up to another three years in development of the F-35. The aircraft is already four years behind schedule. The Pentagon is now admitting that the F-35 will probably be half again as expensive to maintain as the aircraft it will replace.
“How many more reviews will Gates have to hear before he acknowledges the F-35 is an unaffordable failure?” said Winslow Wheeler, a program critic who is director of the Washington- based Straus Military Reform Project. “The F-35 is rapidly becoming a millstone around his neck.”
Chalmers Johnson in his book, Dismantling the Empire, claims Lockheed Martin, which also produces the F-22 air superiority fighter, is banking on F-35 sales to make good what it lost when the White House canned future F-22 orders:
"...So far the F-35 shows every sign of being, in Chuck Spinney's* words, 'a far more costly and more troubled turkey' than the F-22, 'even thought it has a distinction that even the F-22 cannot claim, namely it is tailored to meet the same threat that ...ceased to exist at least three years before the F-35 R&D program began in 1994.'
The F-35 is considerably more complex than the F-22, meaning that it will undoubtedly be even more expensive to repair and will break down even more easily. Its cost per plane is guaranteed to continue to spiral upward. The design of the F-22 involves 4 million lines of computer code' the F-35, 19 million lines. The Pentagon sold the F-35 to Congress in 1998 with the promise of a unit cost of $184 millikon per aircraft. By 2008, that had risen to $355 million per aircraft, and the plane was already two years behind schedule."
* Chuck Spinney is a former military analyst for the Pentagon who became famous in the early 1980s for what became known as the "Spinney Report", criticizing what he described as the reckless pursuit of costly complex weapon systems by the Pentagon, with disregard to budgetary consequences. Despite attempts by his superiors to bury the controversial report, it eventually was exposed during a United States Senate Budget Committee on Defense hearing, which though scheduled to go unnoticed, made the cover of Time Magazine March 7, 1983.
It looks as though Harper/Mackay have inked a deal that saddles Canada with a pig of an aircraft while the Americans might still wash their hands of the whole thing. This is a fighter that the Pentagon's own think tank, the RAND Corporation, slammed as:
“double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are noted, all summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”
There's a lot of meat on this bone for the Liberals and NDP to gnaw on. They can't afford to let Harper continue to frame this issue. The F-35 looked a lot better four years ago than it does today. Now we can see it warts and all and it's full of warts.
But what is with Harper's stealth fetish anyway? Canada won't be able to use the aircraft's stealth capabilities unless we're part of a NATO campaign or under the direction of the US Air Force.
A stealth aircraft is essentially blind. It can't use its radar because that would give it away and invite an enemy to fire upon it. So it relies on another aircraft, an AWACS, to be its eyes. The AWACS, based on the 50's era Boeing 707, has this massive radar dome. It spots the opposition's aircraft and relays that information to the stealth fighters along with instructions on which fighter is to attack which targets.
Canada, of course, doesn't have any AWACS, unless of course the Tories have concealed plans to buy them to support the F-35s. The price tag for an AWACS is about $270-million a pop which, come to think of it, might wind up cheaper than the final price of an F-35.
Speaking of costs, U.S. government officials said earlier this week that the Pentagon can expect to face increasing costs and further delays of up to another three years in development of the F-35. The aircraft is already four years behind schedule. The Pentagon is now admitting that the F-35 will probably be half again as expensive to maintain as the aircraft it will replace.
“How many more reviews will Gates have to hear before he acknowledges the F-35 is an unaffordable failure?” said Winslow Wheeler, a program critic who is director of the Washington- based Straus Military Reform Project. “The F-35 is rapidly becoming a millstone around his neck.”
Chalmers Johnson in his book, Dismantling the Empire, claims Lockheed Martin, which also produces the F-22 air superiority fighter, is banking on F-35 sales to make good what it lost when the White House canned future F-22 orders:
"...So far the F-35 shows every sign of being, in Chuck Spinney's* words, 'a far more costly and more troubled turkey' than the F-22, 'even thought it has a distinction that even the F-22 cannot claim, namely it is tailored to meet the same threat that ...ceased to exist at least three years before the F-35 R&D program began in 1994.'
The F-35 is considerably more complex than the F-22, meaning that it will undoubtedly be even more expensive to repair and will break down even more easily. Its cost per plane is guaranteed to continue to spiral upward. The design of the F-22 involves 4 million lines of computer code' the F-35, 19 million lines. The Pentagon sold the F-35 to Congress in 1998 with the promise of a unit cost of $184 millikon per aircraft. By 2008, that had risen to $355 million per aircraft, and the plane was already two years behind schedule."
* Chuck Spinney is a former military analyst for the Pentagon who became famous in the early 1980s for what became known as the "Spinney Report", criticizing what he described as the reckless pursuit of costly complex weapon systems by the Pentagon, with disregard to budgetary consequences. Despite attempts by his superiors to bury the controversial report, it eventually was exposed during a United States Senate Budget Committee on Defense hearing, which though scheduled to go unnoticed, made the cover of Time Magazine March 7, 1983.
It looks as though Harper/Mackay have inked a deal that saddles Canada with a pig of an aircraft while the Americans might still wash their hands of the whole thing. This is a fighter that the Pentagon's own think tank, the RAND Corporation, slammed as:
“double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are noted, all summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”
There's a lot of meat on this bone for the Liberals and NDP to gnaw on. They can't afford to let Harper continue to frame this issue. The F-35 looked a lot better four years ago than it does today. Now we can see it warts and all and it's full of warts.
Open the Workhouses. Here's Your Cheese
Free cheese. The Irish government, about to whack its people with some severe austerity measures, has decided to offer the public some delicious cheese - free. From The Guardian:
Brendan Smith, the agriculture minister, announced a European Union-funded scheme today that will enable the country to tuck into the EU's cheese mountain. Some 53 tonnes of fresh cheddar will be distributed from 15 November with collection centres in towns and cities around the country.
The minister said the scheme was "an important means of contributing towards the well-being of the most deprived citizens in the community".
"I am very conscious that many people find themselves in difficult circumstances at present and I want to commend the work of the many charitable organisations who are working on the frontline to bring what comfort and relief they can," said Smith.
The Golden Rule and the G20
He who has the gold, rules. We're beginning to see that Golden Rule applied to our trade umbilical, the United States, and we can expect to see more of it whether we like that or not.
At various times in recent years outfits as diverse as China and OPEC have pondered the merits of dumping the United States dollar as the world's reserve currency. In a world in which trade is tied to one country's currency, that nation can reap significant advantages from its fiscal and monetary policies. When everybody holds your debt in greenbacks but you have the greenback printing press, you see there's a certain leverage there. But if they start writing up your borrowing in Euros or Yen or Yuan and you can only print greenbacks, everybody is in a really different position.
America isn't the same country it was before Ronald Reagan ushered in the Age of Ruin. America previously ran on well balanced books. Every president from the end of World War II to the arrival of Reagan, Democrat and Republican, had actually reduced America's debt as a percentage of its GDP. The halfwitted movie star still beloved to this day by the American people actually sold his country into today's penury. Rightwing America is so damned dumb they haven't figured that out yet. Well, dinner's over, their wallet is empty and the waiter is coming over with the bill.
When Carter left office the United States was still the world's greatest lending/creditor nation. That was the U.S.A. inherited by Ronald Reagan. By the time he left, eight years later, Reagan had transformed America into the world's largest debtor nation. There are those who claim Reagan undid the Soviet Union. In fact, he probably did more damage to his own country although the effects were slower in arriving. They're certainly here now.
Harvard economics professor Benjamin Friedman puts it this way:
"Again and again, it has always been the world's leading lending country that has been the premier country in terms of political influence, diplomatic influence, and cultural influence. It's no accident that we took over the role from the British at the same time that we took over... the job of being the world's leading lending country. Today we are no longer the world's leading lending country. In fact we are now the world's biggest debtor country, and we are continuing to wield influence on the basis of military prowess alone."
Which brings us to Bush/Cheney. They played America's last ace, it's unrivaled military power, in Iraq and Afghanistan, counting on 'shock & awe' to bring the Middle East and the rest of the world firmly into line with American policy. The world had a decade to watch as America's unrivaled power unravelled.
