Afghan security forces seem to have derailed a major terror attack against civilians in Kabul. They intercepted a truck laden with 10-tonnes of explosives hidden underneath a load of potatoes. They also nabbed five insurgents, three from Pakistan.
The prisoners were "interrogated" and it's said they confessed the attack was masterminded by two Taliban leaders with known links to Pakistan's military intelligence service, the ISI.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
What's Christian About the Christian Right?
They rail on about Darwinism. They argue for Creationism rather than evolution. They claim to be devout adherents to the Bible, particularly the New Testament, and worship Jesus.
Why, then, is the fundamentalist Christian Right so goddamned fond of Darwinism when it's social Darwinism?
Here's the thing. Real Christians are economic progressives. The teachings of Jesus are incredibly progressive. But these cheap hustlers and fixers and scam artists who pass themselves off as Born Again turn their backs on that Jesus stuff, rationalize it away and dive, head first, into the Old Testament at every opportunity especially when it comes to the killing arts - war and death - and, of course, money.
Yet, on the other side of the pond, British Christians are a lot different than their North American brethren. As David Sirota writes, the Brits like their Christianity with a lot more Christ and a lot less hypocrisy.
"...a new report from the British think tank Demos, ...found that in England 1) "religious people are more active citizens (who) volunteer more, donate more to charity and are more likely to campaign on political issues" and 2) "religious people are more likely to be politically progressive (people who) put a greater value on equality than the non-religious, are more likely to be welcoming of immigrants as neighbours (and) more likely to put themselves on the left of the political spectrum."
"Here in the United States, those who self-identify as religious tend to be exactly the opposite of their British counterparts when it comes to politics. As the Pew Research Center recently discovered, "Most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party" and its ultra-conservative economic agenda. Summing up the situation, scholar Gregory Paul wrote in the Washington Post that many religious Christians in America simply ignore the Word and "proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations."
"...Of course, many Americans who cite Christianity to justify their economic conservatism may not have actually read the Bible. In that sense, religion has become more of a superficial brand rather than a distinct catechism, and brands can be easily manipulated by self-serving partisans and demagogues. To know that is to read the Sermon on the Mount and then marvel at how anyone still justifies right-wing beliefs by invoking Jesus."
So that explains it. We're led by a gang of unbelievers, apostates, heretics, the Damned. They've perverted their proclaimed religion and what could be a more logical next step than to pervert our democracy and our political institutions?
Friday, April 20, 2012
The World 20-Years From Now Will Not Resemble the World Today
Change is happening and the pace of change is accelerating. Most of the changes that are nearing will not be welcome. Some will be enormously challenging. The global consulting giant, KPMG, has identified 10-megaforces that it contends business will have to confront within the next twenty years. And the firm is stressing to business leaders that these trends are all interconnected and have to be addressed collectively as well as separately.
# 1 - Climate Change
KPMG calls climate change "the one global megaforce that directly impacts all others."
"Predictions of annual output losses from climate change range from 1% per year, if strong and early action is taken, to at least 5% a year if policymakers fail to act."
# 2 Energy and Fuel
KPMG foresees great volatility and unpredictability due to increasing demand, production uncertainties and regulatory impacts due to climate change.
# 3 Material Resource Scarcity
Again it's more buyers chasing fewer sources and, in some cases, dwindling supplies of products. KPMG warns of 'dramatic' increases in demand for resources coupled with increasing trade restrictions.
# 4 Water Scarcity
It is widely considered the second greatest megathreat to civilization but KPMG ranks water scarcity as fourth for business. The firm notes that, by 2030, demand for freshwater will outstrip supply by 40%. Businesses will be vulnerable to water shortages and disruptions, price volatility and to what it calls "reputational" challenges. It also warns of security risks caused by conflicts over water supplies.
# 5 Population Growth
Here KPMG sees overpopulation stressing ecosystems and creating pressures of supply of food, water and materials.
# 6 Wealth
While the middle class in North America may be in self-inflicted decline, the middle class in the emerging economies is burgeoning. The global middle class is expected to grow 172% between 2010 and 2030. Business, it warns, will face increasing problems in meeting the consumer demand in the face of environmental and material declines.
# 7 Urbanization
KPMG foresees the trend to urbanization to progress and that, by 2030, the developing regions of Asia and Africa will also have the majority of their populations living in urban areas.
# 8 Food Security
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization recently announced our world had moved into a state of permanent food insecurity. KPMG warns that global food prices are expected to rise between 70-90% by 2030. In already water-scarce regions, industry will face a more difficult competition with agriculture for available water resources.
