Forget everything you thought you knew about Barack Obama. When it comes to child soldiers he's as bent as a pretzel.
Today Obama signed a waiver allowing four countries that use child soldiers to continue receiving U.S. military aid. These are real hellholes - Chad, Sudan, Yemen and the D.R. Congo. From The Washington Post:
Human rights groups reacted with surprise and concern, saying the decision would send the wrong message.
"What the president has done is basically given everybody a pass for using child soldiers," said Jo Becker, children's rights director at Human Rights Watch.
Administration officials said cutting off aid would cause more damage than good in countries where the U.S. military is trying to fight terrorism and reform abusive armies.
Senior U.S. officials said Wednesday that Yemen was exempted because ending military aid would jeopardize the country's ability to fight al-Qaeda. In Sudan, U.S. military assistance will be critical in helping the unstable southern part of the country build military institutions if it votes to secede in a January referendum, as expected, officials said.
Congo was exempted because U.S.-funded programs there are aimed at helping the military become more professional and less abusive, officials said. Chad got a pass because of its role in fighting terrorism and assistance with the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan.
So it's not whether you use child soldiers but what you're using them for that's the litmus test in Washington.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
A Tale of Two Sphincters
The taller and balder of the two sphincters pictured above is Tim Profitt who made a name for himself recently for stomping on the head of a woman who showed up at a
At the time it was thought Profitt was simply just another unhinged
Profitt has released a statement acknowledging that he indeed pressed his foot on 23-year old Lauren Valle's head.
But Wait, There's More! Check out this news clip in which Profitt says Valle owes him an apology. This is the mentality that is alive in the ranks of the Tea Party.
Is Denying Protection to a Child Soldier a War Crime?
If it isn't, it should be.
The United States is a signatory to the Child Soldier protocol. The United States therefore acknowledges that child soldiers can and are made to believe and do just about anything their adult mentors wish. The United States therefore accepts that child combatants are to be treated as victims and, as such, agrees to furnish child soldiers with protection and rehabilitation.
So why, with Omar Khadr, did the United States turn its back on everything it acknowledged and undertook to do in signing the Child Soldier protocol?
Omar Khadr was not treated as a victim but as a war criminal. Khadr was not protected and rehabilitated as the United States was obliged to do. To the contrary, Khadr was housed within a community of radical Islamists where, by the prosecution's own witness, he was even further steeped in their beliefs. In effect, the United States did just about everything conceivable to ensure that Khadr is today more radical and more dangerous than ever.
And now they blame Khadr for supposedly becoming everything that was entirely foreseeable from their own indifference and neglect.
Denying a prisoner food or water is a war crime. Why should denying a child soldier protection and rehabilitation be any less a war crime?
The United States is a signatory to the Child Soldier protocol. The United States therefore acknowledges that child soldiers can and are made to believe and do just about anything their adult mentors wish. The United States therefore accepts that child combatants are to be treated as victims and, as such, agrees to furnish child soldiers with protection and rehabilitation.
So why, with Omar Khadr, did the United States turn its back on everything it acknowledged and undertook to do in signing the Child Soldier protocol?
Omar Khadr was not treated as a victim but as a war criminal. Khadr was not protected and rehabilitated as the United States was obliged to do. To the contrary, Khadr was housed within a community of radical Islamists where, by the prosecution's own witness, he was even further steeped in their beliefs. In effect, the United States did just about everything conceivable to ensure that Khadr is today more radical and more dangerous than ever.
And now they blame Khadr for supposedly becoming everything that was entirely foreseeable from their own indifference and neglect.
Denying a prisoner food or water is a war crime. Why should denying a child soldier protection and rehabilitation be any less a war crime?
Maybe That's Why Harper Likes Prisons But Not the Census
Furious Leader Steve has got a gut feeling that crime is raging out of control. Maybe that's because in his neck of the woods, Conservative Country, are the most murder plagued cities in Canada. Winnipeg is the worst. Edmonton is third with Calgary running a close fourth. Vancouver comes in second overall largely because of the interminable ethnic gang drug wars.
Now when you've got all those murders happening in your own backyard, who wants a detailed census to highlight the fact?
Of course gun murders are well down again. Damn, that really doesn't help Steve's prison fetish.
Now when you've got all those murders happening in your own backyard, who wants a detailed census to highlight the fact?
Of course gun murders are well down again. Damn, that really doesn't help Steve's prison fetish.
Campaign Against Taliban Not Working
The only surprise is who in his right mind thought it would? In case you haven't heard, there's a big operation underway in Afghanistan to batter the Taliban, hoping that will nudge them into a peace deal with Karzai. And this time it's the brainchild of David Petraeus, America's counterinsurgency guru himself.
David Petraeus may be at the wheel but it's the same old, clapped out car we've been driving about for the past nine years. Even General David can't make this car run right.