The hyper-aggressive "Bush Doctrine" threatened the pre-emptive use of American military might against any country or group of countries that dared rival America's military or even its economic dominance. Think about that. "If your economy gets bigger than ours, I'm sending in the bombers." Yet that's exactly what was proposed by the neo-conservatives in the manifesto of the Project for the New American Century.
Which brings us to next week's G20 summit. Both China and Germany are already taking swipes at Washington. From Reuters:
China rebuffed on Friday a U.S. plan to set limits for trade imbalances and Germany dubbed the Fed's money-printing policy "clueless," setting the stage for what could be a fractious G20 summit next week.
The waters of the debate have been muddied by the Federal Reserve's decision to buy $600 billion in long-term bonds with new money in an effort to revive the flagging U.S. economy.
Resentment is rumbling worldwide that the initiative will generate even more instability by ramping up currencies against the dollar, inflating asset bubbles and increasing inflation.
"With all due respect, U.S. policy is clueless," German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told a conference.
"(The problem) is not a shortage of liquidity. It's not that the Americans haven't pumped enough liquidity into the market, and now to say let's pump more into the market is not going to solve their problems."
The Euros and the Chinese are afraid the hillbillies are going for the printing press. It's hard to see how this one ends but then again this is just one chapter in a book that's not yet half written.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Just Doin' Their Jobs and Yao Wu Has the Face to Prove It
Vancouver Police have been exonerated for the beating they laid on Yao Wei Wu when he opened his door to officers at 2 a.m. on January 21. Police later admitted they mistook Wu for someone else but, hey, you know those little Chinese guys all look the same if you beat them up enough, eh?
So the cops come beating on your door at 2 in the morning. You open the door and they grab you. Maybe you don't like the idea so they "tune you up" - by mistake.
The chief of police of nearby Delta investigated and ruled the cops were simply doing their job when Wu resisted arrest. Wu says the cops were lying. Now there's a novel idea - cops lying. Like that ever happens.
Maybe Rahim Jaffer's Still Available - Prentice Resigns
The median IQ of the Harper cabinet took a beating today with the announcement that EnviroMin Jim Prentice has cinched a top spot at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Of course the environment portfolio in a Harper administration is about as close as one can get to being a minister without portfolio. I'm guessing that Prentice just got tired of filling his days folding paper airplanes.
So there'll be a by-election in Alberta. Wonder what that Jaffer guy's doing?
So there'll be a by-election in Alberta. Wonder what that Jaffer guy's doing?
Ireland - Austerity's Petrie Dish
The debate rages about whether the West, just seemingly emerging from the great recession, needs austerity or more stimulus. Fancy pants Nobel Prize economists like Stiglitz and Krugman insist this is no time for austerity. They warn governments could trigger a "double dip recession" or possibly even a depression if they opt for austerity instead of further stimulus.
Now the same people who ignored guys like Krugman and Stiglitz in the years while they were warning a global meltdown was looming have decided there's no reason to listen to them now either. They're gambling on austerity to lead them out of this mess.
It shouldn't be long until we get a practical lesson in the miracle of austerity thanks to the Emerald Isle, the now mangy Celtic Tiger, Ireland. The government of the Irish Republic has announced it will slash its budget by 15-billion Euros to get its deficit under control. The goal is to have Ireland's deficit down to 3% of GDP by 2014.
So, what's the starting point? This year's Irish budget deficit is expected to come in at 32% of GDP. That's, like, a lot. U.S. GDP is getting close to $15-trillion. On Ireland's rate, that would be like running a 5-trillion dollar deficit and then would Obama have trouble!
The Irish government says savings will be effected through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases that will impact the living standards of all. That last bit may be an understatement. Trying to get a depressed economy moving again through tax increases wouldn't seem to make much sense. Topping that off with government spending (stimulus) cuts is surely the double whammy.
Even those who favour the Irish approach warn the government "may find it has more of a detrimental effect [on growth] than they're expecting."
Let's hope they don't get hit with another potato famine.
Now the same people who ignored guys like Krugman and Stiglitz in the years while they were warning a global meltdown was looming have decided there's no reason to listen to them now either. They're gambling on austerity to lead them out of this mess.
It shouldn't be long until we get a practical lesson in the miracle of austerity thanks to the Emerald Isle, the now mangy Celtic Tiger, Ireland. The government of the Irish Republic has announced it will slash its budget by 15-billion Euros to get its deficit under control. The goal is to have Ireland's deficit down to 3% of GDP by 2014.
So, what's the starting point? This year's Irish budget deficit is expected to come in at 32% of GDP. That's, like, a lot. U.S. GDP is getting close to $15-trillion. On Ireland's rate, that would be like running a 5-trillion dollar deficit and then would Obama have trouble!
The Irish government says savings will be effected through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases that will impact the living standards of all. That last bit may be an understatement. Trying to get a depressed economy moving again through tax increases wouldn't seem to make much sense. Topping that off with government spending (stimulus) cuts is surely the double whammy.
Even those who favour the Irish approach warn the government "may find it has more of a detrimental effect [on growth] than they're expecting."
Let's hope they don't get hit with another potato famine.
Yeah But Can He Skipper an Oil Tanker?
It's 14-days in a Washington state jail for Seong Ug Sin convicted of commanding a vessel in the Juan de Fuca strait while drunk and without any navigation maps. Captain Sin was found tipsy when the U.S. Coast Guard boarded the ship for routine inspections.
Apparently the skipper had managed to navigate his 180-metre freighter through Puget Sound and beneath the Tacoma Narrows bridge, again without any charts. Captain Sin was also given a six month ban on operating a ship in U.S. waters. Guess that means he'll still be able to work in Canadian waters.
Apparently the skipper had managed to navigate his 180-metre freighter through Puget Sound and beneath the Tacoma Narrows bridge, again without any charts. Captain Sin was also given a six month ban on operating a ship in U.S. waters. Guess that means he'll still be able to work in Canadian waters.
Australia Has Already Looked Under the F-35's Skirts
If you want to know what's wrong with the F-35, ask the Australians.
A couple of years back they ran a simulation matching a force of F-18s, F-35s and the super F-22s against an attacking force of Russian Su-30 family jets. The good guys won, sort of, for a while, but then they ran out of missiles, allowing the more numerous Russians to send the survivors through to destroy the good guys' tankers and support aircraft. Out of missiles, out of juice, the fancy jets fell out of the sky. They had a one-way, one-mission combat life. And then there was none.
Part of the problem is cost, part is design. The F-35 costs a bundle. How big a bundle we don't even yet know. Because it's so damned expensive, you can only buy damned few of them. Because it's 'stealthy' it has to carry all its missiles inside and that means it can't carry very many of those either. Few fighters X few missiles = serious problems. You get overwhelmed by big numbers of far cheaper opponents.
As a fighter it's said the F-35 is less maneuverable than the godawful F-105 "Thud" of Vietnam days. It's got very high wing-loading. That's good for going fast but not very good at all if you wind up out of missiles in a gun fight against a cheap enemy fighter that can turn and burn all day.
But it's stealthy! Well, not so much. Like the F-22, the F-35 is hard to detect but not impossible. And the stealth superiority claims that are bandied about are based on outdated enemy missile technology. Defense Industry Daily noted the F-35 will fare even more poorly than the F-22 against the missiles it would have to meet in the air today:
The RAND study [of the Australian simulation] also spends a great deal of time on the core American assumptions concerning “beyond visual range” air to air combat, and the current and future capabilities of SU-30 family aircraft. The implications of its examination do affect the F-35’s fighting qualities – and they will be significant to some of the plane’s potential customers.
RAND’s discussion begins by predicting poorer beyond visual range missile kill performance than current models suggest when facing capable enemy aircraft, by noting that BVR missile performance since the 1990s has largely involved poorly-equipped targets. It also notes the steep rise and then drop in modern infrared missile performance, as countermeasures improved. Meanwhile, AESA radar advances already deployed in the most advanced Russian surface-air missiles, and existing IRST (infra-red scan and track) systems deployed on advanced Russian and European fighters are extending enemy detection ranges against even ultra-stealthy aircraft. Fighter radar pick-up capability of up to 25 nautical miles by 2020 is proposed against even ultra-stealthy aircraft like the F-22, coupled with IRST ability to identify AMRAAM missile firings and less infrared-stealthy aircraft at 50 nautical miles or more.
