India could be just a few years away from deploying its own fleet of made-in-India nuclear missile subs. With the Bush-era American enthusiasm for India on the wane and American, Russian and Chinese interest in Pakistan growing, India seems to be feeling decidedly exposed. From Asia Times Online:
New Delhi has been actively seeking out assistance from France in the implementation of the ATV project, and that Russian engineers are already involved. The sources said that the sea trials of the nuclear-powered submarines should begin this month and that the submarines should be operational within the next three years. The secretive ATV nuclear backed ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) project began in the late 1970's and is being implemented at a secret dry dock in Visakhapatnam, India's Eastern Naval command base. Observers have said that the submarines are a critical addition to India's weapons capabilities.
New Delhi has been concerned about Beijing's strengthening of bilateral ties with Islamabad, particularly given recent tension on sea projects such as at the Gwadar port. China has also been developing ties with Sri Lanka and Myanmar to deepen its control over a complex energy-security conflict being aggressively played out in the region.
Given the ongoing tussle between India and China to control the waters of the Indian Ocean, the New Delhi government has been put under tremendous pressure from the navy to ramp up India's sea power. China has already spoken of creating three ocean-going fleets to patrol the areas of Japan and Korea, the western Pacific, the Malacca Strait and the Indian Ocean.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KB20Df02.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KB21Aa04.html
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Via Con Dios Mexico
Earlier today I did a post about a US State Department travel advisory for Mexico warning American tourists of the risk of being caught in a full-blown firefight.
There's more. AlterNet has released a story about a 2008 year-end report by the Pentagon that warns of two nations at risk of "rapid and sudden collapse" - Pakistan and Mexico:
The report, named "JOE 2008" (for Joint Operating Environment), states:
"In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force, and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico. The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state."
U.S. political figures were ...quick to react -- using the Pentagon's lurid findings to argue for increased military aid to Mexico. As President-elect Barack Obama met in Washington with Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Jan. 12, the former U.S. drug czar, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, just back from a meeting in Mexico of the International Forum of Intelligence and Security Specialists, told a Washington press conference: "Mexico is on the edge of the abyss -- it could become a narco state in the coming decade." He praised Calderon, who he said has "launched a serious attempt to reclaim the rule of law from the chaos of the drug cartels." The International Forum of Intelligence and Security Specialists is an advisory body to Mexican federal law enforcement.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/127850/
There's more. AlterNet has released a story about a 2008 year-end report by the Pentagon that warns of two nations at risk of "rapid and sudden collapse" - Pakistan and Mexico:
The report, named "JOE 2008" (for Joint Operating Environment), states:
"In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force, and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico. The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state."
U.S. political figures were ...quick to react -- using the Pentagon's lurid findings to argue for increased military aid to Mexico. As President-elect Barack Obama met in Washington with Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Jan. 12, the former U.S. drug czar, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, just back from a meeting in Mexico of the International Forum of Intelligence and Security Specialists, told a Washington press conference: "Mexico is on the edge of the abyss -- it could become a narco state in the coming decade." He praised Calderon, who he said has "launched a serious attempt to reclaim the rule of law from the chaos of the drug cartels." The International Forum of Intelligence and Security Specialists is an advisory body to Mexican federal law enforcement.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/127850/
Water Woes - Turning Off the Taps in California
Water shortages this year in California's San Joaquin valley will cost 75,000 jobs and $2-billion in revenues. From McClatchey Newspapers:
“It is ugly,” said Mark Borba, a longtime west Fresno County farmer. “There are growers out there who have no water or who are drilling wells in hopes of getting them operating in time and still others are bulldozing their almond trees.”
Three consecutive dry winters and reduced water pumping to protect dwindling fish in Northern California rivers helped create the dismal forecast. West siders get water from northern rivers through canals belonging to the federally operated Central Valley Project.
While the news was expected, it hit farmers in the Westlands Water District, the largest affected district, especially hard. Growers in that region expect to fallow more than half of the 600,000 acres in the district, forcing thousands of people out of work and triggering an economic ripple effect that could extend beyond a farmer’s fields.
Tom Birmingham, general manager of the Westlands district, said in a news release that "there is no question that many years worth of investments will be lost."
California's water crisis is dire, and it's bad news for the rest of the US and Canada also. California produces about two-thirds of America's vegetables and half of its supply of fruit and nuts. The San Joaquin valley disaster reflects a critical problem that's being felt in other agricultural zones in California.
“It is ugly,” said Mark Borba, a longtime west Fresno County farmer. “There are growers out there who have no water or who are drilling wells in hopes of getting them operating in time and still others are bulldozing their almond trees.”
Three consecutive dry winters and reduced water pumping to protect dwindling fish in Northern California rivers helped create the dismal forecast. West siders get water from northern rivers through canals belonging to the federally operated Central Valley Project.
While the news was expected, it hit farmers in the Westlands Water District, the largest affected district, especially hard. Growers in that region expect to fallow more than half of the 600,000 acres in the district, forcing thousands of people out of work and triggering an economic ripple effect that could extend beyond a farmer’s fields.
Tom Birmingham, general manager of the Westlands district, said in a news release that "there is no question that many years worth of investments will be lost."
California's water crisis is dire, and it's bad news for the rest of the US and Canada also. California produces about two-thirds of America's vegetables and half of its supply of fruit and nuts. The San Joaquin valley disaster reflects a critical problem that's being felt in other agricultural zones in California.
