Singularity
Just another Reality-based bubble in the foam of the multiverse.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
"Your Town is Next"
From Antifa commenting in Moon of Alabama :
Your Town Is Next
The central thread of the New Orleans situation is that there for years there wasn't enough money for protecting the city. So no protection was in place when disaster arrived.
The engineers charged with protecting the city from hurricane flooding saw their budgets slashed again and again since 2000, leaving them at the last to beg for emergency funds all this year for fixing just the weakest levees. The very levees now leaking billions of gallons of dirty water into the city.
No dice, said the Bush people. Iraq. 9/11. War President. It's hard. Vacation. Terry Schiavo. Vacation. 9/11 is hard.
Seeing a community heartlessly stripped of its ability to protect, feed or fend for itself makes you wonder -- what has Bush stripped from my community? What have we lost right here since 2000? Education, National Guard, police, gas prices, Medicaid, Medicare, Parks & Recreation, flood control, emergency preparedness?
What's been taken from my town, in the night, when no one was looking?
The Bush gang has been quietly stealing from all of us, to give to the rich, to run a war of aggression on behalf of their oil company cronies.
This is a bustout, town by town, across this country. A mafia crew is running the White House, siphoning off our assets to their pals, feeding upon America, running up debts for our grandkids to cope with.
It's catching up with New Orleans right now.
Your Town Is Next.
This is a comment on an excellent post by Billmon :
...media reports paint an picture of almost biblical desolation -- of pillars of smoke rising from fires that can't be as fought because there's no pressure in the water mains; of the risk that corpses from the city's vast above-ground cemeteries might be exhumed by the floodwaters and sent drifting through streets transformed into canals; of snakes, alligators and a three-foot shark -- yes, a shark -- spotted swimming in the fetid water.
Add in the raw waste from a hundred backed-up sewer lines, the rotting food from a hundred thousand kitchen refrigerators and the industrial filth of one of the country's largest ports and petrochemical centers, plus the corpses, dead animals, debris and the mosquito eggs -- many of them no doubt already hatching -- and you've got the makings of a first-class public health nightmare. Stew in the sun and the heat of a Louisiana September for a week or two, and watch the nightmare become a reality...
The big problem, or so I've read, is that while the river and the lake keep getting higher as sediment settles on their bottoms -- half a continent's worth, in the Mississippi's case -- the ground that New Orleans sits on keeps sinking lower -- in part because the same levees that keep the water out also prevent fresh layers of silt and mud from being deposited to offset natural subsidiance. As a result, the city is sinking at a rate of three feet per century -- about eight times faster than the world average. Which means the levees have to be raised steadily higher, and the pumps have to work steadily harder, to keep it dry.
Now that the worst has happened, many pundits, particularly on the left, are pointing to the budget cuts that have hamstrung the Army Corps of Engineers in its endless battle of New Orleans:
"The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars..."
...But the bigger story behind the drowning of New Orleans is what it reveals about the longer-term consequences of America's lunatic environmental priorities. For nearly 160 years, private industry and governments alike have been chopping and channeling the Mississippi and its tributaries -- turning rivers into drainage ditches, riverbanks into Maginot Line-style fortifications, and wetlands into factory farms. This has created the same self-defeating spiral that doomed New Orleans -- the rivers rise, the riverbanks sink, forcing the levees higher and higher, until some of them are now as tall as four-story buildings.
There's no future in this -- and for Southern Lousiana, home to about 40% of the wetlands in the entire continental United States, the future is now. Without the silt and mud that the Mississippi once spread liberally across the entire network of sloughs and bayous that flow to the sea, the Gulf of Mexico is not-so-gradually munching its way north -- even as the federal government spends millions each year to dredge the main shipping channels of sediment:
"Up to 35 square miles of Louisiana's wetlands sink into the Gulf of Mexico each year. To date, an area the size of Rhode Island has been lost. In some places, the coastline has retreated 30 miles..."