# 9 Ecosystem Decline
Here KPMG notes a big transition for business. Historically ecosystem decline has been a "reputational" problem for business. That's changed. Now ecosystem decline is having a direct and substantial impact on the same businesses that ignored it in the past.
"More companies are realizing how dependent their operations are on the critical services these ecosystems provide. The decline in ecosystems is making natural resources scarcer, more expensive and less diverse; increasing the costs of water and escalating the damage caused by invasive species to sectors including agriculture, fishing, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals and tourism."
# 10 Deforestation
KPMG sees deforestation as a problem mainly to business revenues. In this narrow context it concludes that, even as forest lands decline by 13% by 2030, lumber companies and 'downstream' industries such as pulp and paper will face increasing regulation to reverse deforestation and consumer insistence on ethical forest management.
The report overall presents a business-oriented approach that at times minimizes or negates social and environmental issues arising out of these same megaforces. Yet the KPMG report illustrates that, as individuals and societies, we have to keep up with the business sector in preparing for these same changes to ensure that governmental and commercial responses meet our needs and interests above all others. If we allow it, our government will shape its policies on these challenges to conform to the demands of business even at the expense of our own best interests. That is the dark side of the corporatism that has infested our Parliament.
# 1 - Climate Change
KPMG calls climate change "the one global megaforce that directly impacts all others."
"Predictions of annual output losses from climate change range from 1% per year, if strong and early action is taken, to at least 5% a year if policymakers fail to act."
# 2 Energy and Fuel
KPMG foresees great volatility and unpredictability due to increasing demand, production uncertainties and regulatory impacts due to climate change.
# 3 Material Resource Scarcity
Again it's more buyers chasing fewer sources and, in some cases, dwindling supplies of products. KPMG warns of 'dramatic' increases in demand for resources coupled with increasing trade restrictions.
# 4 Water Scarcity
It is widely considered the second greatest megathreat to civilization but KPMG ranks water scarcity as fourth for business. The firm notes that, by 2030, demand for freshwater will outstrip supply by 40%. Businesses will be vulnerable to water shortages and disruptions, price volatility and to what it calls "reputational" challenges. It also warns of security risks caused by conflicts over water supplies.
# 5 Population Growth
Here KPMG sees overpopulation stressing ecosystems and creating pressures of supply of food, water and materials.
# 6 Wealth
While the middle class in North America may be in self-inflicted decline, the middle class in the emerging economies is burgeoning. The global middle class is expected to grow 172% between 2010 and 2030. Business, it warns, will face increasing problems in meeting the consumer demand in the face of environmental and material declines.
# 7 Urbanization
KPMG foresees the trend to urbanization to progress and that, by 2030, the developing regions of Asia and Africa will also have the majority of their populations living in urban areas.
# 8 Food Security
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization recently announced our world had moved into a state of permanent food insecurity. KPMG warns that global food prices are expected to rise between 70-90% by 2030. In already water-scarce regions, industry will face a more difficult competition with agriculture for available water resources.
# 9 Ecosystem Decline
Here KPMG notes a big transition for business. Historically ecosystem decline has been a "reputational" problem for business. That's changed. Now ecosystem decline is having a direct and substantial impact on the same businesses that ignored it in the past.
"More companies are realizing how dependent their operations are on the critical services these ecosystems provide. The decline in ecosystems is making natural resources scarcer, more expensive and less diverse; increasing the costs of water and escalating the damage caused by invasive species to sectors including agriculture, fishing, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals and tourism."
# 10 Deforestation
KPMG sees deforestation as a problem mainly to business revenues. In this narrow context it concludes that, even as forest lands decline by 13% by 2030, lumber companies and 'downstream' industries such as pulp and paper will face increasing regulation to reverse deforestation and consumer insistence on ethical forest management.
The report overall presents a business-oriented approach that at times minimizes or negates social and environmental issues arising out of these same megaforces. Yet the KPMG report illustrates that, as individuals and societies, we have to keep up with the business sector in preparing for these same changes to ensure that governmental and commercial responses meet our needs and interests above all others. If we allow it, our government will shape its policies on these challenges to conform to the demands of business even at the expense of our own best interests. That is the dark side of the corporatism that has infested our Parliament.
Is This the Real Canadian Opposition?
With the NDP about to embark on a principle-shredding popularity drive to the top and the Liberals who knows where (or what), organizations like ForestEthics may be the face of future opposition politics in Canada.
ForestEthics is about to go to war - on Harper. To do it they're jettisoning their charitable status. FE is breaking in two, ForestEthics Advocacy and ForestEthics Solutions. FE Solutions will continue the organization's work on crafting environmental policies and strategy. It will remain a charity. FE Advocacy, backed by the likes of Clayton Ruby, will take the fight directly to Harper.