Cotler's Smear Job
According to Irwin Cottler's screed in today's National Post, if you're critical of Israel, you're an anti-semite.
Cottler contends that criticism of Zionism's excesses is anti-Semitic. Criticism of Israeli apartheid-style measures is anti-Semitic. He claims that if you criticize these things then, by definition, you're committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.
Ideological antisemitism is a much more sophisticated and arguably a more pernicious expression of the new antisemitism. It finds expression not in any genocidal incitement against Jews and Israel, or overt racist denial of the Jewish people and Israel's right to be; rather, ideological antisemitism disguises itself as part of the struggle against racism.
The first manifestation of this ideological antisemitism was its institutional and juridical anchorage in the 'Zionism is Racism' resolution at the UN. Notwithstanding the fact that the there was a formal repeal of this resolution, 'Zionism as Racism' remains alive and well in the global arena, particularly in the campus cultures of North America and Europe, as confirmed by the recent British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism.
The second manifestation is the indictment of Israel as an apartheid state. This involves more than the simple indictment of Israel as an apartheid state. It also involves the call for the dismantling of Israel as an apartheid state as evidenced by the events at the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism in Durban.
The third manifestation of ideological antisemitism involves the characterization of Israel not only as an apartheid state - and one that must be dismantled as part of the struggle against racism - but as a Nazi one.
And so it is then that Israel is delegitimized - if not demonized - by the ascription to it of the two most scurrilous indictments of twentieth-century racism - Nazism and apartheid - the embodiment of all evil. These very labels of Zionism and Israel as 'racist, apartheid, and Nazi' supply the criminal indictment. No further debate is required. The conviction that this 'triple racism' warrants the dismantling of Israel as a moral obligation has been secured. For who would deny that a 'racist, apartheid, Nazi' state should not have any right to exist today? What is more, this characterization allows for terrorist 'resistance' to be deemed justifiable - after all, such a situation is portrayed as nothing other than occupation et résistance, where 'resistance' against a racist, apartheid, Nazi occupying state is legitimate, if not mandatory.
Not a word in Cottler's rant suggesting that Israel is, to the slightest degree, the author of even some of its misfortune. Not a hint that the illegal occupation of the West Bank is cause for Israel to be criticized.
No, to Cotler, Israel is totally blameless and beyond reproach and anyone who thinks otherwise is an anti-Semite. This is a rank smear job designed to intimidate critics of Israel. Fuck you Irwin.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/127698/
I stole this comment left by Ezra Winton at ArtThreat.net. He makes a lot of sense about a rapidly growing movement to silence critics:
"At a talk last night at Concordia University, Robert Fisk said that if good, compassionate, honest and just people are continually labelled anti-semitic it's going to give the term a good name. Arguments like skeptik's are barely worth replying to, because they shift the argument away from the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel to one of anyone-who-criticizes-Israel-hates-Jews. It's disgustingly misguided, mischievous and malicious.
There is no Global Zionist Conspiracy.
I can name all the organizations, the pro-Israel-no-matter-what-they-do organizations and associations, who are leading this anti-academic freedom and fear-mongering campaign across the world's campuses. It's not a conspiracy when B'nai Brith takes out a full page advert in Canada's National Post. I'd say that's pretty front and center. Pretty damn conspicuous. The international community has labelled Israel's occupation of Palestinian land as illegal. Israel has every right to exist and should exist. But it does not have the right to violate international law and human rights in the process. When activists, writers, scholars and politicians make this point they are doing the job of pointing out injustices. To label them anti-semitic or racist is an inane and belligerent tactic of diversion. It's now wasted about ten minutes of my time, so I guess it's working.
If I critique Stephen Harper, his government, his military, and people that voted for him, am I anti-Canadian. If I critique the people who have written policy allowing for whites to occupy First Nations land in Canada, am I being anti-white? Surely not. The double-standard is prolific among unconditional supporters of Israel, and it's time to call it what it is: fear-mongering and diversionary tactics.
Enough already, on to the real task of ending the illegal occupation of Palestine and the suffering of oppressed people everywhere.
Cottler contends that criticism of Zionism's excesses is anti-Semitic. Criticism of Israeli apartheid-style measures is anti-Semitic. He claims that if you criticize these things then, by definition, you're committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.
Ideological antisemitism is a much more sophisticated and arguably a more pernicious expression of the new antisemitism. It finds expression not in any genocidal incitement against Jews and Israel, or overt racist denial of the Jewish people and Israel's right to be; rather, ideological antisemitism disguises itself as part of the struggle against racism.
The first manifestation of this ideological antisemitism was its institutional and juridical anchorage in the 'Zionism is Racism' resolution at the UN. Notwithstanding the fact that the there was a formal repeal of this resolution, 'Zionism as Racism' remains alive and well in the global arena, particularly in the campus cultures of North America and Europe, as confirmed by the recent British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism.
The second manifestation is the indictment of Israel as an apartheid state. This involves more than the simple indictment of Israel as an apartheid state. It also involves the call for the dismantling of Israel as an apartheid state as evidenced by the events at the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism in Durban.
The third manifestation of ideological antisemitism involves the characterization of Israel not only as an apartheid state - and one that must be dismantled as part of the struggle against racism - but as a Nazi one.