...even Dick Cheney might want to think about the effect the destruction of South Lousiana could have on his beloved energy industry. The infrastructure -- drilling platforms, ports, shipyards -- that supports something like 20% of all U.S. oil and gas production is being left further and further out to sea:
"As executive director of the Greater LaFourche Port Commission, [Ted Falgout] manages the country's largest transportation hub for offshore oil and gas drilling. There are 600 offshore drilling platforms within 40 miles of the port.
"The road connecting Port Fourchon to civilization, Louisiana Route 1, sits four feet above sea level for its final 18 miles. If a hurricane were to wash it away, nearly 20% of the total U.S. oil supply would be jeopardized. Gasoline prices might triple, Falgout warns."
Now, thanks to Katrina, the hidden costs of all those decades of insane policies are being made visible to the entire world.
...The real lesson of Katrina, though, is that the scenes we've been watching in New Orleans could be repeated in many other places in the decades ahead, if the worst-case scenarios generated by the global climate change models become realities.
It's easy, even for reasonable people, to disregard those scenarios. The worst case, after all, doesn't usually happen. But the flooding of New Orleans, like the destruction of Pompeii, is a graphic demonstration of the fact that sometimes the worst case (or something like it) does happen, especially when it is preceded by years of willful ignorance and blind self interest.
If the worst case for global climate change comes to pass, the environmental and economic losses will dwarf, many times over, the costs of Hurricane Katrina. They'll also reduce into insignificance the price tag on the Kyoto Treaty -- which itself may be too little, too late. If Shrub really thinks that doing something about climate change would "wreck the economy," he should spend some of his unused vacation time thinking about what just happened to New Orleans. ¶ 9:42 PM 0 comments links to this post
Your Town Is Next
The central thread of the New Orleans situation is that there for years there wasn't enough money for protecting the city. So no protection was in place when disaster arrived.
The engineers charged with protecting the city from hurricane flooding saw their budgets slashed again and again since 2000, leaving them at the last to beg for emergency funds all this year for fixing just the weakest levees. The very levees now leaking billions of gallons of dirty water into the city.
No dice, said the Bush people. Iraq. 9/11. War President. It's hard. Vacation. Terry Schiavo. Vacation. 9/11 is hard.
Seeing a community heartlessly stripped of its ability to protect, feed or fend for itself makes you wonder -- what has Bush stripped from my community? What have we lost right here since 2000? Education, National Guard, police, gas prices, Medicaid, Medicare, Parks & Recreation, flood control, emergency preparedness?
What's been taken from my town, in the night, when no one was looking?
The Bush gang has been quietly stealing from all of us, to give to the rich, to run a war of aggression on behalf of their oil company cronies.
This is a bustout, town by town, across this country. A mafia crew is running the White House, siphoning off our assets to their pals, feeding upon America, running up debts for our grandkids to cope with.
It's catching up with New Orleans right now.
Your Town Is Next.
This is a comment on an excellent post by Billmon :
...media reports paint an picture of almost biblical desolation -- of pillars of smoke rising from fires that can't be as fought because there's no pressure in the water mains; of the risk that corpses from the city's vast above-ground cemeteries might be exhumed by the floodwaters and sent drifting through streets transformed into canals; of snakes, alligators and a three-foot shark -- yes, a shark -- spotted swimming in the fetid water.
Add in the raw waste from a hundred backed-up sewer lines, the rotting food from a hundred thousand kitchen refrigerators and the industrial filth of one of the country's largest ports and petrochemical centers, plus the corpses, dead animals, debris and the mosquito eggs -- many of them no doubt already hatching -- and you've got the makings of a first-class public health nightmare. Stew in the sun and the heat of a Louisiana September for a week or two, and watch the nightmare become a reality...
The big problem, or so I've read, is that while the river and the lake keep getting higher as sediment settles on their bottoms -- half a continent's worth, in the Mississippi's case -- the ground that New Orleans sits on keeps sinking lower -- in part because the same levees that keep the water out also prevent fresh layers of silt and mud from being deposited to offset natural subsidiance. As a result, the city is sinking at a rate of three feet per century -- about eight times faster than the world average. Which means the levees have to be raised steadily higher, and the pumps have to work steadily harder, to keep it dry.