"'While the rest of the world takes action to protect our planet, the Canadian government seems hell-bent on rolling environmental protection back to the dark ages,' says Clayton Ruby, ForestEthics Advocacy board member. 'The Harper government has just gutted the federal framework for environmental protection, dismantled the national roundtable for the environment and launched an unprecedented attack on environmental civil society, labeling them foreign radicals.”
"These direct threats by the government to democratic input on key industrial initiatives come as an unprecedented number of Canadians have expressed concern about major industrial projects like Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline, which will bring Tar Sands from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast, where it will be transported through treacherous coastal waters by hundreds of supertankers, exposing the pristine shoreline to a direct threat of a catastrophic oil spill."
I have long given up on the gaggle of spineless petro-pols that sits on both sides of the aisle in the House of Commons. Harper will soon make Mulcair pay the price for his ambitions - a self-administered political vasectomy. No point counting on the NDP or the Libs to stand up for the most important asset Canada possesses, our environment.
So, it's off to ForestEthics for me, that is if they'll have me and can find something useful for me to do.
ForestEthics is about to go to war - on Harper. To do it they're jettisoning their charitable status. FE is breaking in two, ForestEthics Advocacy and ForestEthics Solutions. FE Solutions will continue the organization's work on crafting environmental policies and strategy. It will remain a charity. FE Advocacy, backed by the likes of Clayton Ruby, will take the fight directly to Harper.
"'While the rest of the world takes action to protect our planet, the Canadian government seems hell-bent on rolling environmental protection back to the dark ages,' says Clayton Ruby, ForestEthics Advocacy board member. 'The Harper government has just gutted the federal framework for environmental protection, dismantled the national roundtable for the environment and launched an unprecedented attack on environmental civil society, labeling them foreign radicals.”
"These direct threats by the government to democratic input on key industrial initiatives come as an unprecedented number of Canadians have expressed concern about major industrial projects like Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline, which will bring Tar Sands from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast, where it will be transported through treacherous coastal waters by hundreds of supertankers, exposing the pristine shoreline to a direct threat of a catastrophic oil spill."
I have long given up on the gaggle of spineless petro-pols that sits on both sides of the aisle in the House of Commons. Harper will soon make Mulcair pay the price for his ambitions - a self-administered political vasectomy. No point counting on the NDP or the Libs to stand up for the most important asset Canada possesses, our environment.
So, it's off to ForestEthics for me, that is if they'll have me and can find something useful for me to do.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
U-N-Believable. Harper Closes BC Oil Spill Centre
The Harper government is closing British Columbia's command centre for emergency oil spills just as that fundamentalist degenerate guts fisheries protections and 'streamlines' environmental approvals for the Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline and Kitimat tanker port.
The oil spill operations will be centralized in Quebec.
The move comes as Kinder Morgan also looks to increase bitumen supertanker traffic through Vancouver harbour from the current 70-per year to 360.
BC's Liberal in name only provincial government, meanwhile, doesn't have a clue how to respond to Ottawa's eco-backstabbing.
Meanwhile Harper EnviroShill Peter Kent's office issued a statement claiming "This will not impact Canadians or the environment." It seems the employees affected were actually working on meaningless stuff such as "providing information about environmentally sensitive land and species at risk."
Prepping Business for a Turbulent Environmental Future
'Business as usual' is on the way out. And that warning is coming from global consulting giant KPMG.
Business is finally recognising what Buddhists have taught for thousands of years and development NGOs have struggled with for decades – that everything is connected and no problem can be effectively dealt with in isolation.
Systems thinking is increasingly filtering into the mainstream and perhaps has finally came of age with consultancy behemoth KPMG shifting its sustainability thinking to a more holistic approach.
In a new report, Expect the unexpected, KPMG says companies need to understand 10 "sustainability megaforces that will impact each and every business over the next 20 years. These forces do not act alone in predictable ways. They are interconnected. They interact."
The megaforces that KPMG highlights represent all the usual suspects, from climate change, unpredictable energy supplies and water scarcity to urbanisation, deforestation and food security.
...Where the report concentrates most of its attention is on the likelihood that companies will increasingly need to factor in the cost of environmental impacts on their balance sheets as governments respond to the many systemic pressures they come under.
This is likely to include the removal of subsidies on input commodities, such as fossil fuels and water, and the wider introduction of mechanisms to increase the cost of environmentally damaging outputs.
The report says that the external environmental costs of the 11 sectors it studied rose by half between 2002 and 2010 to $854bn and are doubling every 14 years, which makes it unsustainable even in the medium term.