And so it is then that Israel is delegitimized - if not demonized - by the ascription to it of the two most scurrilous indictments of twentieth-century racism - Nazism and apartheid - the embodiment of all evil. These very labels of Zionism and Israel as 'racist, apartheid, and Nazi' supply the criminal indictment. No further debate is required. The conviction that this 'triple racism' warrants the dismantling of Israel as a moral obligation has been secured. For who would deny that a 'racist, apartheid, Nazi' state should not have any right to exist today? What is more, this characterization allows for terrorist 'resistance' to be deemed justifiable - after all, such a situation is portrayed as nothing other than occupation et résistance, where 'resistance' against a racist, apartheid, Nazi occupying state is legitimate, if not mandatory.
Not a word in Cottler's rant suggesting that Israel is, to the slightest degree, the author of even some of its misfortune. Not a hint that the illegal occupation of the West Bank is cause for Israel to be criticized.
No, to Cotler, Israel is totally blameless and beyond reproach and anyone who thinks otherwise is an anti-Semite. This is a rank smear job designed to intimidate critics of Israel. Fuck you Irwin.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/127698/
I stole this comment left by Ezra Winton at ArtThreat.net. He makes a lot of sense about a rapidly growing movement to silence critics:
"At a talk last night at Concordia University, Robert Fisk said that if good, compassionate, honest and just people are continually labelled anti-semitic it's going to give the term a good name. Arguments like skeptik's are barely worth replying to, because they shift the argument away from the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel to one of anyone-who-criticizes-Israel-hates-Jews. It's disgustingly misguided, mischievous and malicious.
There is no Global Zionist Conspiracy.
I can name all the organizations, the pro-Israel-no-matter-what-they-do organizations and associations, who are leading this anti-academic freedom and fear-mongering campaign across the world's campuses. It's not a conspiracy when B'nai Brith takes out a full page advert in Canada's National Post. I'd say that's pretty front and center. Pretty damn conspicuous. The international community has labelled Israel's occupation of Palestinian land as illegal. Israel has every right to exist and should exist. But it does not have the right to violate international law and human rights in the process. When activists, writers, scholars and politicians make this point they are doing the job of pointing out injustices. To label them anti-semitic or racist is an inane and belligerent tactic of diversion. It's now wasted about ten minutes of my time, so I guess it's working.
If I critique Stephen Harper, his government, his military, and people that voted for him, am I anti-Canadian. If I critique the people who have written policy allowing for whites to occupy First Nations land in Canada, am I being anti-white? Surely not. The double-standard is prolific among unconditional supporters of Israel, and it's time to call it what it is: fear-mongering and diversionary tactics.
Enough already, on to the real task of ending the illegal occupation of Palestine and the suffering of oppressed people everywhere.
I'll Take Haiti
BC Premier Gordon Campbell recently unveiled an Olympic, "adopt a country" programme for BC schoolkids. The idea is that each school will "adopt" a country that might be involved in the 2010 winter games.
Personally, I'd like to adopt Haiti. Now I know I'm not a school or anything like that but I think our standard of living might come to look a lot like Haiti's by the time we pay for our Olympic boondoggle.
Personally, I'd like to adopt Haiti. Now I know I'm not a school or anything like that but I think our standard of living might come to look a lot like Haiti's by the time we pay for our Olympic boondoggle.
Warning - Mexico
Maybe I won't be riding my motorcycle through Mexico this year. Here's the US State Department's latest travel advisory for Mexico. From the Washington Post:
"Recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades. Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez. During some of these incidents, U.S. citizens have been trapped and temporarily prevented from leaving the area."
Being "temporarily prevented" from leaving a firefight is never a good thing as far as promoting tourism goes. Tourism is one of Mexico's main sources of income, and the country that sends the most tourists to Mexico is the United States.
"Recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades. Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez. During some of these incidents, U.S. citizens have been trapped and temporarily prevented from leaving the area."
Being "temporarily prevented" from leaving a firefight is never a good thing as far as promoting tourism goes. Tourism is one of Mexico's main sources of income, and the country that sends the most tourists to Mexico is the United States.
China - Using American Wealth to Cement Its Supremacy
It's the way these things go - and it's too late to do a damned thing about it.
The West, particularly the U.S., spent the past two decades pouring wealth from Western economies into China's. That came in the form of moving manufacturing from Western factories to Chinese factories and from engaging in free trade (i.e. enormous balance of trade deficits) that left China awash in foreign currency, including something close to a trillion dollars in US cash.
We spent two decades bleeding our wealth away to grow China's economy, wealth we were too greedy and short-sighted to invest in our own economies. Now while the world is in a recessionary slow-down, China has all that money to go on a distress-sale shopping spree. From the G&M Report on Business:
Flush with cash at a time when most countries and corporations are struggling to gain access capital, the Asian economic superpower has spent nearly $60-billion (U.S.) in less than a week in a series of deals that will secure a long-term supply of iron ore, copper, zinc and oil.
Desperate for financing amid stalled capital markets and investor abandonment of the sector, resource producers are turning to China for a commodity it has in spades: ready money.