This whole offensive is a military campaign against an enemy that has steadfastly refused to fight a military war. What do they do when the tanks and attack helicopters come after them? Easy, they bugger off. They go and find a place to lay low so that they can come back at a time and place of their choosing. From the Washington Post:
"Escalated airstrikes and special operations raids have disrupted Taliban movements and damaged local cells. But officials said that insurgents have been adept at absorbing the blows and that they appear confident that they can outlast an American troop buildup set to subside beginning next July.
"The insurgency seems to be maintaining its resilience," said a senior Defense Department official involved in assessments of the war. Taliban elements have consistently shown an ability to "reestablish and rejuvenate," often within days of routed by U.S. forces, the official said, adding that if there is a sign that momentum has shifted, "I don't see it."
The Talibs are the grand masters at this game. They know one of their big advantages is one that doesn't cost money or lives. It's time. Time is on their side, not ours. We're the foreigners, they're the home team.
Time for us is a huge vulnerability, especially those years we've squandered that never were ours to waste. In this sort of war, time is a sponge that soaks up both our treasure and our soldiers' lives. Worse, on the ground time is a deal-changer. As Petraeus said long before he went to Iraq, our side has a limited shelf life before we go from liberator/defender to occupier/oppressor in the locals' minds. You've got to get in, make things happen, and get out. We haven't done any of that. We had our chance and we blew it. End of story.
We've been outplayed and it's about time to swallow that bitter pill. We didn't fight their war, the only one that mattered, we fought ours. We're still fighting our war and we're not putting a dent in the bad guys. After nine years we might as well accept that our war doesn't work in places like Afghanistan. For nine years we've been trying the same thing over and over, each time expecting a different result. What do they call that, insanity?
David Petraeus may be at the wheel but it's the same old, clapped out car we've been driving about for the past nine years. Even General David can't make this car run right.
This whole offensive is a military campaign against an enemy that has steadfastly refused to fight a military war. What do they do when the tanks and attack helicopters come after them? Easy, they bugger off. They go and find a place to lay low so that they can come back at a time and place of their choosing. From the Washington Post:
"Escalated airstrikes and special operations raids have disrupted Taliban movements and damaged local cells. But officials said that insurgents have been adept at absorbing the blows and that they appear confident that they can outlast an American troop buildup set to subside beginning next July.
"The insurgency seems to be maintaining its resilience," said a senior Defense Department official involved in assessments of the war. Taliban elements have consistently shown an ability to "reestablish and rejuvenate," often within days of routed by U.S. forces, the official said, adding that if there is a sign that momentum has shifted, "I don't see it."
The Talibs are the grand masters at this game. They know one of their big advantages is one that doesn't cost money or lives. It's time. Time is on their side, not ours. We're the foreigners, they're the home team.
Time for us is a huge vulnerability, especially those years we've squandered that never were ours to waste. In this sort of war, time is a sponge that soaks up both our treasure and our soldiers' lives. Worse, on the ground time is a deal-changer. As Petraeus said long before he went to Iraq, our side has a limited shelf life before we go from liberator/defender to occupier/oppressor in the locals' minds. You've got to get in, make things happen, and get out. We haven't done any of that. We had our chance and we blew it. End of story.
We've been outplayed and it's about time to swallow that bitter pill. We didn't fight their war, the only one that mattered, we fought ours. We're still fighting our war and we're not putting a dent in the bad guys. After nine years we might as well accept that our war doesn't work in places like Afghanistan. For nine years we've been trying the same thing over and over, each time expecting a different result. What do they call that, insanity?
Khadr's Kangaroo Kourt
This reminds me of those old films that recorded an anti-Nazi being harangued by a German judge before being summarily condemned.
The prosecution in the Khadr case has called a forensic psychiatrist to give evidence that both indicts America for the conditions at Guantanamo and seeks to punish Khadr for them. This is insane.
The psychiatrist says Khadr is enormously dangerous because, during his years as an American captive at Guantanamo, he was steeped in Islamic radicalism. In other words, the Americans put this child soldier in a place where he could be freely indoctrinated in radicalism - in their very own super prison under their very own control.
Isn't the Child Soldier protocol specifically intended to recognize that kids can be indoctrinated by adults to do or believe almost anything? Isn't the Child Soldier protocol intended to therefore see child combatants as victims in need of protection and rehabilitation when they're captured? Doesn't just about everything the Americans did with and to Khadr while he was their captive just fly in the face of the Child Soldier protocol which the U.S. has itself signed?
Instead of meeting its obligations to give Khadr protection and rehabilitation, the United States left him to stew in a cauldron of Islamic radicalism called Guantanamo, a cauldron of their own making, and then seek to blame him for the very conditions they imposed on him.