Now that the worst has happened, many pundits, particularly on the left, are pointing to the budget cuts that have hamstrung the Army Corps of Engineers in its endless battle of New Orleans:
"The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars..."
...But the bigger story behind the drowning of New Orleans is what it reveals about the longer-term consequences of America's lunatic environmental priorities. For nearly 160 years, private industry and governments alike have been chopping and channeling the Mississippi and its tributaries -- turning rivers into drainage ditches, riverbanks into Maginot Line-style fortifications, and wetlands into factory farms. This has created the same self-defeating spiral that doomed New Orleans -- the rivers rise, the riverbanks sink, forcing the levees higher and higher, until some of them are now as tall as four-story buildings.
There's no future in this -- and for Southern Lousiana, home to about 40% of the wetlands in the entire continental United States, the future is now. Without the silt and mud that the Mississippi once spread liberally across the entire network of sloughs and bayous that flow to the sea, the Gulf of Mexico is not-so-gradually munching its way north -- even as the federal government spends millions each year to dredge the main shipping channels of sediment:
"Up to 35 square miles of Louisiana's wetlands sink into the Gulf of Mexico each year. To date, an area the size of Rhode Island has been lost. In some places, the coastline has retreated 30 miles..."
...even Dick Cheney might want to think about the effect the destruction of South Lousiana could have on his beloved energy industry. The infrastructure -- drilling platforms, ports, shipyards -- that supports something like 20% of all U.S. oil and gas production is being left further and further out to sea:
"As executive director of the Greater LaFourche Port Commission, [Ted Falgout] manages the country's largest transportation hub for offshore oil and gas drilling. There are 600 offshore drilling platforms within 40 miles of the port.
"The road connecting Port Fourchon to civilization, Louisiana Route 1, sits four feet above sea level for its final 18 miles. If a hurricane were to wash it away, nearly 20% of the total U.S. oil supply would be jeopardized. Gasoline prices might triple, Falgout warns."
Now, thanks to Katrina, the hidden costs of all those decades of insane policies are being made visible to the entire world.
...The real lesson of Katrina, though, is that the scenes we've been watching in New Orleans could be repeated in many other places in the decades ahead, if the worst-case scenarios generated by the global climate change models become realities.
It's easy, even for reasonable people, to disregard those scenarios. The worst case, after all, doesn't usually happen. But the flooding of New Orleans, like the destruction of Pompeii, is a graphic demonstration of the fact that sometimes the worst case (or something like it) does happen, especially when it is preceded by years of willful ignorance and blind self interest.
If the worst case for global climate change comes to pass, the environmental and economic losses will dwarf, many times over, the costs of Hurricane Katrina. They'll also reduce into insignificance the price tag on the Kyoto Treaty -- which itself may be too little, too late. If Shrub really thinks that doing something about climate change would "wreck the economy," he should spend some of his unused vacation time thinking about what just happened to New Orleans. ¶ 9:42 PM 0 comments links to this post
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
They Write Letters
As I've mentioned, the correlation between burning fossil fuels, greenhousing, and storms is nothing new. Disasters like New Orleans have been predicted for some time. But as long as the people that own the government have an interest in burning all of our fossil fuels, for their profit and to keep us in line with their program, nothing will change.
Yet many people know better, and the best scientists have been fighting an unseen battle to get the word out.
In 2001, a letter to the Editor of Science magazine, organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was written and published ( Science 6 July 2001; 293: 48-49 [DOI: 10.1126/science.293.5527.48] ) :
Climate Variability and Global Warming
Although uncertainties in global warming are many and varied, they are not as great as stated in the recent U.S. National Research Council (NRC) report (1). As Richard A. Kerr notes in his News of the Week article, President George W. Bush seized upon these uncertainties to justify the administration's limited response ("Bush backs spending for a 'global problem,'" 15 Jun., p. 1978). Specifically, Bush "emphasized that the contribution of natural climate variability to the past century's warming is uncertain," to quote Kerr.