China is the world's largest consumer of commodities. While the country's economy has slowed due to the global economic downturn, its gross domestic product is still expected to increase by about 6 per cent this year compared with 9 per cent in 2008 and 13 per cent in 2007. A $586-billion (U.S.) stimulus package will spur infrastructure spending, which is expected to underpin commodities demand.
The country's voracious need for metals helped push prices for iron ore, coal and copper to record highs last year. The global financial crisis has now cut prices for most metals in half; China is throwing its cash around to secure a cheap supply.
It's those last two words, "cheap supply," that will come back to haunt us. By the time our own economies have recovered sufficiently to restore demand for energy and metals, prices for those commodities will have recovered - except for our main competitor, China, which will have locked in both supply and price at recessionary values. It was one thing when we were all competing for resources at the same price. Now, thanks to our investor-classes and their greed, China will have the one remaining strategic advantage it didn't already possess.
The West, particularly the U.S., spent the past two decades pouring wealth from Western economies into China's. That came in the form of moving manufacturing from Western factories to Chinese factories and from engaging in free trade (i.e. enormous balance of trade deficits) that left China awash in foreign currency, including something close to a trillion dollars in US cash.
We spent two decades bleeding our wealth away to grow China's economy, wealth we were too greedy and short-sighted to invest in our own economies. Now while the world is in a recessionary slow-down, China has all that money to go on a distress-sale shopping spree. From the G&M Report on Business:
Flush with cash at a time when most countries and corporations are struggling to gain access capital, the Asian economic superpower has spent nearly $60-billion (U.S.) in less than a week in a series of deals that will secure a long-term supply of iron ore, copper, zinc and oil.
Desperate for financing amid stalled capital markets and investor abandonment of the sector, resource producers are turning to China for a commodity it has in spades: ready money.
China is the world's largest consumer of commodities. While the country's economy has slowed due to the global economic downturn, its gross domestic product is still expected to increase by about 6 per cent this year compared with 9 per cent in 2008 and 13 per cent in 2007. A $586-billion (U.S.) stimulus package will spur infrastructure spending, which is expected to underpin commodities demand.
The country's voracious need for metals helped push prices for iron ore, coal and copper to record highs last year. The global financial crisis has now cut prices for most metals in half; China is throwing its cash around to secure a cheap supply.
It's those last two words, "cheap supply," that will come back to haunt us. By the time our own economies have recovered sufficiently to restore demand for energy and metals, prices for those commodities will have recovered - except for our main competitor, China, which will have locked in both supply and price at recessionary values. It was one thing when we were all competing for resources at the same price. Now, thanks to our investor-classes and their greed, China will have the one remaining strategic advantage it didn't already possess.
Their Head of State Invites Our Head of State for a Visit
President Obama has invited Canada's head of state for a visit to Washington. No, not Stephen Harper and of course not Michael Ignatieff. No, there was just the one invite and it went to Governor-General Michaelle Jean.
Now we all know Canada's head of state is Queen Elizabeth and that GG Jean is simply the Queen's rep to the True North but she's good enough for Obama and, it seems, a damned sight better than that stiff from Calgary.
GM's Back! And It Brought the Begging Bowl Again.
General Motors of Canada (wink, wink) wants more money, more federal and provincial money.
Way, way back, in December, GM told Ottawa and Queen's Park that it needed $3.4-billion. Now, two months later, it's tweaked that figure up to somewhere between six and seven billion.
Federal industry minister, Tony Clement, took it all in stride:
"I would have to say this is a good first step. We are moving as quickly as possible in these negotiations, keeping in mind that any measures must be in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian economy."
What goes unmentioned is the "pay up or the kid gets it" factor in these negotiations. GM is holding a gun to its head and another gun to Ottawa's head. If it doesn't get bailed out it pulls the pin, sending a tsunami of unemployment sweeping through southern Ontario with aftershocks hitting much of the rest of the country.
The problem.
General Motors holds most of the cards. It appears to be essentially insolvent at the moment, unable to continue operating on its own revenues. No one should be surprised at this. The Big Three were on the ropes when the economy was still buoyant. There was no way they could withstand a recession.
Sometimes the debtor has the upper hand. Remember that old line attributed to Lord Rothschild about how when you owe the Bank of England a hundred pounds and cannot pay you have a problem but when you owe the Bank of England a million pounds and cannot pay, the Bank of England has a problem.
By its very size and the manner in which it has integrated its business into the economies of entire states and provinces, everyone gets badly hit if General Motors fails outright, if it goes out of business. Ask the guy who runs the 7-11 kitty corner to the GM factory if you don't understand.
It's very size also affords GM certain bargaining positions that, in lesser circumstances, would be offensive at best. Give us the money or the kid gets it. Give us what we want or we sink your economy. Give us what we want or we'll close our Canadian plants. These are threats you don't even have to utter. They're always on the table, and there's the problem.
If you sense an element of coercion in this negotiation, you're probably right. And it's a card that can be played again and again and again.
Who's to say that seven billion isn't just money spent to buy time? Who's to say that this bailout will actually save General Motors from bankruptcy?
Lending money to a healthy company is one thing. Lending money to a company that by its own admission is at bankruptcy's door is something else altogether.
It strikes me that this is a gamble, a huge gamble at very poor odds. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile taking but only if there's a reasonable chance it will save General Motors. If not, we might as well let GM go now and put those billions toward something with a good prospect of returns.