Only in a total kangaroo court would that sort of argument be received. It's the sort of thing that erases any doubt about the fairness and integrity of the military tribunal that will pass judgment on Omar Khadr.
The prosecution in the Khadr case has called a forensic psychiatrist to give evidence that both indicts America for the conditions at Guantanamo and seeks to punish Khadr for them. This is insane.
The psychiatrist says Khadr is enormously dangerous because, during his years as an American captive at Guantanamo, he was steeped in Islamic radicalism. In other words, the Americans put this child soldier in a place where he could be freely indoctrinated in radicalism - in their very own super prison under their very own control.
Isn't the Child Soldier protocol specifically intended to recognize that kids can be indoctrinated by adults to do or believe almost anything? Isn't the Child Soldier protocol intended to therefore see child combatants as victims in need of protection and rehabilitation when they're captured? Doesn't just about everything the Americans did with and to Khadr while he was their captive just fly in the face of the Child Soldier protocol which the U.S. has itself signed?
Instead of meeting its obligations to give Khadr protection and rehabilitation, the United States left him to stew in a cauldron of Islamic radicalism called Guantanamo, a cauldron of their own making, and then seek to blame him for the very conditions they imposed on him.
Only in a total kangaroo court would that sort of argument be received. It's the sort of thing that erases any doubt about the fairness and integrity of the military tribunal that will pass judgment on Omar Khadr.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Isn't That Exactly Why We're Supposed to Treat Them as "Child Soldiers"?
The prosecution in Omar Khadr's farcical trial has called evidence that stands as a scathing indictment of Guantanamo and America's hypocritical rejection of Khadr's child soldier status. The giveaway is in the evidence of a forensic psychiatrist who painted Khadr as
an unrepentant, dangerous, Islamic extremist who has been “marinated in the radical jihadism” at Guantanamo.
Marinated in Radical Jihadism at Guantanamo?
That captures the whole essence of the child soldier protocol that even the United States embraced until it chose to turn rank hypocrite. We know that child soldiers are susceptible to being 'marinated' in radical causes and that's why decent societies have agreed to treat them as victims, not perpetrators.
Worse still, the American forensic psychiatrist's evidence is that Khadr continued to be marinated in radical jihadism while in American captivity. If the Americans couldn't protect their own young captive from radical jihadism in a place like Guantanamo, what do they think he was subjected to in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Shouldn't some American honcho be charged with failing to protect Khadr while an inmate in America's toughest prison? Just who allowed him to be 'marinated' while he was imprisoned in Cuba?
Bad as Khadr may have been, even may still be, this is a case in which the Americans have utterly lost any moral high ground. To argue that Khadr should be further punished because the Americans allowed him to be 'radicalized' while in their hands is more than laughable, it's pathetic.
an unrepentant, dangerous, Islamic extremist who has been “marinated in the radical jihadism” at Guantanamo.
Marinated in Radical Jihadism at Guantanamo?
That captures the whole essence of the child soldier protocol that even the United States embraced until it chose to turn rank hypocrite. We know that child soldiers are susceptible to being 'marinated' in radical causes and that's why decent societies have agreed to treat them as victims, not perpetrators.
Worse still, the American forensic psychiatrist's evidence is that Khadr continued to be marinated in radical jihadism while in American captivity. If the Americans couldn't protect their own young captive from radical jihadism in a place like Guantanamo, what do they think he was subjected to in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Shouldn't some American honcho be charged with failing to protect Khadr while an inmate in America's toughest prison? Just who allowed him to be 'marinated' while he was imprisoned in Cuba?
Bad as Khadr may have been, even may still be, this is a case in which the Americans have utterly lost any moral high ground. To argue that Khadr should be further punished because the Americans allowed him to be 'radicalized' while in their hands is more than laughable, it's pathetic.
I Thought Canada Had a Defence Minister
What is Peter Mackay doing these days? I had thought he was Canada's Defence Minister, you know the politician in charge of running the Canadian Forces, keeping tabs on everything. Everything, like the purchase of Chinook helicopters, for example. Pete's supposed to keep an eye on that sort of thing, make sure the deal is coming in on budget, on time. Except, according to Auditor General Sheila Fraser, Petey has been asleep at the wheel.
That $2-billion Chinook contract? It's coming in at just under $5-billion. Seems the CF brass said they were going to buy "off the shelf" but then pulled a fast one and ordered modifications that jacked up the price and delayed delivery. Heads should roll, but whose heads? Maybe the Chief of Defence Staff - oh but he's safely retired a long time ago. Whoever came up with the "off the shelf" assurance - he should be out. And what about Harper's Defence Minister, the prime screw up, Peter Mackay? Surely he should be out, gone, shuffled off to Buffalo.
And while we're at it, maybe it's time to take another hard look at that F-35 contract.