Unfortunately, in the NRC report, two aspects of natural climate variability are conflated. First, there is natural variability that is tied to external forcings, such as variations in the Sun, volcanoes, and the orbital variations of Earth around the Sun. The latter is the driving force for the major ice ages and interglacial periods. Second, there is natural variability that is internal to the climate system, arising, for instance, from interactions between the atmosphere and ocean, such as El Niño. This internal variability occurs even in an unchanging climate.
In the NRC report and in its summary, natural variability is said to be "quite large," but both kinds of variability are treated as if they are internal. Glacial to interglacial swings are discussed without mention of the known causes. Several lines of evidence, from the instrumental and paleoclimate records (2) and from climate models (3), strongly suggest that the recent increase in global mean temperature is beyond that possible from internal processes and thus must be caused by an increase in heating. This reasoning also puts limits on how large aerosol cooling could be. Further, known causes such as changes in the Sun and volcanic activity in the past 50 years have, if anything, led to cooling in this interval, leaving only the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases as the culprit. This reasoning has also been quantitatively confirmed with climate models (3, 4).
A consequence of mistreatment of natural climate variability in the NRC report is that the caveats are overstated. Natural climate variability is dealt with much more thoroughly in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment (4), which was developed over about 3 years (versus 1 month for the NRC report). The summary from the IPCC is that "[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
Kevin E. Trenberth
Head,
Climate Analysis Section,
National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, CO 80307, USA.
E-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
References and Notes
1. Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division of Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001). Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html
2. M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley, M. K. Hughes, Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759 (1999).
3. P. A. Stott et al., Science 281, 2133 (2000).
4. IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge).
What Dr. Trenberth is saying to his colleagues is that the "known unknowns" aren't unknown at all. In fact, the evidence is known quite well. Not being one to take rebuffs from the President lightly, more work from his lab along these lines was pursued, and will be discussed here soon. ¶ 9:49 PM 0 comments links to this post
Yet many people know better, and the best scientists have been fighting an unseen battle to get the word out.
In 2001, a letter to the Editor of Science magazine, organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was written and published ( Science 6 July 2001; 293: 48-49 [DOI: 10.1126/science.293.5527.48] ) :
Climate Variability and Global Warming
Although uncertainties in global warming are many and varied, they are not as great as stated in the recent U.S. National Research Council (NRC) report (1). As Richard A. Kerr notes in his News of the Week article, President George W. Bush seized upon these uncertainties to justify the administration's limited response ("Bush backs spending for a 'global problem,'" 15 Jun., p. 1978). Specifically, Bush "emphasized that the contribution of natural climate variability to the past century's warming is uncertain," to quote Kerr.
Unfortunately, in the NRC report, two aspects of natural climate variability are conflated. First, there is natural variability that is tied to external forcings, such as variations in the Sun, volcanoes, and the orbital variations of Earth around the Sun. The latter is the driving force for the major ice ages and interglacial periods. Second, there is natural variability that is internal to the climate system, arising, for instance, from interactions between the atmosphere and ocean, such as El Niño. This internal variability occurs even in an unchanging climate.
In the NRC report and in its summary, natural variability is said to be "quite large," but both kinds of variability are treated as if they are internal. Glacial to interglacial swings are discussed without mention of the known causes. Several lines of evidence, from the instrumental and paleoclimate records (2) and from climate models (3), strongly suggest that the recent increase in global mean temperature is beyond that possible from internal processes and thus must be caused by an increase in heating. This reasoning also puts limits on how large aerosol cooling could be. Further, known causes such as changes in the Sun and volcanic activity in the past 50 years have, if anything, led to cooling in this interval, leaving only the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases as the culprit. This reasoning has also been quantitatively confirmed with climate models (3, 4).