Way, way back, in December, GM told Ottawa and Queen's Park that it needed $3.4-billion. Now, two months later, it's tweaked that figure up to somewhere between six and seven billion.
Federal industry minister, Tony Clement, took it all in stride:
"I would have to say this is a good first step. We are moving as quickly as possible in these negotiations, keeping in mind that any measures must be in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian economy."
What goes unmentioned is the "pay up or the kid gets it" factor in these negotiations. GM is holding a gun to its head and another gun to Ottawa's head. If it doesn't get bailed out it pulls the pin, sending a tsunami of unemployment sweeping through southern Ontario with aftershocks hitting much of the rest of the country.
The problem.
General Motors holds most of the cards. It appears to be essentially insolvent at the moment, unable to continue operating on its own revenues. No one should be surprised at this. The Big Three were on the ropes when the economy was still buoyant. There was no way they could withstand a recession.
Sometimes the debtor has the upper hand. Remember that old line attributed to Lord Rothschild about how when you owe the Bank of England a hundred pounds and cannot pay you have a problem but when you owe the Bank of England a million pounds and cannot pay, the Bank of England has a problem.
By its very size and the manner in which it has integrated its business into the economies of entire states and provinces, everyone gets badly hit if General Motors fails outright, if it goes out of business. Ask the guy who runs the 7-11 kitty corner to the GM factory if you don't understand.
It's very size also affords GM certain bargaining positions that, in lesser circumstances, would be offensive at best. Give us the money or the kid gets it. Give us what we want or we sink your economy. Give us what we want or we'll close our Canadian plants. These are threats you don't even have to utter. They're always on the table, and there's the problem.
If you sense an element of coercion in this negotiation, you're probably right. And it's a card that can be played again and again and again.
Who's to say that seven billion isn't just money spent to buy time? Who's to say that this bailout will actually save General Motors from bankruptcy?
Lending money to a healthy company is one thing. Lending money to a company that by its own admission is at bankruptcy's door is something else altogether.
It strikes me that this is a gamble, a huge gamble at very poor odds. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile taking but only if there's a reasonable chance it will save General Motors. If not, we might as well let GM go now and put those billions toward something with a good prospect of returns.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Has "Son of Izzy" Screwed CanWest?
Izzy Asper built CanWest Global into a media giant, ultimately swallowing up Conrad Black's National Post.
Izzy's empire fell into the hands of son and heir, Lenny, and it now appears to be slipping through his fingers.
CanWest is in hock to the tune of $3.9-billion and the creditors are circling the wounded beast. The smell of fear must have been inescapable as Leonard Asper sought to bail the company out by flogging off assets such as television stations. Apparently Asper's price wasn't right because there've been no takers.
CanWest is now reportedly down to its last $20-million in credit and has until next Friday to find a miracle. The Globe & Mail reports that the creditors have the Aspers in their crosshairs:
"Options on the table include some sort of recapitalization that would see creditors take a haircut, and the Asper family squeezed out," said one banker working on CanWest. "Leonard Asper … is still focused on trying to find some sort of solution that salvages something for the family."
Via con Dios, Lenny!
Izzy's empire fell into the hands of son and heir, Lenny, and it now appears to be slipping through his fingers.
CanWest is in hock to the tune of $3.9-billion and the creditors are circling the wounded beast. The smell of fear must have been inescapable as Leonard Asper sought to bail the company out by flogging off assets such as television stations. Apparently Asper's price wasn't right because there've been no takers.
CanWest is now reportedly down to its last $20-million in credit and has until next Friday to find a miracle. The Globe & Mail reports that the creditors have the Aspers in their crosshairs:
"Options on the table include some sort of recapitalization that would see creditors take a haircut, and the Asper family squeezed out," said one banker working on CanWest. "Leonard Asper … is still focused on trying to find some sort of solution that salvages something for the family."
Via con Dios, Lenny!
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Myth of Carbon Sequestration
Carbon capture and carbon sequestration are often heralded as the key to "clean energy." If you can just take the carbon emitted from producing energy - from coal fired plants or from, he he, the Tar Sands, problem solved, right?
Wrong.
It's not as though you point to a hole in the ground and the carbon jumps at the chance to bury itself safely in some deep cavern. No, there's an elaborate process involved. First you have to capture the carbon emissions. Then you have to find a means to compress and transport them. Finally you have to either find or create a place big enough and safe enough to store the stuff, under pressure, and make sure it doesn't leak back to the surface (it's poisonous, really deadly) in perpetuity.
Now we hear a lot of talk about carbon sequestration but we've heard a lot of talk about a manned mission to Mars too. Both are theoretically feasible but neither has been proven to be possible, much less viable.
Viable. Now there's a word that deserves some attention. Viable as in effective. Viable as in affordable. Viable as in politically and socially acceptable.
A while back the Toronto Star used the Freedom of Information Act to get its hands on an Environment Canada report that found sequestration used an awful lot of energy and produced about the same amount of carbon emissions as the carbon emissions it sequestered.
So, we're supposed to pay big bucks and expose folks living nearby to lethal risks on a process that creates as much carbon as it purports to capture? Wait, I know. All we need to do is to set up a second carbon capture operation to capture the carbon emissions of our first carbon capture operation. Then again, maybe that's not such a great idea after all.
http://www.thestar.com/article/574514
So it seems that sequestration is essentially carbon neutral but it produces all manner of other contaminants, uses an awful lot of fossil fuel, wastes a lot of resources and exposes anyone in the vicinity to lethal risks.
