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.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)