A consequence of mistreatment of natural climate variability in the NRC report is that the caveats are overstated. Natural climate variability is dealt with much more thoroughly in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment (4), which was developed over about 3 years (versus 1 month for the NRC report). The summary from the IPCC is that "[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
Kevin E. Trenberth
Head,
Climate Analysis Section,
National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, CO 80307, USA.
E-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
References and Notes
1. Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division of Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001). Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html
2. M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley, M. K. Hughes, Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759 (1999).
3. P. A. Stott et al., Science 281, 2133 (2000).
4. IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge).
What Dr. Trenberth is saying to his colleagues is that the "known unknowns" aren't unknown at all. In fact, the evidence is known quite well. Not being one to take rebuffs from the President lightly, more work from his lab along these lines was pursued, and will be discussed here soon. ¶ 9:49 PM 0 comments links to this post
"Farfetched"
That Terra'ist Truthout site has a couple of interesting reports.
In Storm Turns Focus to Global Warming, Miguel Bustillo in The Los Angeles Times says:
...Most hurricane scientists maintain that linking global warming to more-frequent severe storms, such as Hurricane Katrina, is premature, at best.
Though warmer sea-surface temperatures caused by climate change theoretically could boost the frequency and potency of hurricanes, scientists say the 150-year record of Atlantic storms shows ample precedent for recent events.
But a paper published last month in the journal Nature by meteorologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is part of an emerging body of research challenging the prevailing view.
It concluded that the destructive power of hurricanes had increased 50% over the last half a century, and that a rise in surface temperatures linked to global warming was at least partly responsible.
"I was one of those skeptics myself - a year ago," Emanuel said Monday.
But after examining data on hurricanes in the Atlantic and typhoons in the Pacific, he said, "I was startled to see this upward trend" in duration and top wind speeds.
"People are beginning to seriously wonder whether there is a [global warming] signal there. I think you are going to see a lot more of a focus on this in coming years."
Hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been higher than normal in nine of the last 11 years, said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
This month, the agency raised its already-high hurricane forecast for this year to 18 to 21 tropical storms, including as many as 11 that would become hurricanes and five to seven that would reach major-hurricane status. That could make 2005 one of the most violent hurricane seasons ever recorded. A typical storm year in the Atlantic results in six hurricanes.
But the agency believes that the increase in hurricanes is most likely the result of a confluence of cyclical ocean and atmospheric conditions that tend to produce heightened tropical storms every 20 to 30 years. If global warming is playing any role in the hurricanes, it is a minor one, the federal agency maintains.
Computer models have shown for years that rising sea-surface temperatures resulting from global warming could create more ideal conditions for hurricanes.
Yet before Emanuel's research there were few indications that hurricanes had become stronger or more frequent, despite well-documented increases in surface temperatures.
Moreover, skeptical hurricane scientists were quick to point out that worldwide weather records were too inadequate for a thorough examination of such trends. They said that would require an analysis of storm activity going back hundreds if not thousands of years.
"There is absolutely no empirical evidence..."
I have found that training as a scientist is not always a guarantee of your objectivity, especially when your funding requires you abandon it. Just sayin'.
Bustillo continues:
...Nonetheless, some scientists have maintained that the rise in mean global temperatures over the last half a century - a well-documented trend widely linked to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels - will inevitably have an effect on storms, if it hasn't already.
"It's the ocean temperatures and sea-surface temperatures that provide the fuel for hurricanes," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who recently published a paper in the journal Science contending that climate change could cause hurricanes to produce more rain and thereby become more dangerous.
"It's the big guys, the more intense storms, that have been increasing," Trenberth said. Hurricane scientists have been "unduly influenced by what has been happening in their corner of the world in the Atlantic. But if you look more broadly, at what has been happening in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, there is a clear trend."
Such views remain controversial among veteran hurricane scientists...
To say the least.