That $2-billion Chinook contract? It's coming in at just under $5-billion. Seems the CF brass said they were going to buy "off the shelf" but then pulled a fast one and ordered modifications that jacked up the price and delayed delivery. Heads should roll, but whose heads? Maybe the Chief of Defence Staff - oh but he's safely retired a long time ago. Whoever came up with the "off the shelf" assurance - he should be out. And what about Harper's Defence Minister, the prime screw up, Peter Mackay? Surely he should be out, gone, shuffled off to Buffalo.
And while we're at it, maybe it's time to take another hard look at that F-35 contract.
Monsanto Succumbs to Evolution
Oh this is priceless. The Dr. Frankenstein of genetically modified crops, Monsanto, has been humiliated by Mother Nature.
Years ago Monsanto introduced "Roundup Ready" crops - soya beans, corn and cotton. These were crops genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup. The idea was farmers would plant Monsanto genetically modified crops, spray their fields with Roundup to kill off everything else, and - voila - big harvests of Roundup Ready produce.
Except that Mother Nature had other plans. Let's just call it Evolution. For a while Roundup worked as advertised but then the awful weeds evolved and developed their own Roundup immunity. Oopsie!
As if that wasn't bad enough for Monsanto, it's claims that Roundup is an environmentally friendly herbicide are being challenged. Read more here at Grist.org.
Years ago Monsanto introduced "Roundup Ready" crops - soya beans, corn and cotton. These were crops genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup. The idea was farmers would plant Monsanto genetically modified crops, spray their fields with Roundup to kill off everything else, and - voila - big harvests of Roundup Ready produce.
Except that Mother Nature had other plans. Let's just call it Evolution. For a while Roundup worked as advertised but then the awful weeds evolved and developed their own Roundup immunity. Oopsie!
As if that wasn't bad enough for Monsanto, it's claims that Roundup is an environmentally friendly herbicide are being challenged. Read more here at Grist.org.
Drought Hits Amazon Basin
The mighty Amazon basin is being hammered by drought. The north and western regions of Amazonia are experiencing the worst drought conditions in decades. The Rio Negro has hit its lowest levels since records began being kept a century ago.
The Amazon and its tributaries are vital highways for the native people of the region. The waterways are essential for both transport and food. Now thousands are marooned, their small boats grounded.
According to The Guardian, nearly half of the Amazon's 62 municipalities have declared states of emergency.
Will 2010 Be America's Most Corrupt Election Ever?
This is definitely the "money talks" election in the United States. There's much at stake in this election for Big Business and the billionaire rentiers who sit atop the American heap and they're throwing big bucks at it to ensure it goes their way, the far Right way.
Democracy in America was immeasurably corrupted by the now radical Right U.S. Supreme Court of Chief Justice Roberts. That much was plain from the utterly perverse Citizens United case that equated money with speech and extended the right of free speech to corporations whether American or even foreign. The case gave a green light to corporations to throw money into skewing American elections - and governments - to their liking. And boy are they going to town. Corporatism has descended like a blanket on America and, as Mussolini made plane, fascism is corporatism.
The quiet dismantling of American representative democracy is both alarming and fascinating. Here are some articles detailing what is actually transpiring today in the United States:
"Bailed-Out Companies Spending Big Money to Elect Politicians They Favor,"
"12 of America's Most Crooked Candidates on the Ballot in the 2010 Election."
"Corporate Hijacking of Our Elections is Well Under Way, With Foreign Companies Chipping In to Destroy Our Democracy."
Just as corporatism is racing through the back door to subvert American representative democracy and supplant it with corporatist oligarchy, so too are America's top billionaires flexing their muscle to fuel groups of idiots, like the Tea Party movement, to unwittingly do their bidding. The Guardian's George Monbiot chronicles the false consciousness of the Tea Party and how its members have succumbed to outright delusions foisted on them by the likes of Charles and David Koch who run what they like to call "the biggest company you've never heard of."
This is indeed a dark day for American democracy.
Democracy in America was immeasurably corrupted by the now radical Right U.S. Supreme Court of Chief Justice Roberts. That much was plain from the utterly perverse Citizens United case that equated money with speech and extended the right of free speech to corporations whether American or even foreign. The case gave a green light to corporations to throw money into skewing American elections - and governments - to their liking. And boy are they going to town. Corporatism has descended like a blanket on America and, as Mussolini made plane, fascism is corporatism.
The quiet dismantling of American representative democracy is both alarming and fascinating. Here are some articles detailing what is actually transpiring today in the United States:
"Bailed-Out Companies Spending Big Money to Elect Politicians They Favor,"
"12 of America's Most Crooked Candidates on the Ballot in the 2010 Election."
"Corporate Hijacking of Our Elections is Well Under Way, With Foreign Companies Chipping In to Destroy Our Democracy."