The F-35’s lower infrared and radar stealth mean that these advances will affect it more than the F-22. Especially if one assumes a fighter aircraft whose prime in-service period stretches from 2020 -2050.
The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are noted, all summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”
In other words, in 'beyond visual range' engagements the F-35 remains vulnerable to current generation missile threats and for 'within visual range' combat, it's simply dead meat. Potential enemies know they can overwhelm an F-35 or F-22 force and then destroy the high-value (indispensible) tanker and AWACS force without which the stealth fighters are doomed.
The only potential threat we could ever face with the F-35 would have both the knowledge and the means to wipe our planes from the sky on the very first mission. You could kiss 16-billion dollars goodbye on one very bad afternoon.
A couple of years back they ran a simulation matching a force of F-18s, F-35s and the super F-22s against an attacking force of Russian Su-30 family jets. The good guys won, sort of, for a while, but then they ran out of missiles, allowing the more numerous Russians to send the survivors through to destroy the good guys' tankers and support aircraft. Out of missiles, out of juice, the fancy jets fell out of the sky. They had a one-way, one-mission combat life. And then there was none.
Part of the problem is cost, part is design. The F-35 costs a bundle. How big a bundle we don't even yet know. Because it's so damned expensive, you can only buy damned few of them. Because it's 'stealthy' it has to carry all its missiles inside and that means it can't carry very many of those either. Few fighters X few missiles = serious problems. You get overwhelmed by big numbers of far cheaper opponents.
As a fighter it's said the F-35 is less maneuverable than the godawful F-105 "Thud" of Vietnam days. It's got very high wing-loading. That's good for going fast but not very good at all if you wind up out of missiles in a gun fight against a cheap enemy fighter that can turn and burn all day.
But it's stealthy! Well, not so much. Like the F-22, the F-35 is hard to detect but not impossible. And the stealth superiority claims that are bandied about are based on outdated enemy missile technology. Defense Industry Daily noted the F-35 will fare even more poorly than the F-22 against the missiles it would have to meet in the air today:
The RAND study [of the Australian simulation] also spends a great deal of time on the core American assumptions concerning “beyond visual range” air to air combat, and the current and future capabilities of SU-30 family aircraft. The implications of its examination do affect the F-35’s fighting qualities – and they will be significant to some of the plane’s potential customers.
RAND’s discussion begins by predicting poorer beyond visual range missile kill performance than current models suggest when facing capable enemy aircraft, by noting that BVR missile performance since the 1990s has largely involved poorly-equipped targets. It also notes the steep rise and then drop in modern infrared missile performance, as countermeasures improved. Meanwhile, AESA radar advances already deployed in the most advanced Russian surface-air missiles, and existing IRST (infra-red scan and track) systems deployed on advanced Russian and European fighters are extending enemy detection ranges against even ultra-stealthy aircraft. Fighter radar pick-up capability of up to 25 nautical miles by 2020 is proposed against even ultra-stealthy aircraft like the F-22, coupled with IRST ability to identify AMRAAM missile firings and less infrared-stealthy aircraft at 50 nautical miles or more.
The F-35’s lower infrared and radar stealth mean that these advances will affect it more than the F-22. Especially if one assumes a fighter aircraft whose prime in-service period stretches from 2020 -2050.
The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are noted, all summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”
In other words, in 'beyond visual range' engagements the F-35 remains vulnerable to current generation missile threats and for 'within visual range' combat, it's simply dead meat. Potential enemies know they can overwhelm an F-35 or F-22 force and then destroy the high-value (indispensible) tanker and AWACS force without which the stealth fighters are doomed.
The only potential threat we could ever face with the F-35 would have both the knowledge and the means to wipe our planes from the sky on the very first mission. You could kiss 16-billion dollars goodbye on one very bad afternoon.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Rebirth of the Kalmar Union?
There's a very good chance that, before this century is out, Scandinavia will reunite. A recent poll found that already nearly half of Finns, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Icelanders are willing to support a federation of their nations into one.
This has happened before. Sweden, Norway and Denmark joined to form the Kalmar Union that lasted from 1397 to 1523.
Why would these countries unite today? That's pretty easy to grasp. They are among the fortunate, northern countries most likely to avoid the major impacts of climate change, particularly drought. They're also culturally and ethnically aligned.
On their own, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Finland are small countries. They have considerable wealth but their size leaves them vulnerable. Together, with their combined population of 25-million, they would enjoy considerably more clout to protect their independence and resources. The countries are already linked through the Nordic Council.
This has happened before. Sweden, Norway and Denmark joined to form the Kalmar Union that lasted from 1397 to 1523.
Why would these countries unite today? That's pretty easy to grasp. They are among the fortunate, northern countries most likely to avoid the major impacts of climate change, particularly drought. They're also culturally and ethnically aligned.
On their own, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Finland are small countries. They have considerable wealth but their size leaves them vulnerable. Together, with their combined population of 25-million, they would enjoy considerably more clout to protect their independence and resources. The countries are already linked through the Nordic Council.
How the Rightwing Media Manipulate Climate Science
It seems there is no end of dishonesty to which the rightwing media won't resort in order to falsely discredit climate science. An example of that is related by Simon Lewis, a climate change scientist, in Nature News.
Lewis's account concerns the venerable Sunday Times on a witchhunt against the IPCC. The story concerned an IPCC finding that the Amazon rainforest might be at danger from drought. Lewis was asked to comment. He said that the claim was generally correct but said the wording should have been more careful and that the IPCC should have referenced the primary literature rather than citing an environmental group. In other words, he confirmed the IPCC claim but said they could have presented it in a better form.
That wasn't the way the Sunday Times saw it.
The Sunday Times saw it differently. Its reporter, Jonathan Leake, asked both leading and genuinely inquisitive questions. I sent him scientific papers, and we discussed them. He agreed to read the finished piece to me over the telephone before publication. It stated, correctly, that the future of the Amazon is very uncertain, because the available data are limited. I was quietly pleased that I had 'spun' what I saw as a blogger's anti-IPCC tirade into a story about the science. Yet I was wrong. The newspaper headline was "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim", and worse, I was the expert quoted to support it. The article had been completely rewritten, essentially parroting North's blog, to include new quotes from me (genuine, but heavily edited and misleadingly taken out of context), and fabricated assertions about my views. An accompanying editorial called for the IPCC chairman to resign.
I was furious. Worse, the two conflicting versions of my views — on the BBC and in The Sunday Times — constituted a serious affront to my professional credibility. But what could I do? I added a comment under the online version of the article that my views were not accurately reported, and sent a letter for publication to The Sunday Times.
Weeks later the misleading article had been reproduced over 20,000 times on the Internet. My letter had been ignored and website comment deleted. Furthermore, my words and standing as an expert were being used by other newspapers to allege widespread corruption by IPCC scientists. As an Editorial on climate disinformation in this journal said at the time: "Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight."
I needed to fight back.
And it took an awful lot of fighting. Lewis had to take his story of The Times' perfidy to The Guardian, climateprogress.org, and even The New York Times. The Sunday Times tried to get away with a one line apology but Lewis held his ground. Finally The Times caved, removed the article from its web page and replaced it with a formal correction and apology that was also published prominently in its paper.
This, however, stands as a clear example of just how willfully dishonest and deliberately disingenuous even a rightwing paper of the stature of the Sunday Times is willing to be to misinform the public and skew public opinion - if they think they can get away with it.
Lewis's account concerns the venerable Sunday Times on a witchhunt against the IPCC. The story concerned an IPCC finding that the Amazon rainforest might be at danger from drought. Lewis was asked to comment. He said that the claim was generally correct but said the wording should have been more careful and that the IPCC should have referenced the primary literature rather than citing an environmental group. In other words, he confirmed the IPCC claim but said they could have presented it in a better form.
That wasn't the way the Sunday Times saw it.
The Sunday Times saw it differently. Its reporter, Jonathan Leake, asked both leading and genuinely inquisitive questions. I sent him scientific papers, and we discussed them. He agreed to read the finished piece to me over the telephone before publication. It stated, correctly, that the future of the Amazon is very uncertain, because the available data are limited. I was quietly pleased that I had 'spun' what I saw as a blogger's anti-IPCC tirade into a story about the science. Yet I was wrong. The newspaper headline was "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim", and worse, I was the expert quoted to support it. The article had been completely rewritten, essentially parroting North's blog, to include new quotes from me (genuine, but heavily edited and misleadingly taken out of context), and fabricated assertions about my views. An accompanying editorial called for the IPCC chairman to resign.