Across all these sectors, the report calculates that if companies had to pay for the full environmental costs of their production, they would lose 41 cents for every $1 in earnings on average, with the costs of food producers exceeding the sector's entire earnings.
The only sector to demonstrate an absolute reduction in its external environmental costs over the eight-year period was automobiles, which achieved a drop of 14%, while mining recorded the largest increase.
When I read the assessment that many companies run unpaid environmental costs equal to 41 cents per dollar of earnings, I began to think about our Athabasca Tar Sands. What are the unpaid environmental costs of the Tar Sands? What will be the unpaid environmental costs of the Northern Gateway pipeline and Kitimat bitumen/oil tanker operation? Just how much is Canada giving away for free and why is Big Oil not paying its way? Are the Tar Sands just a giant eco-Ponzi scheme that will leave Canadians holding the bag when the party's over?
London's Formula 1 Buses
A flywheel from a Formula 1 car will be tested on London buses in hope that it can improve fuel efficiency as much as 30%.
The flywheel, developed by racing car builder Williams F1, captures energy from deceleration which is then re-used when the vehicle accelerates.
Unlike massively heavy flywheel technology of the past, the Williams product weighs just 50 kg. It stores energy not in mass like its predecessors but in speed, reaching up to 40,000 rpm.
Arms Race Update
Korea may not yet be able to successfully launch a long-range missile but India can. India has test fired a nuclear-weapon capable, Agni-V missile capable of reaching Beijing or Shanghai and plenty of cities in Europe also.
India's DefMin singled out China in his announcement. He noted that China has had long-range missiles for decades and the Agni-V just gives India a similar capability.
So, how did China respond? See if you can make any sense at all out of this take from the Times of India:
"The Chinese foreign ministry suggested Thursday that India's Agni-V launch should not be viewed as an arms race in the way of better relationship between the Himalayan neighbours.
"'We are not rivals but cooperative partners. We should cherish the hard-earned momentum of cooperation,' Liu Weimin, spokesman of the Chinese foreign ministry said."
If India and China are going to succeed as new economic superpowers they're really going to have to work on their skills in diplomatic bullshit tossing.
India's DefMin singled out China in his announcement. He noted that China has had long-range missiles for decades and the Agni-V just gives India a similar capability.
So, how did China respond? See if you can make any sense at all out of this take from the Times of India:
"The Chinese foreign ministry suggested Thursday that India's Agni-V launch should not be viewed as an arms race in the way of better relationship between the Himalayan neighbours.
"'We are not rivals but cooperative partners. We should cherish the hard-earned momentum of cooperation,' Liu Weimin, spokesman of the Chinese foreign ministry said."
If India and China are going to succeed as new economic superpowers they're really going to have to work on their skills in diplomatic bullshit tossing.
They Would Say That
"As long as Afghanistan is not able to ensure
by itself the security in the country,
the artificial timelines of withdrawal are not correct
and they should not be set"
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
Russia says Western forces have no business getting out of Afghanistan by 2014. No, we should stay in Afghanistan until Afghan forces are able to ensure the country's security all on their own. In other words, until Hell freezes over.
The NATO sec-gen and Afghan DefMin responded to Lavrov, the first essentially saying "a deal is a deal", referring to our
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
From the "He Said WHAT?" File
A Florida fire department Captain knows who's to blame for the killing of Trayvon Martin. In Miami-Dade Captain Brian Beckmann's mind, it's all the fault of "shitbag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent parents" of urban youth.
I guess Cap'n Beckmann wasn't aware that Martin's mother works for the same Miami-Dade government that writes his cheques or that the boy's father is a truck driver.
All those years we thought and hoped that racism was dying out in the States. Now, on an almost daily basis, we find that it's not just back, it never went away.
I guess Cap'n Beckmann wasn't aware that Martin's mother works for the same Miami-Dade government that writes his cheques or that the boy's father is a truck driver.
All those years we thought and hoped that racism was dying out in the States. Now, on an almost daily basis, we find that it's not just back, it never went away.
From the "They Did WHAT?" File
It wasn't even close. By a 28-1 margin the Tennessee state senate has approved a bill updating the state's sex-education curriculum to declare holding hands and kissing "gateway sexual activities."
Since the bill specifically bans teachers from “demonstrating gateway sexual activity”, educators would be prohibited from even demonstrating what hand-holding is.
Besides if little Billy wants to know about sex he can learn it the way his daddy did - from his sister.
Since the bill specifically bans teachers from “demonstrating gateway sexual activity”, educators would be prohibited from even demonstrating what hand-holding is.