Wrong.
It's not as though you point to a hole in the ground and the carbon jumps at the chance to bury itself safely in some deep cavern. No, there's an elaborate process involved. First you have to capture the carbon emissions. Then you have to find a means to compress and transport them. Finally you have to either find or create a place big enough and safe enough to store the stuff, under pressure, and make sure it doesn't leak back to the surface (it's poisonous, really deadly) in perpetuity.
Now we hear a lot of talk about carbon sequestration but we've heard a lot of talk about a manned mission to Mars too. Both are theoretically feasible but neither has been proven to be possible, much less viable.
Viable. Now there's a word that deserves some attention. Viable as in effective. Viable as in affordable. Viable as in politically and socially acceptable.
A while back the Toronto Star used the Freedom of Information Act to get its hands on an Environment Canada report that found sequestration used an awful lot of energy and produced about the same amount of carbon emissions as the carbon emissions it sequestered.
So, we're supposed to pay big bucks and expose folks living nearby to lethal risks on a process that creates as much carbon as it purports to capture? Wait, I know. All we need to do is to set up a second carbon capture operation to capture the carbon emissions of our first carbon capture operation. Then again, maybe that's not such a great idea after all.
http://www.thestar.com/article/574514
So it seems that sequestration is essentially carbon neutral but it produces all manner of other contaminants, uses an awful lot of fossil fuel, wastes a lot of resources and exposes anyone in the vicinity to lethal risks.
Same War, Different Generals, Different Stories
Brigadier Jon Vance officially took command of Canadian forces in Afghanistan today.
Vance says we're winning. From CBC News:
He also said he believes the Taliban and other militants are losing influence in Afghanistan.
"I believe the insurgency is increasingly marginalized, and Afghans will be able to assume greater freedom from the scourge of insurgent activity and follow the destiny they have chosen," he said.
Vance replaces outgoing Brigadier Denis Thompson who, after nine months in charge, gave The Globe & Mail a somewhat different take:
Canadian military surveys have found that average people in Kandahar now feel dramatically less safe than they did 18 months ago, the top commander for the province says.
'People's sense of security has absolutely plummeted,' Brigadier-General Denis Thompson said, offering an unusually thoughtful view of the battlefield as he sat down with reporters at the end his nine-month tour of duty.
Thompson did point out that surveys consistently show that the Afghan people have greater support for the government than the Taliban. I wonder how many, when asked of their allegiance, would say whatever they thought the questioner wanted to hear?
Vance says we're winning. From CBC News:
He also said he believes the Taliban and other militants are losing influence in Afghanistan.
"I believe the insurgency is increasingly marginalized, and Afghans will be able to assume greater freedom from the scourge of insurgent activity and follow the destiny they have chosen," he said.
Vance replaces outgoing Brigadier Denis Thompson who, after nine months in charge, gave The Globe & Mail a somewhat different take:
Canadian military surveys have found that average people in Kandahar now feel dramatically less safe than they did 18 months ago, the top commander for the province says.
'People's sense of security has absolutely plummeted,' Brigadier-General Denis Thompson said, offering an unusually thoughtful view of the battlefield as he sat down with reporters at the end his nine-month tour of duty.
Thompson did point out that surveys consistently show that the Afghan people have greater support for the government than the Taliban. I wonder how many, when asked of their allegiance, would say whatever they thought the questioner wanted to hear?
Racism Lives in New York
The Big Apple's right-wing, pro-Zionist rag, the New York Post, has gone over the top with the cartoon shown above published yesterday. This is inexcusable. It has nothing to do with free speech. It's depicting their president as a dead chimp. The Post deserves whatever it gets and it's got a lot coming.
The paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch. No word yet on his reaction.
Afghanistan - NATO Shrugs
The next two years will reveal just how much damage George W. Bush inflicted upon America's war in Afghanistan.
I say "America's war" because that's rapidly becoming a reality as some NATO nations (the Netherlands and Canada) prepare to pack up with no other member states coming forward to take their place.
The NATO nations' increasing resistance to fighting in Afghanistan is evident in America's alternate campaign to get NATO members to contribute civilian support in lieu of combat forces. That, friends, is tantamount to begging.
Oh Britain will soldier on alongside America, even throw a few more troops into the battle, all part of that trans-Atlantic solidarity thing, but it won't be enough to make the sort of difference needed to turn the tide in Afghanistan.
As for Canada, our chief of defence staff warned last week that the Canadian military is exhausted and will need to stand down at least two years after the 2011 cut off to recover. Buried inside that statement are a number of questions. When did NDHQ know the army was getting worn out and when did it tell Harper? Was Harper asked to authorize an expansion of the army to furnish fresh troops for combat in Afghanistan and, if so, did he refuse? Is our military really burnt out as we're told or is that a convenient cover for insisting on leaving in 2011?
One way or the other, NATO's refusal to answer Obama's call is plain enough. The key member states showed up to win but Bush kept his first and second strings in Iraq instead. The NATO forces were left to babysit a deteriorating war. Now they've had enough.
Ironically, it's Rumsfeld's "new Europe" that ought to be stepping up to show their appreciation for being admitted to NATO. Yet, with a couple of small exceptions, they're nowhere to be seen. They must think we're real idiots.