I was furious. Worse, the two conflicting versions of my views — on the BBC and in The Sunday Times — constituted a serious affront to my professional credibility. But what could I do? I added a comment under the online version of the article that my views were not accurately reported, and sent a letter for publication to The Sunday Times.
Weeks later the misleading article had been reproduced over 20,000 times on the Internet. My letter had been ignored and website comment deleted. Furthermore, my words and standing as an expert were being used by other newspapers to allege widespread corruption by IPCC scientists. As an Editorial on climate disinformation in this journal said at the time: "Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight."
I needed to fight back.
And it took an awful lot of fighting. Lewis had to take his story of The Times' perfidy to The Guardian, climateprogress.org, and even The New York Times. The Sunday Times tried to get away with a one line apology but Lewis held his ground. Finally The Times caved, removed the article from its web page and replaced it with a formal correction and apology that was also published prominently in its paper.
This, however, stands as a clear example of just how willfully dishonest and deliberately disingenuous even a rightwing paper of the stature of the Sunday Times is willing to be to misinform the public and skew public opinion - if they think they can get away with it.
Saying "No" to Geo-Engineering
One of the favourite fallback dodges of the Fossil Fuelers is to assure people that, even if global warming is a real threat, we'll always be able to find technologies to geo-engineer our way out of trouble. Don't count on it.
At last week's Convention on Biological Diversity at Nagoya, Japan, one thing the delegates managed to agree on was a moratorium on all and any forms of geo-engineering. From Nature News:
The moratorium, expected to be in force by 2012, isn't legally binding, and given the preliminary nature of studies in the area it is unlikely to affect researchers in the near future. But some scientists fear that the CBD's stance will sow confusion and delay at a time when governments and research groups are exploring how geoengineering might feasibly be undertaken if global warming accelerates disastrously.
The CBD agreement coincides with the release of a pair of reports on geoengineering, including a US congressional analysis, published on 29 October, that calls for research across the federal government. In his foreword to the report, Bart Gordon (Democrat, Tennessee), the outgoing chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, highlights the dangers of stifling research and calls for a "rigorous and exhaustive examination" of geoengineering strategies.
"If climate change is one of the greatest long-term threats to biological diversity and human welfare," says Gordon, "then failing to understand all of our options is also a threat." His report singles out the US National Nanotechnology Initiative — a programme that incorporates research at 13 federal agencies — as a possible model for coordinating research.
Critics of the geo-engineering option argue that we have to commit to options before we know they'll work; that geo-engineering only deals with selective symptoms but not the problem itself; and that geo-engineering options may work in some areas but cause irreparable damage elsewhere.
The CBD isn't so much opposed to geo-engineering itself as it is concerned about countries opting to try it before the techniques are properly tested and evaluated.
At last week's Convention on Biological Diversity at Nagoya, Japan, one thing the delegates managed to agree on was a moratorium on all and any forms of geo-engineering. From Nature News:
The moratorium, expected to be in force by 2012, isn't legally binding, and given the preliminary nature of studies in the area it is unlikely to affect researchers in the near future. But some scientists fear that the CBD's stance will sow confusion and delay at a time when governments and research groups are exploring how geoengineering might feasibly be undertaken if global warming accelerates disastrously.
The CBD agreement coincides with the release of a pair of reports on geoengineering, including a US congressional analysis, published on 29 October, that calls for research across the federal government. In his foreword to the report, Bart Gordon (Democrat, Tennessee), the outgoing chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, highlights the dangers of stifling research and calls for a "rigorous and exhaustive examination" of geoengineering strategies.
"If climate change is one of the greatest long-term threats to biological diversity and human welfare," says Gordon, "then failing to understand all of our options is also a threat." His report singles out the US National Nanotechnology Initiative — a programme that incorporates research at 13 federal agencies — as a possible model for coordinating research.
Critics of the geo-engineering option argue that we have to commit to options before we know they'll work; that geo-engineering only deals with selective symptoms but not the problem itself; and that geo-engineering options may work in some areas but cause irreparable damage elsewhere.
The CBD isn't so much opposed to geo-engineering itself as it is concerned about countries opting to try it before the techniques are properly tested and evaluated.
Campbell Tucks Tail Between Legs - And Skulks Off
It's official! British Columbia premier Gordon Campbell is folding his tent. He's resigning, at last. Campbell assured reporters he was leaving voluntarily and the knives in his back were merely the result of an innocent kitchen accident.
Word is that Campbell's caucus had scheduled aninsurrection meeting for Thursday at Vancouver airport. Not entirely clear whether they were planning to give Gordo a one-way ticket back to Maui. In any case it seems Mr. 9% won't be attending. He'll be giving a press conference of his own in Vancouver on Thursday.
Word is that Campbell's caucus had scheduled an
High Noon for Gordo
British Columbia's beleaguered premier, perhaps the most unpopular pol in Canada, may be falling on his sword - at last. That bastion of reliable news, the National Post, says Gordon Campbell will be arriving in front of reporters just about now to make an announcement expected to be notice of his retirement.
We live in hope.
We live in hope.
UCS to Fight Back Against Republican Denialists
The Union of Concerned Scientists wasted no time in announcing they won't put up with the climate change denialism spreading through the Republican ranks. Here's a glimpse into what they're up against:
"With the possible exception of Tiger Woods, nothing has had a worse year than global warming. We have discovered that a good portion of the science used to justify "climate change" was a hoax perpetrated by leftist ideologues with an agenda."
—Todd Young, new congressperson from Indiana
"I absolutely do not believe that the science of man-caused climate change is proven. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I think it’s far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity or something just in the geologic eons of time where we have changes in the climate." —Ron Johnson, new senator from Wisconsin
"I think we ought to take a look at whatever the group is that measures all this, the IPCC, they don't even believe the crap." —Steve Pearce, new congressperson from New Mexico
"It's a bigger issue, we need to watch 'em. Not only because it may or may not be true, but they're making up their facts to fit their conclusions. They've already caught 'em doing this." —Rand Paul, new senator from Kentucky
"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth." —Roy Blunt, new senator from Missouri.
The UCS says they'll work to expose climate change misinformation and the people and companies behind this well-funded effort.
"...when it comes right down to it, the public's confidence in science and scientists remains high. In fact, just last night in California we saw a tangible example of science trumping industry spin, when voters thwarted an aggressive attempt by out-of-state oil companies to kill the state's landmark Global Warming Solutions Act.
...The truth of the matter is that it's been difficult to move Congress for months. The people who are supposed to be representing our interests in the nation's capitol have been too busy carrying water for narrow corporate interests rather than coming together to make real, positive change."
There have been promising signs of a movement afoot to expose and challenge these miscreants, both in the United States and in Europe. Canada needs to do the same.
One particular example of made-in-Canada greenwash comes to mind. I suppose it's no surprise that it eminates from the Tar Sands. It shows a Tar Sands worker who says he's concerned about the environment and that's why his company is now using saltwater pumped out of deep aquifers for its bitumen processing. The pitch is they're sparing the environment by not using surface freshwater.
Sounds good, doesn't it? Until you ask "what then?" Saltwater is toxic to a freshwater environment. Among other things it sterilizes soil, renders it unusable (that's why the Romans used salt to leave Carthage uninhabitable). So they've pumped this saltwater to the surface and loaded it with Tar Sands tailings but what do they end up with beyond even more toxic tailing ponds? Just how are they going to recover and dispose of all that salt? It just greenwash for the gullible.
"With the possible exception of Tiger Woods, nothing has had a worse year than global warming. We have discovered that a good portion of the science used to justify "climate change" was a hoax perpetrated by leftist ideologues with an agenda."