Besides if little Billy wants to know about sex he can learn it the way his daddy did - from his sister.
In Afghanistan, Success Equals Failure
Afghan farmers are on target to produce a bumper crop of opium in 2012.
Opium farming will increase across Afghanistan in 2012, driven by insecurity, massive corruption and economic fears for the future, and spreading to more areas than it has in the past four to five years, the United Nations has warned.
Drugs help to fund the Taliban insurgency, but Afghanistan's elite also earn huge amounts from the trade and the government lacks the will to clamp down on a crop worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the UN's leading drug control official in Afghanistan said.
It's nothing short of depressing to listen to incompetent Western military leaders talking about success in Afghanistan and how the Afghan security forces will be able to defend their country. Defend what exactly? A "narco-state"? A government described by Chatham House as a "criminal enterprise"? Criminals defend opium mills, not armies.
Opium farming will increase across Afghanistan in 2012, driven by insecurity, massive corruption and economic fears for the future, and spreading to more areas than it has in the past four to five years, the United Nations has warned.
Drugs help to fund the Taliban insurgency, but Afghanistan's elite also earn huge amounts from the trade and the government lacks the will to clamp down on a crop worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the UN's leading drug control official in Afghanistan said.
It's nothing short of depressing to listen to incompetent Western military leaders talking about success in Afghanistan and how the Afghan security forces will be able to defend their country. Defend what exactly? A "narco-state"? A government described by Chatham House as a "criminal enterprise"? Criminals defend opium mills, not armies.
Norway's Grotesque Travesty
He's sane. He's freely admitted the senseless and brutal murder of 77 people. He's not raising anything that could remotely be recognized as a defence or mitigation.
Why then is a Norwegian court allowing Anders Breivik's trial to turn into theatre of the absurd, a grotesque travesty? Providing Breivik a stage for his perverted, murderous narcissism is nothing short of obscene.
Why then is a Norwegian court allowing Anders Breivik's trial to turn into theatre of the absurd, a grotesque travesty? Providing Breivik a stage for his perverted, murderous narcissism is nothing short of obscene.
Afghanistan, Why Do We Insist on Defeating Ourselves?
Okay, according to America's own counter-insurgency doctrine, Western forces in Afghanistan have long passed the point where, in Afghan eyes, they transformed from liberator/defender to occupier/oppressor. And, okay, the drone attacks aren't helping nor the burning of the Korans or that video of Marines pissing on Afghan corpses and that US sergeant who went berserk and murdered 16-civilians including a gaggle of kids really, really made it all worse.
But now the Afghans have pictures, 18 of them, of US troops posing with trophies - body parts of dead Afghan fighters.
In one of the pictures a paratrooper posed next to an unofficial patch placed beside a body that read "Zombie Hunter", while in another soldiers posed with Afghan police holding the severed legs of an insurgent bombers.
Two soldiers in another frame held a dead insurgent's hand with the middle finger raised.
It's bad enough having to withdraw from Afghanistan in defeat. Was it really necessary for us to have to leave in disgrace?
But now the Afghans have pictures, 18 of them, of US troops posing with trophies - body parts of dead Afghan fighters.
In one of the pictures a paratrooper posed next to an unofficial patch placed beside a body that read "Zombie Hunter", while in another soldiers posed with Afghan police holding the severed legs of an insurgent bombers.
Two soldiers in another frame held a dead insurgent's hand with the middle finger raised.
It's bad enough having to withdraw from Afghanistan in defeat. Was it really necessary for us to have to leave in disgrace?
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Afghanistan Reels Under the Weight of Victory
It's typical of the war in Afghanistan that all sides are claiming victory in the wake of the recent insurgent attacks on Kabul and other cities.
We seemed relieved that Afghan security forces, now believed to number 190,000, were able to put down the attacks albeit after several hours of fighting. That, according to the Western line, shows that the Afghan army and police service can defend the country against the Talibs and their allies.
But we're knocking down straw men. These attacks were just that, insurgent attacks, nothing more. There was nothing potentially decisive about them, nothing at all. They were not intended to bring down the central government or to defeat the Afghan army. The attackers didn't show up loaded for bear, ready to fight a sustained battle. They were mere skirmishers.
The insurgents also claim victory and, by all accounts, their claims seem more legitimate than ours. They staged a demonstration. They showed they could orchestrate a complex assault, striking multiple targets simultaneously. They showed they could preposition weapons and forces in several locations right under the noses of the Afghan military and police, completely undetected. They proved they retained the critical advantage of initiative. They can chose what to hit, when to hit and how to hit their targets.