Just as corporatism is racing through the back door to subvert American representative democracy and supplant it with corporatist oligarchy, so too are America's top billionaires flexing their muscle to fuel groups of idiots, like the Tea Party movement, to unwittingly do their bidding. The Guardian's George Monbiot chronicles the false consciousness of the Tea Party and how its members have succumbed to outright delusions foisted on them by the likes of Charles and David Koch who run what they like to call "the biggest company you've never heard of."
This is indeed a dark day for American democracy.
Octo-Paul is Dead
Paul, the octopus that seemingly predicted the outcome of Germany's World Cup final games, is dead.
The cephalopod became a hit in Spain which he predicted would beat Germany for the cup. One Spanish town even made Octo-Paul an honorary citizen.
At the time I wondered about all the hoopla. The octopus, like its relatives, the squid and the cuttlefish, are remarkably short-lived. If they don't get eaten within two years they pretty much just keel over. Paul made it to a remarkable two and a half years before he was discovered, tentacles up, by aquarium staff in Germany.
The cephalopod became a hit in Spain which he predicted would beat Germany for the cup. One Spanish town even made Octo-Paul an honorary citizen.
At the time I wondered about all the hoopla. The octopus, like its relatives, the squid and the cuttlefish, are remarkably short-lived. If they don't get eaten within two years they pretty much just keel over. Paul made it to a remarkable two and a half years before he was discovered, tentacles up, by aquarium staff in Germany.
Wow, We're Right Up There With the Northern European Welfare States
According to Transparency International, Canada is right up there with the northern European welfare states when it comes to corruption. In fact, we're supposedly the 6th least corrupt country in the world. Denmark topped the charts at 9.3 out of a possible 10 points. Finland and Sweden came in at 9.2. Canada scored 8.9. Norway was 8.6 and debt-ridden Iceland trailed at 11th place for 8.5.
Stephen Harper has open contempt for the northern European nations but, by gosh, they're remarkably decent, honest and open.
Steve's American Idol slipped out of the top-20 for the first time since the index was created 15-years ago. The U.S. fell to 22nd with 7.2 points thanks to its financial scandals and the "influence of money in [U.S.] politics" which seems like an awfully nice way to refer to America's bought and paid for Congress.
Meanwhile those countries that Washington has spent most of the past decade invading, conquering and supposedly rebuilding, Iraq and Afghanistan, were right at the bottom. Afghanistan tied with Myanmar for second-last with 1.4 and Iraq placed fourth from last with 1.5.
Particularly worrisome are countries that scored 5 or less. They're the bottom three-quarters of the 178-country rankings. Their ranks aren't getting any smaller either.
Stephen Harper has open contempt for the northern European nations but, by gosh, they're remarkably decent, honest and open.
Steve's American Idol slipped out of the top-20 for the first time since the index was created 15-years ago. The U.S. fell to 22nd with 7.2 points thanks to its financial scandals and the "influence of money in [U.S.] politics" which seems like an awfully nice way to refer to America's bought and paid for Congress.
Meanwhile those countries that Washington has spent most of the past decade invading, conquering and supposedly rebuilding, Iraq and Afghanistan, were right at the bottom. Afghanistan tied with Myanmar for second-last with 1.4 and Iraq placed fourth from last with 1.5.
Particularly worrisome are countries that scored 5 or less. They're the bottom three-quarters of the 178-country rankings. Their ranks aren't getting any smaller either.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Billy Carter Wins Toronto Mayoralty
The Toronto Star has called it. Seems that Smitherman dude lost. That leaves the other guy - you know, Billy Carter - the new mayor of the centre of the universe. Good luck with that folks.
Gordon Campbell Goes for Broke Wednesday Night
There had been some speculation that Campbell might plan to announce his retirement but he shuffled his cabinet this morning, something you wouldn't expect from a premier about to hand over the reins of power.
I suspect that Campbell has weighed up his predicament, figured that this might be the best moment he'll have in the near future and calculated that he really doesn't have anything to lose at this point. He's desperate to get his numbers up. The alternative might be an insurrection in the ranks.
My guess is that minds are pretty well made up already and even a dead cat bounce won't be enough to save Campbell from an in-house skinning. He's never been especially popular personally and today he's positively loathed. Some nose dives you just can't pull out of and this may be Campbell's.
Using America to Thwart Action on Climate Change
Guess who is pouring money into the election coffers of U.S. candidates opposed to climate change initiatives? Major European polluters, that's who.
Climate Action Network Europe has issued a report outing prominent European industrial polluters who've figured out the best way to derail global climate change measures is tobuy help elect a Congress that will block action. If the U.S. won't act, the rest of the world probably won't do anything meaningful either.
polluting European companies are funding climate legislation blockers in US politics. Their overseas support is all the more galling because the same companies argue that additional emissions reductions in Europe cannot be pursued until the United States takes action.