—Todd Young, new congressperson from Indiana
"I absolutely do not believe that the science of man-caused climate change is proven. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I think it’s far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity or something just in the geologic eons of time where we have changes in the climate." —Ron Johnson, new senator from Wisconsin
"I think we ought to take a look at whatever the group is that measures all this, the IPCC, they don't even believe the crap." —Steve Pearce, new congressperson from New Mexico
"It's a bigger issue, we need to watch 'em. Not only because it may or may not be true, but they're making up their facts to fit their conclusions. They've already caught 'em doing this." —Rand Paul, new senator from Kentucky
"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth." —Roy Blunt, new senator from Missouri.
The UCS says they'll work to expose climate change misinformation and the people and companies behind this well-funded effort.
"...when it comes right down to it, the public's confidence in science and scientists remains high. In fact, just last night in California we saw a tangible example of science trumping industry spin, when voters thwarted an aggressive attempt by out-of-state oil companies to kill the state's landmark Global Warming Solutions Act.
...The truth of the matter is that it's been difficult to move Congress for months. The people who are supposed to be representing our interests in the nation's capitol have been too busy carrying water for narrow corporate interests rather than coming together to make real, positive change."
There have been promising signs of a movement afoot to expose and challenge these miscreants, both in the United States and in Europe. Canada needs to do the same.
One particular example of made-in-Canada greenwash comes to mind. I suppose it's no surprise that it eminates from the Tar Sands. It shows a Tar Sands worker who says he's concerned about the environment and that's why his company is now using saltwater pumped out of deep aquifers for its bitumen processing. The pitch is they're sparing the environment by not using surface freshwater.
Sounds good, doesn't it? Until you ask "what then?" Saltwater is toxic to a freshwater environment. Among other things it sterilizes soil, renders it unusable (that's why the Romans used salt to leave Carthage uninhabitable). So they've pumped this saltwater to the surface and loaded it with Tar Sands tailings but what do they end up with beyond even more toxic tailing ponds? Just how are they going to recover and dispose of all that salt? It just greenwash for the gullible.
In Southern California - Better Dead Than Republican
Southern California voters last night re-elected a dead Democrat over a living, breathing Republican.
Democrat Jenny Oropeza swept a Southern California district in the race for Senate on Tuesday with 58% of the vote. Unfortunately, Jenny passed away two weeks ago but her name remained on the ballot.
The Repugs are naturally crying "foul" as though their candidate ought to have won by default. The Dems contend that the vote for dead Jenny merely means the voters have endorsed a special election with a new Democratic candidate in four months.
Remember Bush's minion, John Ashcroft, also lost a Senate election to a dead man? After that resounding vote of confidence, Bush brought Ashcroft into his cabinet. Oh well.
Democrat Jenny Oropeza swept a Southern California district in the race for Senate on Tuesday with 58% of the vote. Unfortunately, Jenny passed away two weeks ago but her name remained on the ballot.
The Repugs are naturally crying "foul" as though their candidate ought to have won by default. The Dems contend that the vote for dead Jenny merely means the voters have endorsed a special election with a new Democratic candidate in four months.
Remember Bush's minion, John Ashcroft, also lost a Senate election to a dead man? After that resounding vote of confidence, Bush brought Ashcroft into his cabinet. Oh well.
Imagine a Future In Balance
Like it or not, you're about to get a lot smaller. We all are. The question is whether our civilization accepts the fact in time to control our shrinkage or we do nothing and wait until it lands on us with a thud.
It's inescapable. We have built a way of life, a lifestyle that is unsustainable. Think "overshoot." Earth Overshoot Day now falls on August 21. That's the day on which mankind consumes an entire year's supply of renewables. As of today, humankind has already consumed 131 per cent of our planet's capacity to produce renewable resources (and you've still got 51 shopping days til Christmas). Beginning on August 22, we become dependent on consuming nature's accumulated reserves. It's estimated that in twenty years we'll be consuming renewables at twice their renewal rate if we can find enough reserves to keep going that long.
How can that be? It's easy and you can see it, you can feel it, you can measure it. It is manifest. The evidence of it is seen in things that no longer are:
Deforestation. Satellite imagery will show the spreading regions where trees are being felled faster than they regrow. These vast forests are sometimes called the "lungs of the planet."
Desertification. In order to produce agricultural products to feed an unsustainable level of demand, we're working arable soil to exhaustion. China is a perfect example of that and the evidence is in those dramatic photos of dust storms sweeping into Chinese cities or the dust plumes that at times stretch all the way across the Pacific.
Fisheries collapse. You don't get to see that because (a) the surviving fish are underwater and (b) you probably don't spend a lot of time with the industrial fishing fleets and (c) we're still rich enough that we can stock our shelves while Third World countries - those that actually depend on fish for protein - go without. The proof of these collapses is in those empty shelves in the poorest countries and the fact that we continue to "fish down the food chain," pursuing less desirable stocks (stuff we used to reject) as we exhaust the more desirable species.
And then there's the hellspawn of them all, the freshwater crisis. Even the rich can't dodge this one. Around the world rivers are becoming contaminated, unusable. Worse yet is the rate at which we consume freshwater stocks. Once mighty rivers like the Colorado no longer flow to the sea. Their waters are consumed long before they get near the sea. And we've run this agricultural Ponzi scheme, the vaunted Green Revolution, on groundwater. To do that we pumped massive quantities of freshwater from our aquifers ignoring the rate at which nature could refill them. Take a full water bottle and put two straws in it. One feeds water into that bottle at X ounces a minute. You drink through the other straw, drawing 10X ounces per minute out of the bottle. You're headed for the bottom, aren't you?
These are some of the problems we're facing. There are others (think Peak Oil for example). These aren't future problems, they're here now (remember I told you, we can see them from satellites) and they're getting worse. Three years ago Earth Overshoot Day was in October. Now it's moved up to August. It's accelerating as it must and it doesn't end well. Yet we can't even come up with a meaningful way to arrest global warming.
So what are the answers? First we have to accept that these are global problems that threaten all of mankind, our very civilization. Second, we have to accept that we all must commit to the sacrifices needed to come into balance with our biosphere, the only one we've got, Earth. This is going to be tough because the impacts are arriving in different places at varying rates and differing severity. It's natural to say, "I don't have to worry about it, I've got water," but all you're really saying is, "I don't care, you go first." Because what is happening already to the most vulnerable regions will reach you in due course. It may arrive in a somewhat different form. It could be war instead of famine, for example. But it will arrive on your doorstep in some form, eventually.
You have to reject supposed leaders who won't even mention overshoot or what that means for you and your family. We, as a people, give them our collective power specifically to deal with this very sort of threat. It's not their right to ignore issues this fundamental, of this magnitude, because it may be politically inconvenient.
Oh yes, there's one other option. You can stick your head in the sand and get blue in the face with indignation over census forms or gun registries. We'll probably all pay dearly for that in twenty or thirty years but you can certainly dodge the problem altogether - until it's too late.
It's inescapable. We have built a way of life, a lifestyle that is unsustainable. Think "overshoot." Earth Overshoot Day now falls on August 21. That's the day on which mankind consumes an entire year's supply of renewables. As of today, humankind has already consumed 131 per cent of our planet's capacity to produce renewable resources (and you've still got 51 shopping days til Christmas). Beginning on August 22, we become dependent on consuming nature's accumulated reserves. It's estimated that in twenty years we'll be consuming renewables at twice their renewal rate if we can find enough reserves to keep going that long.
How can that be? It's easy and you can see it, you can feel it, you can measure it. It is manifest. The evidence of it is seen in things that no longer are:
Deforestation. Satellite imagery will show the spreading regions where trees are being felled faster than they regrow. These vast forests are sometimes called the "lungs of the planet."
Desertification. In order to produce agricultural products to feed an unsustainable level of demand, we're working arable soil to exhaustion. China is a perfect example of that and the evidence is in those dramatic photos of dust storms sweeping into Chinese cities or the dust plumes that at times stretch all the way across the Pacific.
Fisheries collapse. You don't get to see that because (a) the surviving fish are underwater and (b) you probably don't spend a lot of time with the industrial fishing fleets and (c) we're still rich enough that we can stock our shelves while Third World countries - those that actually depend on fish for protein - go without. The proof of these collapses is in those empty shelves in the poorest countries and the fact that we continue to "fish down the food chain," pursuing less desirable stocks (stuff we used to reject) as we exhaust the more desirable species.