The insurgents weren't entirely successful. Accounts suggest Afghan government forces were able to interdict some groups, including suicide bombers, before they could get into action.
These Haqqani/Taliban attacks are probably a limited precursor for what will follow when Western forces depart in 2014. The question then won't be the prowess of the Afghan army and police service but the viability of the central government and its institutions. Much of Afghanistan beyond the major cities remains under the control of warlords of diverse ethnicities and historically flexible loyalties. It is on those wobbly legs that the Kabul government stands and upon them that it may teeter and fall.
The big question may be whether, post-2014, the warlord structure or a sufficiently large part of it, coalesces behind the central government or instead devolves along tribal lines. With so much of the countryside still beyond Karzai's control it's difficult to imagine him keeping what remains in line. Then again I'm still willing to bet that the top left-hand drawer in Karzai's desk is full of European bank books and the top right-hand drawer equally full of first class airline tickets to carry him out of Afghanistan on short notice.
We seemed relieved that Afghan security forces, now believed to number 190,000, were able to put down the attacks albeit after several hours of fighting. That, according to the Western line, shows that the Afghan army and police service can defend the country against the Talibs and their allies.
But we're knocking down straw men. These attacks were just that, insurgent attacks, nothing more. There was nothing potentially decisive about them, nothing at all. They were not intended to bring down the central government or to defeat the Afghan army. The attackers didn't show up loaded for bear, ready to fight a sustained battle. They were mere skirmishers.
The insurgents also claim victory and, by all accounts, their claims seem more legitimate than ours. They staged a demonstration. They showed they could orchestrate a complex assault, striking multiple targets simultaneously. They showed they could preposition weapons and forces in several locations right under the noses of the Afghan military and police, completely undetected. They proved they retained the critical advantage of initiative. They can chose what to hit, when to hit and how to hit their targets.
The insurgents weren't entirely successful. Accounts suggest Afghan government forces were able to interdict some groups, including suicide bombers, before they could get into action.
These Haqqani/Taliban attacks are probably a limited precursor for what will follow when Western forces depart in 2014. The question then won't be the prowess of the Afghan army and police service but the viability of the central government and its institutions. Much of Afghanistan beyond the major cities remains under the control of warlords of diverse ethnicities and historically flexible loyalties. It is on those wobbly legs that the Kabul government stands and upon them that it may teeter and fall.
The big question may be whether, post-2014, the warlord structure or a sufficiently large part of it, coalesces behind the central government or instead devolves along tribal lines. With so much of the countryside still beyond Karzai's control it's difficult to imagine him keeping what remains in line. Then again I'm still willing to bet that the top left-hand drawer in Karzai's desk is full of European bank books and the top right-hand drawer equally full of first class airline tickets to carry him out of Afghanistan on short notice.
Is the British Potato in Peril?
It is estimated that the people of the United Kingdom consume their way through their country's annual agricultural production by about Easter each year. Overall, therefore, Brits rely on imports for about two-thirds of their foodstuffs. Put another way, for two-thirds of the year, Brits eat other peoples' food.
In good times that's an unhealthy dependence on foreign food stocks. These aren't good times. Many months ago the UN Food and Agriculture Organization declared the world has moved into a permanent food crisis. Droughts and floods and depletion of groundwater reserves are hobbling our ability to grow enough food to affordably feed our civilization.
A few years ago when Labour governed the UK, British farmers were urged to ramp up agricultural production to make the UK at least somewhat more food self-sufficient. And then the drought set in. East Anglia farmer Richard Wrinch argues that Britain needs an agricultural reformation.
"We can't rely on the water sources we used to, we have to plan for a future with much less water," he said. "It is more important than ever that we get private reservoirs built on farms, that we use water more economically and find more drought resistant crops." The Environment Agency and Defra must loosen regulations around building water tanks and farmers will have to work together more, he believes. "We need that investment and help from the government – if they don't do it now it is very short-sighted."
Farmers are facing financial ruin because of the lack of water, with many forced to change their planned crops for others that require less water. "People are having to stop growing crops that use a lot of water, like potatoes or salad crops. If farmers are in contracts and can't supply the produce they can be hit with financial penalties and there are farmers facing that throughout the country."
Although the public are aware of the drought, they are disconnected from the stark situation facing many farmers who rely heavily on water for their livelihoods, he said. "It's been in the news enough for people to be aware of a hose-pipe ban, but I doubt very much people realise what this means for farmers," he said. "Not being able to wash your car or your patio is a an inconvenience, but when people are paying an extra 50p for their lettuce, or potatoes drop in quality and become more expensive, then it will hit home," he said.