“It’s disturbing that these European polluters fund anti-climate crusaders in the US while simultaneously fighting against strong climate legislation in Europe,” said Tomas Wyns, CAN Europe Senior Policy Officer. “This newly released data proves the anecdotal rumours about European companies that have been circulating for some time.”
Big European emitters BAYER, BASF, Solvay, Lafarge, BP, GDF-SUEZ, Arcelor-Mittal and EON supported senators blocking climate change legislation in the US for a combined total of $240,200. To put it in perspective, in 2009 these seven firms emitted 130 million tones of greenhouse gas pollution, roughly the same as the annual emissions of Belgium. Support from these European companies is going to numerous US candidates who not only block climate legislation, but also actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by humans.
Ever since the radical rightwing U.S. Supreme Court ruled that money, even corporate money, is protected speech, the doors have been flung open to foreign corporate influence peddling - and meddling - in American elections. Well, as Mussolini said, corporatism is fascism. I'll bet he would have loved the Roberts court.
These Eurotrash companies are even helping our homegrown Petro-Pols who will use American inaction as a cover for their own unwillingness to combat climate change.
Climate Action Network Europe has issued a report outing prominent European industrial polluters who've figured out the best way to derail global climate change measures is to
polluting European companies are funding climate legislation blockers in US politics. Their overseas support is all the more galling because the same companies argue that additional emissions reductions in Europe cannot be pursued until the United States takes action.
“It’s disturbing that these European polluters fund anti-climate crusaders in the US while simultaneously fighting against strong climate legislation in Europe,” said Tomas Wyns, CAN Europe Senior Policy Officer. “This newly released data proves the anecdotal rumours about European companies that have been circulating for some time.”
Big European emitters BAYER, BASF, Solvay, Lafarge, BP, GDF-SUEZ, Arcelor-Mittal and EON supported senators blocking climate change legislation in the US for a combined total of $240,200. To put it in perspective, in 2009 these seven firms emitted 130 million tones of greenhouse gas pollution, roughly the same as the annual emissions of Belgium. Support from these European companies is going to numerous US candidates who not only block climate legislation, but also actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by humans.
Ever since the radical rightwing U.S. Supreme Court ruled that money, even corporate money, is protected speech, the doors have been flung open to foreign corporate influence peddling - and meddling - in American elections. Well, as Mussolini said, corporatism is fascism. I'll bet he would have loved the Roberts court.
These Eurotrash companies are even helping our homegrown Petro-Pols who will use American inaction as a cover for their own unwillingness to combat climate change.
Canadians Want Peacekeeping Not War Fighting
It appears the Canadian public's infatuation with warfighting has soured. A Globe & Mail poll by Nanos Research shows that while Canadians still see the military as a genuine priority, it trails health care, jobs, the environment, taxes and education in importance. Health care and education took 1st and 2nd spots respectively.
Though years of lethal combat in Kandahar have changed the face and image of the Canadian Forces, the public that awaits the return of the troops sees a future military modelled on its vision of blue-helmeted peacekeepers of years past. Canadians retain a deep vein of interest in internationalism, but not one that gets soldiers into shooting wars - rating combat missions by troops overseas as the least important of five roles for Canada's military.
...The Nanos poll found 52 per cent of respondents rated UN peacekeeping as an important role for Canada's armed forces - a quarter rated it a 10 on a scale of importance from one to 10. Only 21 per cent of Canadians rated overseas combat missions as an important role for the military.
Overall, said pollster Nik Nanos, Canadians still see their military's job as they have for decades, based on two main pillars: UN peacekeeping, and the kind of North American defence co-operation with the United States long done by institutions such as NORAD. "It's kind of like retro hour for foreign policy," he says.
Those views are likely coloured now by an Afghanistan mission they wouldn't repeat. The poll found 66 per cent of Canadians would oppose or "somewhat oppose" another mission like it. Only 21 per cent said they would support or somewhat support such a mission.
When it comes to Afghanistan, Canada's military and political leadership have only themselves to blame for the public's disenchantment. Harper's John Wayne act was exposed as blatant partisan manipulation. He was so "pro-Afghanistan" until he abruptly turned "anti." And our military leadership repeatedly showed themselves at best mediocre, at worst probably incompetent. Remember when stand up comedian, now safely retired general Rick Hillier bragged about sending 2,500 Canadians to Kandahar to kill "a few dozen ...scumbags"? What a dark and bitter farce.
Though years of lethal combat in Kandahar have changed the face and image of the Canadian Forces, the public that awaits the return of the troops sees a future military modelled on its vision of blue-helmeted peacekeepers of years past. Canadians retain a deep vein of interest in internationalism, but not one that gets soldiers into shooting wars - rating combat missions by troops overseas as the least important of five roles for Canada's military.