And then there's the hellspawn of them all, the freshwater crisis. Even the rich can't dodge this one. Around the world rivers are becoming contaminated, unusable. Worse yet is the rate at which we consume freshwater stocks. Once mighty rivers like the Colorado no longer flow to the sea. Their waters are consumed long before they get near the sea. And we've run this agricultural Ponzi scheme, the vaunted Green Revolution, on groundwater. To do that we pumped massive quantities of freshwater from our aquifers ignoring the rate at which nature could refill them. Take a full water bottle and put two straws in it. One feeds water into that bottle at X ounces a minute. You drink through the other straw, drawing 10X ounces per minute out of the bottle. You're headed for the bottom, aren't you?
These are some of the problems we're facing. There are others (think Peak Oil for example). These aren't future problems, they're here now (remember I told you, we can see them from satellites) and they're getting worse. Three years ago Earth Overshoot Day was in October. Now it's moved up to August. It's accelerating as it must and it doesn't end well. Yet we can't even come up with a meaningful way to arrest global warming.
So what are the answers? First we have to accept that these are global problems that threaten all of mankind, our very civilization. Second, we have to accept that we all must commit to the sacrifices needed to come into balance with our biosphere, the only one we've got, Earth. This is going to be tough because the impacts are arriving in different places at varying rates and differing severity. It's natural to say, "I don't have to worry about it, I've got water," but all you're really saying is, "I don't care, you go first." Because what is happening already to the most vulnerable regions will reach you in due course. It may arrive in a somewhat different form. It could be war instead of famine, for example. But it will arrive on your doorstep in some form, eventually.
You have to reject supposed leaders who won't even mention overshoot or what that means for you and your family. We, as a people, give them our collective power specifically to deal with this very sort of threat. It's not their right to ignore issues this fundamental, of this magnitude, because it may be politically inconvenient.
Oh yes, there's one other option. You can stick your head in the sand and get blue in the face with indignation over census forms or gun registries. We'll probably all pay dearly for that in twenty or thirty years but you can certainly dodge the problem altogether - until it's too late.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
A Question In Need of an Answer
Is climate change disinformation a crime against humanity? That question is posed in today's Guardian. It's not as unreasonable as it may at first sound.
If you're in a crowded, dark theatre and suddenly yell "fire" causing a stampede for the exits in which people are trampled to death, you're criminally responsible for killing them. The stampede and the deaths are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your act. You don't have to actually intend to kill those people but it was foreseeable that it could well happen. You are deemed to intend the logical and foreseeable consequences of your act.
So what of those who deliberately sow falsehoods about global warming? We know global warming is going to kill people, it already is. We know if it's not effectively dealt with it could cause scores of millions to die. That is reasonably foreseeable.
Donald Brown, an associate professor in environmental ethics, science and law at Penn State University argues that climate change disinformation deserves to be punished:
Although there is an important role for scepticism in science, for almost 30 years some corporations have supported a disinformation campaign about climate change science.
While it may be reasonable to be somewhat sceptical about climate change models, these untruths are not based upon reasonable scepticism but outright falsification and distortions of climate change science.
These claims have included assertions that the science of climate change has been completely "debunked" and that there is no evidence of human causation of recent observed warming. There are numerous lines of evidence that point to human causation even if it is not a completely settled matter. Reasonable scepticism cannot claim that there is no evidence of causation and some other claims frequently being made by the well-financed climate change disinformation campaign, and they amount to an utter distortion of a body of evidence that the world needs to understand to protect itself from huge potential harms.
Threats from climate change include deaths and danger from droughts, floods, heat, storm-related damages, rising oceans, heat impacts on agriculture, loss of animals that are dependent upon for substance purposes, social disputes caused by diminishing resources, sickness from a variety of diseases, the inability to rely upon traditional sources of food, the inability to use property that people depend upon to conduct their life including houses or sleds in cold places, the destruction of water supplies, and the inability to live where has lived to sustain life. The very existence of some small island nations is threatened by climate change.
As long as there is any chance that climate change could create this type of destruction, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that these dangers are not yet fully proven, disinformation about the state of climate change science is extraordinarily morally reprehensible if it leads to non-action in reducing climate change's threat. In fact, how to deal with uncertainty in climate change science is an ethical issue, not only a scientific matter, because the consequences of delay could be so severe and the poorest people in the world as some of the most vulnerable.
Brown's argument is focused on those who deliberately or recklessly spread climate change disinformation. That is distinct from those who are merely skeptics and have some genuine basis for challenging the scientific consensus.
This is a difficult question to answer but I'll bet in 20-years the answer will be at our fingertips.
If you're in a crowded, dark theatre and suddenly yell "fire" causing a stampede for the exits in which people are trampled to death, you're criminally responsible for killing them. The stampede and the deaths are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your act. You don't have to actually intend to kill those people but it was foreseeable that it could well happen. You are deemed to intend the logical and foreseeable consequences of your act.
So what of those who deliberately sow falsehoods about global warming? We know global warming is going to kill people, it already is. We know if it's not effectively dealt with it could cause scores of millions to die. That is reasonably foreseeable.
Donald Brown, an associate professor in environmental ethics, science and law at Penn State University argues that climate change disinformation deserves to be punished:
Although there is an important role for scepticism in science, for almost 30 years some corporations have supported a disinformation campaign about climate change science.
While it may be reasonable to be somewhat sceptical about climate change models, these untruths are not based upon reasonable scepticism but outright falsification and distortions of climate change science.
These claims have included assertions that the science of climate change has been completely "debunked" and that there is no evidence of human causation of recent observed warming. There are numerous lines of evidence that point to human causation even if it is not a completely settled matter. Reasonable scepticism cannot claim that there is no evidence of causation and some other claims frequently being made by the well-financed climate change disinformation campaign, and they amount to an utter distortion of a body of evidence that the world needs to understand to protect itself from huge potential harms.
Threats from climate change include deaths and danger from droughts, floods, heat, storm-related damages, rising oceans, heat impacts on agriculture, loss of animals that are dependent upon for substance purposes, social disputes caused by diminishing resources, sickness from a variety of diseases, the inability to rely upon traditional sources of food, the inability to use property that people depend upon to conduct their life including houses or sleds in cold places, the destruction of water supplies, and the inability to live where has lived to sustain life. The very existence of some small island nations is threatened by climate change.
As long as there is any chance that climate change could create this type of destruction, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that these dangers are not yet fully proven, disinformation about the state of climate change science is extraordinarily morally reprehensible if it leads to non-action in reducing climate change's threat. In fact, how to deal with uncertainty in climate change science is an ethical issue, not only a scientific matter, because the consequences of delay could be so severe and the poorest people in the world as some of the most vulnerable.
Brown's argument is focused on those who deliberately or recklessly spread climate change disinformation. That is distinct from those who are merely skeptics and have some genuine basis for challenging the scientific consensus.
This is a difficult question to answer but I'll bet in 20-years the answer will be at our fingertips.
India, Land of Destabilizing Extremes
India is a land of extremes. It has an extremely high percentage of its extremely large population living in extreme poverty. It also has an extremely small percentage of extremely wealthy living in extreme luxury.
First and foremost of India's elite is Mukesh Ambani, India's wealthiest man, who has just moved into a new home along with his mother, wife and their three children. The 'home', pegged at a cost between $1-2 billion, comprises 27-overheight stories that bring it to the size of a 60-story tower. The house, called "Antilla," comes complete with 600-servants. At 37,000 square meters, it's larger than Versailles. Asia Times reports that Ambani's new digs are raising a few eyebrows:
Ambani's castle in the sky has generated heated debate in India and outside. While some have gushed about its "post-modern" look or praised it as an iconic home that will inspire others to aspire for more, others have dismissed it as "obscenely lavish" and a "visual eyesore." Indeed, from the outside it does look like a tall pile of books of varying sizes.
More damning are the ethical questions being raised. How can Ambani live in a billion dollar home when the vast majority of people in this country live in conditions of abject poverty? Around 37,000 square meters of floor space for a family of six, in a country where it is normal for a family of that size to live in a single room and share a single toilet with hundreds of others in the neighborhood, seems not just excessive but obscene.
It's hard to see how India will negotiate its economic ascendancy without seismic social upheaval. In a nation almost entirely in the "definitely have-not" category it won't be hard for some firebrand to mobilize the public against the ostentatious wealth of the very few. People like Ambani with his genuinely stupid house are practically begging to be scapegoated. In a land of such extremes, Antilla is a profoundly extreme provocation.