The public disconnect between climate change and food security is widespread and even crosses Canada. Those with no connection to agriculture have difficulty linking warm, dry winters with agricultural calamity. Farming is inherently dependent on climate stability. It's a function of the right amount of precipitation at the right times throughout the crop cycle. Too much rain at the outset and the farmer can't get on the land to plant. Too much rain during the growing season and the crops can rot in the fields. Too little rain and the crops are stunted. Too much rain at harvest time and the farmer may not be able to get on the land to bring in the crop.
Global warming creates agricultural havoc. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour creating a water deficit elsewhere in the hydrological cycle. But, when a super-saturated atmosphere does unload, it can be torrential, leading to floods or, worse, cyclical droughts and floods, both of them potentially lethal to agriculture. It doesn't take much to create agricultural climate instability.
There are work-arounds, adaptation strategies, to be sure and they can offset some climate change impacts. Farmers like Richard Wrinch envision giving up part of his land to construct reservoirs while using his water resources more carefully and switching to drought-resistant crops. Fortunately for Mr. Wrinch, he lives in East Anglia, by the sea, far away from the tropics and equatorial zones. That means he has options that many others will not. And, unfortunately, those "others" tend to live in countries that Britons often look to to make up their own agricultural deficits.
In good times that's an unhealthy dependence on foreign food stocks. These aren't good times. Many months ago the UN Food and Agriculture Organization declared the world has moved into a permanent food crisis. Droughts and floods and depletion of groundwater reserves are hobbling our ability to grow enough food to affordably feed our civilization.
A few years ago when Labour governed the UK, British farmers were urged to ramp up agricultural production to make the UK at least somewhat more food self-sufficient. And then the drought set in. East Anglia farmer Richard Wrinch argues that Britain needs an agricultural reformation.
"We can't rely on the water sources we used to, we have to plan for a future with much less water," he said. "It is more important than ever that we get private reservoirs built on farms, that we use water more economically and find more drought resistant crops." The Environment Agency and Defra must loosen regulations around building water tanks and farmers will have to work together more, he believes. "We need that investment and help from the government – if they don't do it now it is very short-sighted."
Farmers are facing financial ruin because of the lack of water, with many forced to change their planned crops for others that require less water. "People are having to stop growing crops that use a lot of water, like potatoes or salad crops. If farmers are in contracts and can't supply the produce they can be hit with financial penalties and there are farmers facing that throughout the country."
Although the public are aware of the drought, they are disconnected from the stark situation facing many farmers who rely heavily on water for their livelihoods, he said. "It's been in the news enough for people to be aware of a hose-pipe ban, but I doubt very much people realise what this means for farmers," he said. "Not being able to wash your car or your patio is a an inconvenience, but when people are paying an extra 50p for their lettuce, or potatoes drop in quality and become more expensive, then it will hit home," he said.
The public disconnect between climate change and food security is widespread and even crosses Canada. Those with no connection to agriculture have difficulty linking warm, dry winters with agricultural calamity. Farming is inherently dependent on climate stability. It's a function of the right amount of precipitation at the right times throughout the crop cycle. Too much rain at the outset and the farmer can't get on the land to plant. Too much rain during the growing season and the crops can rot in the fields. Too little rain and the crops are stunted. Too much rain at harvest time and the farmer may not be able to get on the land to bring in the crop.
Global warming creates agricultural havoc. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour creating a water deficit elsewhere in the hydrological cycle. But, when a super-saturated atmosphere does unload, it can be torrential, leading to floods or, worse, cyclical droughts and floods, both of them potentially lethal to agriculture. It doesn't take much to create agricultural climate instability.
There are work-arounds, adaptation strategies, to be sure and they can offset some climate change impacts. Farmers like Richard Wrinch envision giving up part of his land to construct reservoirs while using his water resources more carefully and switching to drought-resistant crops. Fortunately for Mr. Wrinch, he lives in East Anglia, by the sea, far away from the tropics and equatorial zones. That means he has options that many others will not. And, unfortunately, those "others" tend to live in countries that Britons often look to to make up their own agricultural deficits.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Krugman Puts Europe on Suicide Watch
Princeton economist, New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wonders if Europe's political leadership has a death wish.
"The question then was whether this brave and effective action [of the European Central Bank] would be the start of a broader rethink, whether European leaders would use the breathing space the bank had created to reconsider the policies that brought matters to a head in the first place.
"But they didn’t. Instead, they doubled down on their failed policies and ideas. And it’s getting harder and harder to believe that anything will get them to change course.