I do sympathize with Obama. It's like taking over as coach in the fourth quarter of a losing game with just a few minutes left on the clock and looking at a demoralized bench. Pretty hard to turn that around.
I say "America's war" because that's rapidly becoming a reality as some NATO nations (the Netherlands and Canada) prepare to pack up with no other member states coming forward to take their place.
The NATO nations' increasing resistance to fighting in Afghanistan is evident in America's alternate campaign to get NATO members to contribute civilian support in lieu of combat forces. That, friends, is tantamount to begging.
Oh Britain will soldier on alongside America, even throw a few more troops into the battle, all part of that trans-Atlantic solidarity thing, but it won't be enough to make the sort of difference needed to turn the tide in Afghanistan.
As for Canada, our chief of defence staff warned last week that the Canadian military is exhausted and will need to stand down at least two years after the 2011 cut off to recover. Buried inside that statement are a number of questions. When did NDHQ know the army was getting worn out and when did it tell Harper? Was Harper asked to authorize an expansion of the army to furnish fresh troops for combat in Afghanistan and, if so, did he refuse? Is our military really burnt out as we're told or is that a convenient cover for insisting on leaving in 2011?
One way or the other, NATO's refusal to answer Obama's call is plain enough. The key member states showed up to win but Bush kept his first and second strings in Iraq instead. The NATO forces were left to babysit a deteriorating war. Now they've had enough.
Ironically, it's Rumsfeld's "new Europe" that ought to be stepping up to show their appreciation for being admitted to NATO. Yet, with a couple of small exceptions, they're nowhere to be seen. They must think we're real idiots.
I do sympathize with Obama. It's like taking over as coach in the fourth quarter of a losing game with just a few minutes left on the clock and looking at a demoralized bench. Pretty hard to turn that around.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Don't Blame Me, It's Bush's Fault - Harper
Isn't this the same guy who described the fight against global warming as a "socialist plot?"
That, it seems, was then, this is now. There's a new sheriff in town, a guy named Obama, and Canada's prime minister is busy trying to re-arrange his spots on climate change.
According to Stephen Harper Canada dragged its heels but only because Bush held us back:
“In Canada, we've been wrestling for the last decade or so with our desire to try to have a regime, a regulatory regime, that would diminish our own carbon emissions. But we've been trying to do so in an integrated economy when the United States has not been willing to do so,” Mr. Harper said in an interview to be broadcast in two parts yesterday and today.
“I think quite frankly the fact that we have a President and an administration that wants to see some kind of regulation on this is an encouragement.”
What's the term I'm looking for? Oh yeah, Bald-Faced Liar. Or is "weasel" better?
That, it seems, was then, this is now. There's a new sheriff in town, a guy named Obama, and Canada's prime minister is busy trying to re-arrange his spots on climate change.
According to Stephen Harper Canada dragged its heels but only because Bush held us back:
“In Canada, we've been wrestling for the last decade or so with our desire to try to have a regime, a regulatory regime, that would diminish our own carbon emissions. But we've been trying to do so in an integrated economy when the United States has not been willing to do so,” Mr. Harper said in an interview to be broadcast in two parts yesterday and today.
“I think quite frankly the fact that we have a President and an administration that wants to see some kind of regulation on this is an encouragement.”
What's the term I'm looking for? Oh yeah, Bald-Faced Liar. Or is "weasel" better?
The Undiplomatic Diplomat
"Why should I have this guy running down the country? Who the fuck
is he? How the hell are they doing?"
That hardly sounds like diplomatic language, does it? But that's what Britain's "business secretary" Peter Mandelson said in front of reporters at a diplomatic reception in New York last night.
Mandelson was plainly infuriated at remarks made by Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz who told CNBC that his company was most worried about its stores in Britain. From The Guardian:
Angered at remarks by the company's chairman, Howard Schultz – who said the UK was in an economic "spiral" with "very, very poor" consumer confidence – Mandelson accused him of spreading unnecessary misery and speaking out of turn.
...Earlier in the day, Schultz singled out Britain as a source of anxiety for Starbucks – which has stores in 49 countries – during an interview with the CNBC television channel.
"The place that concerns us the most is western Europe, and specifically the UK," he said. "The UK is in a spiral."
What's Warming the Arctic?
Scientists are beginning to get a clearer picture of why temperatures in the Arctic are increasing so much faster than in the rest of the planet.
It's really a combination of three things. The loss of the ice cap reduces the reflection of sunlight and increases light absorption into the darker sea. The associated effect is a warming of the Arctic sea water which warms the surface air. The warming sea water also increases evaporation which generates the powerful greenhouse gas - water vapour.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j2832332508u0156/
It's really a combination of three things. The loss of the ice cap reduces the reflection of sunlight and increases light absorption into the darker sea. The associated effect is a warming of the Arctic sea water which warms the surface air. The warming sea water also increases evaporation which generates the powerful greenhouse gas - water vapour.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j2832332508u0156/
When Optimism Outpaces Realism
The Obama administration has introduced a plan to ease home foreclosures. The feds will put up $75-billion to fund subsidies for mortgage lenders who reduce interest rates for financially troubled homeowners.
That plan is expected to work in conjunction with a measure moving through Congress that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages.