Harper Cons Counting on Repugs to Dodge Carbon Emissions Initiatives
Canada's laughing stock environment minister, Jumpin Jim Prentice, figures a Republican victory in today's mid-term elections will put a North American cap-and-trade plan safely on the back burner.
Baghdad, Mexico
In October, the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez logged 352 murders. Those numbers are reminiscent of the bad old days of Baghdad in 2006 to 2007. Baghdad has a population of roughly 7.4-million. Juarez, Mexico's fifth largest city, has approximately 2-million residents.
14-young people, age 13 to 30, were gunned down at a birthday party. Overall, 48 of the dead were women - housewives, police officers, students, young girls. The year to date has claimed 272 female victims.
While October sets a record for Juarez, it's a record that's been steadily climbing all year. Juarez is situated just across the border from El Paso, Texas astride one of the major drug-smuggling routes into the U.S.
How is it we're quite content to spend a decade banging away at Afghans on the other side of the world but we can't make the same effort for a neighbouring country beset by drug cartel violence?
14-young people, age 13 to 30, were gunned down at a birthday party. Overall, 48 of the dead were women - housewives, police officers, students, young girls. The year to date has claimed 272 female victims.
While October sets a record for Juarez, it's a record that's been steadily climbing all year. Juarez is situated just across the border from El Paso, Texas astride one of the major drug-smuggling routes into the U.S.
How is it we're quite content to spend a decade banging away at Afghans on the other side of the world but we can't make the same effort for a neighbouring country beset by drug cartel violence?
When Afghans Give Up Hope
She's been called the "bravest woman in Afghanistan" and now Malalai Joya is calling pretty much everything we've done in and to Afghanistan in the name of democracy an utter failure. From The Guardian:
The vast majority of Afghans have lost all hope in Karzai. For us his words and actions have no value, and that includes his latest "peace negotiations" and other measures. Including killers like Mullah Omar and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the government is not about negotiating for peace, but completing the decades-old circle of warlordism and fundamentalism.
It's important to say that these so-called elections haven't damaged Afghanistan as much as the US and its Nato allies have, with their bombing and occupation. Wikileaks has exposed some of the truth about the civilian toll of this war against the Afghan and Iraqi peoples. Afghans hold the US and Nato, and their puppet Karzai, responsible for these war crimes. They claim to fight terrorism, but in fact they are the biggest terrorists in the eyes of our people because of their crimes and brutalities.
Unfortunately the Afghan people are not yet strong enough to drive out the US, overthrow the mafia government of Karzai and bring an end to the crimes of the Taliban and other fundamentalists. Our history proves that this resistance to occupation will continue until we have won our freedom. Until both the US and the fundamentalists – of both the Northern Alliance and Taliban brands – are driven out of power in Afghanistan, we cannot see a bright future. It is now more than five years since I was elected to the Afghan parliament. My experience of this "democratic process" was to see my microphone cut off, and to be threatened with death by other MPs – many of whom teamed up to remove me illegally from my seat. My case alone is enough to prove that women's rights in Afghanistan have not truly been safeguarded – our situation was just invoked to justify the war.
The vast majority of Afghans have lost all hope in Karzai. For us his words and actions have no value, and that includes his latest "peace negotiations" and other measures. Including killers like Mullah Omar and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the government is not about negotiating for peace, but completing the decades-old circle of warlordism and fundamentalism.
It's important to say that these so-called elections haven't damaged Afghanistan as much as the US and its Nato allies have, with their bombing and occupation. Wikileaks has exposed some of the truth about the civilian toll of this war against the Afghan and Iraqi peoples. Afghans hold the US and Nato, and their puppet Karzai, responsible for these war crimes. They claim to fight terrorism, but in fact they are the biggest terrorists in the eyes of our people because of their crimes and brutalities.
Unfortunately the Afghan people are not yet strong enough to drive out the US, overthrow the mafia government of Karzai and bring an end to the crimes of the Taliban and other fundamentalists. Our history proves that this resistance to occupation will continue until we have won our freedom. Until both the US and the fundamentalists – of both the Northern Alliance and Taliban brands – are driven out of power in Afghanistan, we cannot see a bright future. It is now more than five years since I was elected to the Afghan parliament. My experience of this "democratic process" was to see my microphone cut off, and to be threatened with death by other MPs – many of whom teamed up to remove me illegally from my seat. My case alone is enough to prove that women's rights in Afghanistan have not truly been safeguarded – our situation was just invoked to justify the war.
What Teddy Roosevelt Would Say to American Voters Today
Americans entering polling booths today navigate through a nation beset by radical, rightwing manipulations and contrivances. There is a great delusion in that country afflicting public perception and blurring the public's memory. Many people find wisdom in utter nutjobs like Rand Paul or Sarah Palin and embrace the diet of lies they're spoonfed by the minions of special interest like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
It's lamentable that American voters don't becalm their anxieties by looking to the wisdom of their great leaders from the past. Exactly a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt delivered his "Square Deal" speech at Osawatomie, Kansas. It was a blockbuster for progressivism and it speaks quite powerfully to the plight of today's America - if only the people could hear it. What follows are some excerpts from Roosevelt's address:
"...this great Republic - means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, the triumph of popular government, and, in the long run, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.
...the man to whom we owe most is, of course, Lincoln. Part of our debt to him is because he forecast our present struggle and saw the way out. He said:
"I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind."
And again:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln's. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the working man hear his side.
"Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.... Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; . . . property is desirable; is a positive good in the world."
In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.
At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth.
...our government, national and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics.
every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protections to property, and we must make that promise good But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.
...The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being.
There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains.
...The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows.
...No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered - not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective - a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.
The people of the United States suffer from periodical financial panics to a degree substantially unknown among the other nations which approach us in financial strength. There is no reason why we should suffer what they escape. It is of profound importance that our financial system should be promptly investigated, and so thoroughly and effectively revised as to make it certain that hereafter our currency will no longer fail at critical times to meet our needs.
...Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us. I ask nothing of the nation except that it so behave as each farmer here behaves with reference to his own children. That farmer is a poor creature who skins the land and leaves it worthless to his children. The farmer is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself and to provide for the education of his children leaves it to them a little better than he found it himself. I believe the same thing of a nation.
...Now, with the water-power, with the forests, with the mines, we are brought face to face with the fact that there are many people who will go with us in conserving the resources only if they are to be allowed to exploit them for their benefit. That is one of the fundamental reasons why the special interest should be driven out of politics. Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us, and training them into a better race to inhabit the land and pass it on. Conservation is a great moral issue for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.
...Nothing is more true than that excess of every kind is followed by reaction; a fact which should be pondered by reformer and reactionary alike. We are face to face with new conceptions of the relations of property to human welfare, chiefly because certain advocates of the rights of property as against the rights of men have been pushing their claims too far. The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.
...Those who oppose all reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism.
What Is Really At Stake Today
The face of America, both at home and abroad, will be decided today and everyone is going to have to live with the outcome for at least the next two years. The Republicans have made it clear they're not running to reinforce their position as official opposition but to get enough control in Congress to become the obstinate obstruction. Today's editorial from The New York Times reveals that rational Americans are very worried:
There are critically important decisions to be made about whether the country moves ahead with confidence or moves backward and becomes even more polarized.
Voting in Republican primaries and special elections showed what happens when moderate Americans stay home or react to the barrages of fear and intolerance. We end up with fringe candidates like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada. Establishment candidates then spout the same disturbing ideas. (Witness Representative John Boehner, the House minority leader, trying to act like an outsider after 18 years in the Washington power elite.)
Democrats have been far too timid to argue the case, but they, and President Obama, have done many important things in the last two years.
The Republicans have been rewriting history. They claim Mr. Obama’s economic policies are a failure and hope Americans will forget that it was President George W. Bush who turned big budget surpluses into huge deficits and whose contempt for regulation ultimately brought us to the brink of financial collapse. The Republicans want to go back to more tax cuts for the rich and more free passes for Wall Street and big corporations.
Tea Party candidates are particularly worrisome. Some want to privatize Social Security. Others want to eliminate Medicare. Betting on the Republican establishment to temper these excesses is a bad bet.