"Consider the state of affairs in Spain, which is now the epicenter of the crisis. Never mind talk of recession; Spain is in full-on depression, with the overall unemployment rate at 23.6 percent, comparable to America at the depths of the Great Depression, and the youth unemployment rate over 50 percent. This can’t go on — and the realization that it can’t go on is what is sending Spanish borrowing costs ever higher.
"...Nonetheless, the prescription coming from Berlin and Frankfurt is, you guessed it, even more fiscal austerity.
"This is, not to mince words, just insane. Europe has had several years of experience with harsh austerity programs, and the results are exactly what students of history told you would happen: such programs push depressed economies even deeper into depression. And because investors look at the state of a nation’s economy when assessing its ability to repay debt, austerity programs haven’t even worked as a way to reduce borrowing costs."
Krugman argues that if European leaders are to prevent continental economic suicide they have two choices - either scrap the Euro and restore the old national currencies, or keep the Euro bolstered by expansionary monetary policies accepting inevitable inflation and many years of agonizingly slow recovery.
"What we’re actually seeing, however, is complete inflexibility. In March, European leaders signed a fiscal pact that in effect locks in fiscal austerity as the response to any and all problems. Meanwhile, key officials at the central bank are making a point of emphasizing the bank’s willingness to raise rates at the slightest hint of higher inflation.
"So it’s hard to avoid a sense of despair. Rather than admit that they’ve been wrong, European leaders seem determined to drive their economy — and their society — off a cliff. And the whole world will pay the price."
Stupid, Stupid Harper
The man who speaks with forked tongue is at it again. Furious Leader Steve Harper says he accepts that the war on drugs, especially South American drug cartels, isn't working.
Cue the Straw Men.
"There is increasing doubt about whether we are taking the best approach to doing that, but nobody thinks these transnational networks are good guys, or that changing the law is somehow going to make them good people," Harper told reporters at a news conference following the close of the Summit of the Americas.
No Steve, nobody does think these transnational networks are good guys anymore than those advocating scrapping ineffective drug laws has any belief, nor hope, that it will somehow make the bad guys become good people. The point, numbnuts, is to put them out of business because it's the illegality aspect that allows them to make the big bucks that drives the crime and violence.
If someone is going to profit out of drug production, distribution and sale, maybe it would be better if it wasn't the criminal element but some other body that could regulate it and tax it - that would be you, numbnuts.
But don't hold your breath. Steve long ago said that he recognized global warming as the greatest threat to mankind but he's done sweet fuck all about that which is precisely what you can expect from his fundamentalist superstition-driven ass on the drug problem especially when it might impair his prison fetish.
Is China Out for Revenge?
China may be looking to the future to avenge real and perceived wrongs from the past. The Guardian reports on war games undertaken by US and Chinese commanders that have taken an eerie twist.
The US and China have been discreetly engaging in "war games" amid rising anger in Washington over the scale and audacity of Beijing-co-ordinated cyber attacks on western governments and big business, the Guardian has learned.
State department and Pentagon officials, along with their Chinese counterparts, were involved in two war games last year that were designed to help prevent a sudden military escalation between the sides if either felt they were being targeted. Another session is planned for May.
Though the exercises have given the US a chance to vent its frustration at what appears to be state-sponsored espionage and theft on an industrial scale, China has been belligerent.
"China has come to the conclusion that the power relationship has changed, and it has changed in a way that favours them," said Jim Lewis, a senior fellow and director at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) thinktank in Washington.
"The PLA [People's Liberation Army] is very hostile. They see the US as a target. They feel they have justification for their actions. They think the US is in decline."
During the first exercise, both sides had to describe what they would do if they were attacked by a sophisticated computer virus, such as Stuxnet, which disabled centrifuges in Iran's nuclear programme. In the second, they had to describe their reaction if the attack was known to have been launched from the other side.
"The two war games have been quite amazing," said Lewis. "The first one went well, the second one not so well.
"The Chinese are very astute. They send knowledgeable people. We want to find ways to change their behaviour … [but] they can justify what they are doing. Their attitude is, they have experienced imperialism and they had a century of humiliation."
Lewis said the Chinese have a "sense that they have been treated unfairly".
"The Chinese have a deep distrust of the US. They are concerned about US military capabilities. They tend to think we have a grand strategy to preserve US hegemony and they see a direct challenge.
"The [Chinese officials] who favour co-operation are not as strong as the people who favour conflict."
So, we're all going to line up to buy F-35s that even our national media are telling us are intended to fight China. Great. That will help dispel their belief in our determination to preserve US hegemony and directly challenge them.
Shit, oh dear. What if China and India decided to collectively settle old scores with the West?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)