Both measures are well-intentioned but carry practical pitfalls. The real estate markets in most of the United States are in decline, in some cases free fall. House values next year could wind up a lot lower than values this year and that could go on for some time.
If I'm stuck holding a $500,000 mortgage on a $600,000 house that's now worth $400,000, I might want to foreclose and take my loss now rather than wait until the house value plummets to $300,000 or $250,000.
Measures like these are sensible if you can freeze conditions at one point in time. They're sensible once the market has truly bottomed. But they could have unintended repercussions when the market is in free fall.
(McClatchey puts the cost at $75-billion but The Guardian has it at $275-billion)
That plan is expected to work in conjunction with a measure moving through Congress that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages.
Both measures are well-intentioned but carry practical pitfalls. The real estate markets in most of the United States are in decline, in some cases free fall. House values next year could wind up a lot lower than values this year and that could go on for some time.
If I'm stuck holding a $500,000 mortgage on a $600,000 house that's now worth $400,000, I might want to foreclose and take my loss now rather than wait until the house value plummets to $300,000 or $250,000.
Measures like these are sensible if you can freeze conditions at one point in time. They're sensible once the market has truly bottomed. But they could have unintended repercussions when the market is in free fall.
(McClatchey puts the cost at $75-billion but The Guardian has it at $275-billion)
Better Grades Through Cutting Classes?
Strange but apparently true.
A recent study found that students who watched a podcast of a lecture scored significantly higher than those who attended the lecture. From New Scientist:
Podcasted lectures offer students the chance to replay difficult parts of a lecture and therefore take better notes, says Dani McKinney, a psychologist at the State University of New York in Fredonia, who led the study.
"It isn't so much that you have a podcast, it's what you do with it," she says.
To find out how much students really can learn from podcast lectures alone - mimicking a missed class - McKinney's team presented 64 students with a single lecture on visual perception, from an introductory psychology course.
Half of the students attended the class in person and received a printout of the slides from the lecture. The other 32 downloaded a podcast that included audio from the same lecture synchronised with video of the slides. These students also received a printed handout of the material.
The researchers told the students they would be tested on the material in a week, and they also asked students to hold onto their class notes.
Students who downloaded the podcast averaged a C (71 out of 100) on the test - substantially better than those who attended the lecture, who on average mustered only a D (62).
But that difference vanished among students who watched the podcast but did not take notes.Students who listened to the podcast one or more times and took notes had an average score of 77, McKinney says.
I'm not sure that I buy this - at least not entirely. It rules out participating in in-class discussions, there's no chance to ask a question or seek clarification. And besides, who wants to have their kids home all day playing with I-Pods?
A recent study found that students who watched a podcast of a lecture scored significantly higher than those who attended the lecture. From New Scientist:
Podcasted lectures offer students the chance to replay difficult parts of a lecture and therefore take better notes, says Dani McKinney, a psychologist at the State University of New York in Fredonia, who led the study.
"It isn't so much that you have a podcast, it's what you do with it," she says.
To find out how much students really can learn from podcast lectures alone - mimicking a missed class - McKinney's team presented 64 students with a single lecture on visual perception, from an introductory psychology course.
Half of the students attended the class in person and received a printout of the slides from the lecture. The other 32 downloaded a podcast that included audio from the same lecture synchronised with video of the slides. These students also received a printed handout of the material.
The researchers told the students they would be tested on the material in a week, and they also asked students to hold onto their class notes.
Students who downloaded the podcast averaged a C (71 out of 100) on the test - substantially better than those who attended the lecture, who on average mustered only a D (62).
But that difference vanished among students who watched the podcast but did not take notes.Students who listened to the podcast one or more times and took notes had an average score of 77, McKinney says.
I'm not sure that I buy this - at least not entirely. It rules out participating in in-class discussions, there's no chance to ask a question or seek clarification. And besides, who wants to have their kids home all day playing with I-Pods?
Listen Up Mike
Michael Ignatieff is devoted to the Athabasca Tar Sands. Before he gets himself any deeper, he'd better listen to a few people like David Schindler; Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology at the University of Alberta.
Listen to this short interview with Schindler. It should open your eyes to the devastation facing Alberta.
http://www.water.ca/listenaod.asp?artid=324
It's not about some imaginary Liberal war with Alberta and Saskatchewan. It's about doing what's right - for Canada, for Alberta and for Sasktatchewan. It's about not grasping for simplistic - yet wholly unproven - solutions like carbon sequestration. That's sophistry.
Today I e-mailed Michael Ignatieff, including the link above. I've asked him to at least listen to people like Professor Schindler, read their research and findings, before lashing the Liberal Party of Canada to the Tar Sands.
If I get a response, I'll post it.
Listen to this short interview with Schindler. It should open your eyes to the devastation facing Alberta.
http://www.water.ca/listenaod.asp?artid=324
It's not about some imaginary Liberal war with Alberta and Saskatchewan. It's about doing what's right - for Canada, for Alberta and for Sasktatchewan. It's about not grasping for simplistic - yet wholly unproven - solutions like carbon sequestration. That's sophistry.
Today I e-mailed Michael Ignatieff, including the link above. I've asked him to at least listen to people like Professor Schindler, read their research and findings, before lashing the Liberal Party of Canada to the Tar Sands.
If I get a response, I'll post it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)