...We urge all Americans to think carefully and then vote, especially young voters who voted for the first time in 2008. Sitting on their hands is voting for Republicans, none of whom will protect these voters’ interests. There are clear choices to be made.
The editorial speaks for itself and for just how much is at stake today as Americans head to the polls. The United States does seem very much poised to move backward and become even more polarized, and we may all pay dearly for that.
There are critically important decisions to be made about whether the country moves ahead with confidence or moves backward and becomes even more polarized.
Voting in Republican primaries and special elections showed what happens when moderate Americans stay home or react to the barrages of fear and intolerance. We end up with fringe candidates like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada. Establishment candidates then spout the same disturbing ideas. (Witness Representative John Boehner, the House minority leader, trying to act like an outsider after 18 years in the Washington power elite.)
Democrats have been far too timid to argue the case, but they, and President Obama, have done many important things in the last two years.
The Republicans have been rewriting history. They claim Mr. Obama’s economic policies are a failure and hope Americans will forget that it was President George W. Bush who turned big budget surpluses into huge deficits and whose contempt for regulation ultimately brought us to the brink of financial collapse. The Republicans want to go back to more tax cuts for the rich and more free passes for Wall Street and big corporations.
Tea Party candidates are particularly worrisome. Some want to privatize Social Security. Others want to eliminate Medicare. Betting on the Republican establishment to temper these excesses is a bad bet.
...We urge all Americans to think carefully and then vote, especially young voters who voted for the first time in 2008. Sitting on their hands is voting for Republicans, none of whom will protect these voters’ interests. There are clear choices to be made.
The editorial speaks for itself and for just how much is at stake today as Americans head to the polls. The United States does seem very much poised to move backward and become even more polarized, and we may all pay dearly for that.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Republicans' Best Chance to Beat Obama? Destroy Palin.
It sounds as though Wednesday morning, Republican 2012 nomination candidates will be waging war - on Sarah Palin. According to Politico, Republican insiders worry that Palin could actually drum up enough support to win the Republican nomination and that would all but guarantee Barack Obama a second term in the White House.
Do Americans Deserve the Republicans?
It all sounds so insane. A country awash in debt extending tax cuts for the rich, cuts that have to be made up with even more money borrowed from foreign lenders. A country whose people's longevity and health are third rate wanting to scrap universal healthcare. A country where the white and blue collar classes are reeling from a market gone mad from deregulation now fiercely opposed to regulation. A country whose people believe that "socialism" means totalitarianism and state ownership of all property. A nation whose people believe, as pointed out by Andrew Bacevich, that liberty means affluence.
If it must be, then let it be. What can possibly be done with a people driven mad through the deliberate infliction of fear, frustration and anger? Better yet, what can possibly be done for them? Either way the answer is not very much. If they want to transform America into a Thelma & Louise act, the rest of us just have to make sure we don't jump into the back seat. If they want the Republican vision of America, the delusion, then they're going to deserve what they've got coming.
What about us? There are going to be problems. Our economy is slaved to theirs and, when they reach for that handle, we all get flushed.
Krugman predicts a Republican win will trigger at least a "double dip recession," perhaps even a full blown depression. It is widely assumed that America is charting a path to stagflation and a Japanese-style "lost decade." Except it won't be "Japanese-style" at all. Japan endured a decade of flat economic growth and deflation but - and it's a very big but - Japan was and remained a creditor nation. Japan still holds almost as much American debt as does China. America faces tumbling into its own lost decade still heavily reliant on foreign credit.
An unstable, even insolvent America presents foreign lenders with a bouquet of problems. It's one thing to lend a guy money but if you begin to suspect he's planning on paying you back just 60-cents on the dollar, the value of his business plummets. Japan and China each hold more than a trillion dollars of U.S. debt. One thing that's made that bearable for the United States is that this debt is in U.S. dollars. Today, not only is America heavily in hock to the Chinese but it is demanding the Chinese revalue their currency, the Yuan, the effect of which is to devalue the American debt China holds.
So if you're getting the shake down from the guy who still wants you to keep lending you're going to be very tempted to look for a more stable medium of exchange than the U.S. dollar. You might write new debt for another, more stable currency or basket of currencies. Dropping the greenback as the world's 'reserve currency' would be devastating for the United States. The confidence in the U.S. dollar would be undermined and the Americans would face the prospect of having to repay debt in other nations' currencies that might be very disadvantageous.
If America wasn't so heavily indebted and utterly dependent on foreign lenders, a devalued greenback might be a blessing. It would certainly make imports more expensive while making American exports more competitive. But America is heavily indebted and is dependent on foreign borrowings and there's no sign that the American people are willing to bear what changing that would mean. They truly believe they have the right to live beyond their means - in perpetuity. And once you're able to believe that, you're perfectly able to swallow everything else the Republicans are dishing up.
And so that big, blue Thunderbird convertible just keeps racing for the cliff.
Our Oh So Addicted Governments
Who is addicted to alcohol? Lots of people but, also, most governments. There is a lot of tax revenue in alcohol sales and governments have become addicted to that cashflow. That's why the sale of booze is legal.
Sure it's a drug but it isn't dangerous like marijuana or cocaine or ecstasy, is it? Well, according to a new study from British scientists, when it comes to alcohol, there really is no more harmful, destructive drug. From Reuters:
...the scientists rated alcohol the most harmful overall and almost three times as harmful as cocaine or tobacco.
According to the scale, devised by a group of scientists including Britain's Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD) and an expert adviser to the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), heroin and crack cocaine rank as the second and third most harmful drugs.
Ecstasy is only an eighth as harmful as alcohol, according to the scientists' analysis.
..."It is intriguing to note that the two legal drugs assessed -- alcohol and tobacco -- score in the upper segment of the ranking scale, indicating that legal drugs cause at least as much harm as do illegal substances," [Professor David] Nutt, who was formerly head of the influential British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), said in a statement about the study.
In an effort to offer a guide to policy makers in health, policing, and social care, Nutt's team rated drugs using a technique called multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) which assessed damage according to nine criteria on harm to the user and seven criteria on harm to others.
Harms to the user included things such as drug-specific or drug-related death, damage to health, drug dependence and loss of relationships, while harms to others included crime, environmental damage, family conflict, international damage, economic cost, and damage to community cohesion.
Drugs were then scored out of 100, with 100 given to the most harmful drug and zero indicating no harm at all.
The scientists found alcohol was most harmful, with a score of 72, followed by heroin with 55 and crack with 54.
Among some of the other drugs assessed were crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine or speed (23), cannabis (20), benzodiazepines, such as Valium (15), ketamine (15), methadone (14), mephedrone (13), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7) and magic mushrooms (5).
Sure it's a drug but it isn't dangerous like marijuana or cocaine or ecstasy, is it? Well, according to a new study from British scientists, when it comes to alcohol, there really is no more harmful, destructive drug. From Reuters:
...the scientists rated alcohol the most harmful overall and almost three times as harmful as cocaine or tobacco.
According to the scale, devised by a group of scientists including Britain's Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD) and an expert adviser to the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), heroin and crack cocaine rank as the second and third most harmful drugs.
Ecstasy is only an eighth as harmful as alcohol, according to the scientists' analysis.
..."It is intriguing to note that the two legal drugs assessed -- alcohol and tobacco -- score in the upper segment of the ranking scale, indicating that legal drugs cause at least as much harm as do illegal substances," [Professor David] Nutt, who was formerly head of the influential British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), said in a statement about the study.
In an effort to offer a guide to policy makers in health, policing, and social care, Nutt's team rated drugs using a technique called multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) which assessed damage according to nine criteria on harm to the user and seven criteria on harm to others.
Harms to the user included things such as drug-specific or drug-related death, damage to health, drug dependence and loss of relationships, while harms to others included crime, environmental damage, family conflict, international damage, economic cost, and damage to community cohesion.
Drugs were then scored out of 100, with 100 given to the most harmful drug and zero indicating no harm at all.
The scientists found alcohol was most harmful, with a score of 72, followed by heroin with 55 and crack with 54.
Among some of the other drugs assessed were crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine or speed (23), cannabis (20), benzodiazepines, such as Valium (15), ketamine (15), methadone (14), mephedrone (13), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7) and magic mushrooms (5).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)