...The Nanos poll found 52 per cent of respondents rated UN peacekeeping as an important role for Canada's armed forces - a quarter rated it a 10 on a scale of importance from one to 10. Only 21 per cent of Canadians rated overseas combat missions as an important role for the military.
Overall, said pollster Nik Nanos, Canadians still see their military's job as they have for decades, based on two main pillars: UN peacekeeping, and the kind of North American defence co-operation with the United States long done by institutions such as NORAD. "It's kind of like retro hour for foreign policy," he says.
Those views are likely coloured now by an Afghanistan mission they wouldn't repeat. The poll found 66 per cent of Canadians would oppose or "somewhat oppose" another mission like it. Only 21 per cent said they would support or somewhat support such a mission.
When it comes to Afghanistan, Canada's military and political leadership have only themselves to blame for the public's disenchantment. Harper's John Wayne act was exposed as blatant partisan manipulation. He was so "pro-Afghanistan" until he abruptly turned "anti." And our military leadership repeatedly showed themselves at best mediocre, at worst probably incompetent. Remember when stand up comedian, now safely retired general Rick Hillier bragged about sending 2,500 Canadians to Kandahar to kill "a few dozen ...scumbags"? What a dark and bitter farce.
Why is Climate Change a Dead Letter in Canadian Politics? Cui Bono?
Last week the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, NCAR, released a study showing that drought will be the defining impact of global warming this century. A few parts of the world are going to get wetter. The most heavily populated parts are going to get dryer, much, much dryer.
The good news is that Canada is one of the lucky places that will receive more precipitation. The bad news is that where most of you live is not the lucky part. Click on the map above and see what your neck of the woods can expect by 2060.
Do you find this alarming? Well you should, especially if you have young kids or grandchildren. They're going to have to deal with this. Bear this in mind. The world depicted in this map isn't going to suddenly land on earth in 2060. This has already begun. We've just had our own study showing a significant decline in precipitation in the Great Lakes basin over the past 30-years. That's not a fluke. As the NCAR study shows, it's going to become steadily more significant.
Are there things we can do to forestall mega-drought or to reduce its impacts? Of course. Are there things we can do to adapt to some of these impacts. Absolutely. Are we doing any of those things? Absolutely not. The fate of our country and our children hangs in the balance. It is imperative we start dealing with this - now. So, whether you're Conservative, Liberal or NDP, ask yourself this - just what are the people leading my party doing about this? Better yet, ask them.
Ask your leaders if they believe this NCAR study to be true? If not, have them explain why not? But, if they don't dispute it convincingly, ask them just what in hell they intend to do about it. Tell them you want specifics, you want timelines. Here's something to keep in mind - if they start talking about "intensity-based" reductions or "cap and trade" that's simply code for doing nothing worthwhile.
Instead of endless dicking about on this percentage reduction or that, country versus country, region versus region, bloc versus bloc, the leaders of the world need to look at that map and say, okay, how do we prevent as much of this as we possibly can? There's no reason that Canada can't launch that sort of effort. Except we won't. Which gives rise to the question, cui bono?
If something this fundamentally important to the future of the country and our people gets buried, you have to assume that someone pretty powerful is benefiting from all that nothing. In some situations, dormancy can be extremely valuable. It certainly works for those dimwitted bastards who still speak of dreams of Canada as a fossil fuel superpower. Maybe ten years ago that wasn't all that unreasonable. That was then, this is now. It certainly works for the ultimate beneficiaries of their apathy - Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Gas.
Like any dysfunctional behaviour, you have to remember that people only do that because they get something out of it. It is extremely dysfunctional that the Petro-Pols of Parliament Hill who alone have the only effective power to defend our interests, to protect our welfare, are working for somebody else.
The Duty to Let the Dying Die
I used to be dead. At least I was once. For a while. No pulse, no respiration, not even any twitching. A goner. That is until a team of fire department paramedics stationed just two blocks away raced over with what (I am told) was some ungodly needle affair and paddles and stuff. I didn't even know I was dead until I woke up a couple of days later to find out I wasn't.
That incident somehow got me focused on death. I went right out and got my affairs in order. A new will, a power of attorney, and a "living will" complete with a DNR, "do not resuscitate" clause. I should be all set to go next time.
Death is and ought to be an intensely personal thing. That's why living wills are so important. They come into play when you're no longer able to speak for yourself. Oddly enough, that can be when you most need to be heard. Curious, isn't it? If you haven't got one, get one.
We DNRs are the easy ones. Pretty straightforward. easy to follow instructions. Just keep us comfortable and see us out the door. But what about the hard cases, where the patient wants his doctors to do anything and everything possible to forestall death? Just how far ought the medical profession go to meet that demand?
That debate rages right now at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. 48-year old Toronto accountant Mann Kee Li has been there since August battling terminal cancer. His living will calls for all medical procedures possible in the event of a life-threatening emergency. Last week, however, the hospital doctors concluded enough was enough and issued their own DNR order against the family's wishes. The family has taken the hospital to court.
Now here's where it gets weird. On Friday, Justice Barbara Conway issued a ruling that effectively revoked the hospital's "do not resuscitate" order and dumping the whole thing on Ontario's Consent and Capacity Board as though this was an issue of either consent or capacity. Barry Swadon, the family's lawyer, says the ruling is a game changer,
"It is a recognition by the Superior Court that physicians should not be making DNR orders without first obtaining consent of patients or substitute decision makers.”
This is where you become involved. If physicians require the consent of patients or family to issue DNR orders, your medicare bill could be in for a bubble. It's insanely expensive but medical science can keep many terminally ill alive long after nature has come calling for them. If the patient is beyond all hope of ever again enjoying any quality of life and life can only be sustained by the hospital paying its hydro bill what is the point of extending life? Isn't that life beyond any meaning?
Quite frankly I cannot understand the thinking that would see a loved one put through this for no good end. Judge Conway showed that there is no justice in cowardice.
That incident somehow got me focused on death. I went right out and got my affairs in order. A new will, a power of attorney, and a "living will" complete with a DNR, "do not resuscitate" clause. I should be all set to go next time.
Death is and ought to be an intensely personal thing. That's why living wills are so important. They come into play when you're no longer able to speak for yourself. Oddly enough, that can be when you most need to be heard. Curious, isn't it? If you haven't got one, get one.
We DNRs are the easy ones. Pretty straightforward. easy to follow instructions. Just keep us comfortable and see us out the door. But what about the hard cases, where the patient wants his doctors to do anything and everything possible to forestall death? Just how far ought the medical profession go to meet that demand?
That debate rages right now at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. 48-year old Toronto accountant Mann Kee Li has been there since August battling terminal cancer. His living will calls for all medical procedures possible in the event of a life-threatening emergency. Last week, however, the hospital doctors concluded enough was enough and issued their own DNR order against the family's wishes. The family has taken the hospital to court.
Now here's where it gets weird. On Friday, Justice Barbara Conway issued a ruling that effectively revoked the hospital's "do not resuscitate" order and dumping the whole thing on Ontario's Consent and Capacity Board as though this was an issue of either consent or capacity. Barry Swadon, the family's lawyer, says the ruling is a game changer,
"It is a recognition by the Superior Court that physicians should not be making DNR orders without first obtaining consent of patients or substitute decision makers.”
This is where you become involved. If physicians require the consent of patients or family to issue DNR orders, your medicare bill could be in for a bubble. It's insanely expensive but medical science can keep many terminally ill alive long after nature has come calling for them. If the patient is beyond all hope of ever again enjoying any quality of life and life can only be sustained by the hospital paying its hydro bill what is the point of extending life? Isn't that life beyond any meaning?
Quite frankly I cannot understand the thinking that would see a loved one put through this for no good end. Judge Conway showed that there is no justice in cowardice.
Khadr - Reserve Thy Judgment
Here's all you need to know about Omar Khadr - you don't know and probably won't know for years at the very least. You don't know what he did in the Afghan cave and you don't know what was done to him at the time and in the years at Guantanamo that followed.
There are a few things you do know. He was a "child soldier" when he was shot twice in the back and captured. You know that even the United States is a signatory to the protocol that requires captured child soldiers to be treated as victims, not perpetrators. You know that, from the outset, the proceedings against Khadr in Guantanamo have made a farce of any notion of American justice.
So Khadr finally pleaded guilty to all charges brought against him. I suppose if the deck is stacked high enough you really don't have much choice and stacked it truly was.
Did he commit the crimes for which he was charged? I really don't know and neither do you. Is his guilty plea an admission of guilt? In these circumstances, not at all. It's an administrative not a legal act. When your captor claims the power to hold you forever regardless of charge much less guilt, there's nothing remotely legal in the decisions taken by a captive.
There are a few things you do know. He was a "child soldier" when he was shot twice in the back and captured. You know that even the United States is a signatory to the protocol that requires captured child soldiers to be treated as victims, not perpetrators. You know that, from the outset, the proceedings against Khadr in Guantanamo have made a farce of any notion of American justice.
So Khadr finally pleaded guilty to all charges brought against him. I suppose if the deck is stacked high enough you really don't have much choice and stacked it truly was.
Did he commit the crimes for which he was charged? I really don't know and neither do you. Is his guilty plea an admission of guilt? In these circumstances, not at all. It's an administrative not a legal act. When your captor claims the power to hold you forever regardless of charge much less guilt, there's nothing remotely legal in the decisions taken by a captive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)