Dr. Trenberth has published some interesting things recently in Science:
Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming
Kevin Trenberth
Science 17 June 2005; 308: 1753-1754 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1112551]
Modern Global Climate Change
Thomas R. Karl and Kevin E. Trenberth
Science 5 December 2003; 302: 1719-1723 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1090228]
Toward Integrated Reconstruction of Past Climates
Kevin E. Trenberth and Bette L. Otto-Bliesner
Science 25 April 2003; 300: 589-590 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1083122]
Changes in Tropical Clouds and Radiation
Kevin E. Trenberth, Bruce A. Wielicki, Anthony D. Del Genio, Takmeng Wong, Junye Chen, Barbara E. Carlson, Richard P. Allan, Franklin Robertson, Herbert Jacobowitz, Anthony Slingo, David A. Randall, Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Brian J. Soden, C. T. Gordon, Alvin J. Miller, Shi-Keng Yang, and Joel Susskind
Science 21 June 2002; 296: 2095 [DOI: 10.1126/science.296.5576.2095a]
Climate Variability and Global Warming
Kevin E. Trenberth
Science 6 July 2001; 293: 48-49 [DOI: 10.1126/science.293.5527.48]
Basically, he has some real evidence, and covers it in exquisite detail.
Farfetched? Certainly enough for me to blog on for a few days. I'll be reproducing some of it here for you to think about. Of course there will be massive farfetched interpretation for you.
In the second article, there's less objectivity, and more anger. Which, objectively, may be justified.
In Katrina's Real Name, Ross Gelbspan at the The Boston Globe says:
The Hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming... As the atmosphere warms, it generates longer droughts, more-intense downpours, more-frequent heat waves, and more-severe storms.
Although Katrina began as a relatively small hurricane that glanced off south Florida, it was supercharged with extraordinary intensity by the relatively blistering sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico.
The consequences are as heartbreaking as they are terrifying.
Unfortunately, very few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue.
The reason is simple: To allow the climate to stabilize requires humanity to cut its use of coal and oil by 70 percent. That, of course, threatens the survival of one of the largest commercial enterprises in history.
In 1995, public utility hearings in Minnesota found that the coal industry had paid more than $1 million to four scientists who were public dissenters on global warming. And ExxonMobil has spent more than $13 million since 1998 on an anti-global warming public relations and lobbying campaign.
In 2000, big oil and big coal scored their biggest electoral victory yet when President George W. Bush was elected president - and subsequently took suggestions from the industry for his climate and energy policies.
As the pace of climate change accelerates, many researchers fear we have already entered a period of irreversible runaway climate change.
Against this background, the ignorance of the American public about global warming stands out as an indictment of the US media.
When the US press has bothered to cover the subject of global warming, it has focused almost exclusively on its political and diplomatic aspects and not on what the warming is doing to our agriculture, water supplies, plant and animal life, public health, and weather.
For years, the fossil fuel industry has lobbied the media to accord the same weight to a handful of global warming skeptics that it accords the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations...
Ah, yes, anger over farfetched possibilities, and a report of the opinion of a majority of the world's atmospheric scientists. Which, of course, must be balanced by the best meterologists Halliburton can buy.
But enough of balance.
More reality based facts for you, as real as the coliforms swimming 20 feet deep in the streets of New Orleans tonight, with reference citations, soon. ¶ 9:08 PM 0 comments links to this post
In Storm Turns Focus to Global Warming, Miguel Bustillo in The Los Angeles Times says:
...Most hurricane scientists maintain that linking global warming to more-frequent severe storms, such as Hurricane Katrina, is premature, at best.
Though warmer sea-surface temperatures caused by climate change theoretically could boost the frequency and potency of hurricanes, scientists say the 150-year record of Atlantic storms shows ample precedent for recent events.
But a paper published last month in the journal Nature by meteorologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is part of an emerging body of research challenging the prevailing view.
It concluded that the destructive power of hurricanes had increased 50% over the last half a century, and that a rise in surface temperatures linked to global warming was at least partly responsible.
"I was one of those skeptics myself - a year ago," Emanuel said Monday.
But after examining data on hurricanes in the Atlantic and typhoons in the Pacific, he said, "I was startled to see this upward trend" in duration and top wind speeds.
"People are beginning to seriously wonder whether there is a [global warming] signal there. I think you are going to see a lot more of a focus on this in coming years."
Hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been higher than normal in nine of the last 11 years, said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
This month, the agency raised its already-high hurricane forecast for this year to 18 to 21 tropical storms, including as many as 11 that would become hurricanes and five to seven that would reach major-hurricane status. That could make 2005 one of the most violent hurricane seasons ever recorded. A typical storm year in the Atlantic results in six hurricanes.
But the agency believes that the increase in hurricanes is most likely the result of a confluence of cyclical ocean and atmospheric conditions that tend to produce heightened tropical storms every 20 to 30 years. If global warming is playing any role in the hurricanes, it is a minor one, the federal agency maintains.
Computer models have shown for years that rising sea-surface temperatures resulting from global warming could create more ideal conditions for hurricanes.
Yet before Emanuel's research there were few indications that hurricanes had become stronger or more frequent, despite well-documented increases in surface temperatures.
Moreover, skeptical hurricane scientists were quick to point out that worldwide weather records were too inadequate for a thorough examination of such trends. They said that would require an analysis of storm activity going back hundreds if not thousands of years.
"There is absolutely no empirical evidence..."
I have found that training as a scientist is not always a guarantee of your objectivity, especially when your funding requires you abandon it. Just sayin'.
Bustillo continues:
...Nonetheless, some scientists have maintained that the rise in mean global temperatures over the last half a century - a well-documented trend widely linked to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels - will inevitably have an effect on storms, if it hasn't already.
"It's the ocean temperatures and sea-surface temperatures that provide the fuel for hurricanes," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who recently published a paper in the journal Science contending that climate change could cause hurricanes to produce more rain and thereby become more dangerous.
"It's the big guys, the more intense storms, that have been increasing," Trenberth said. Hurricane scientists have been "unduly influenced by what has been happening in their corner of the world in the Atlantic. But if you look more broadly, at what has been happening in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, there is a clear trend."
Such views remain controversial among veteran hurricane scientists...
To say the least.
Dr. Trenberth has published some interesting things recently in Science:
Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming
Kevin Trenberth
Science 17 June 2005; 308: 1753-1754 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1112551]
Modern Global Climate Change
Thomas R. Karl and Kevin E. Trenberth
Science 5 December 2003; 302: 1719-1723 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1090228]
Toward Integrated Reconstruction of Past Climates
Kevin E. Trenberth and Bette L. Otto-Bliesner
Science 25 April 2003; 300: 589-590 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1083122]
Changes in Tropical Clouds and Radiation
Kevin E. Trenberth, Bruce A. Wielicki, Anthony D. Del Genio, Takmeng Wong, Junye Chen, Barbara E. Carlson, Richard P. Allan, Franklin Robertson, Herbert Jacobowitz, Anthony Slingo, David A. Randall, Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Brian J. Soden, C. T. Gordon, Alvin J. Miller, Shi-Keng Yang, and Joel Susskind
Science 21 June 2002; 296: 2095 [DOI: 10.1126/science.296.5576.2095a]
Climate Variability and Global Warming
Kevin E. Trenberth
Science 6 July 2001; 293: 48-49 [DOI: 10.1126/science.293.5527.48]
Basically, he has some real evidence, and covers it in exquisite detail.
Farfetched? Certainly enough for me to blog on for a few days. I'll be reproducing some of it here for you to think about. Of course there will be massive farfetched interpretation for you.
In the second article, there's less objectivity, and more anger. Which, objectively, may be justified.
In Katrina's Real Name, Ross Gelbspan at the The Boston Globe says:
The Hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming... As the atmosphere warms, it generates longer droughts, more-intense downpours, more-frequent heat waves, and more-severe storms.
Although Katrina began as a relatively small hurricane that glanced off south Florida, it was supercharged with extraordinary intensity by the relatively blistering sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico.
The consequences are as heartbreaking as they are terrifying.
Unfortunately, very few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue.
The reason is simple: To allow the climate to stabilize requires humanity to cut its use of coal and oil by 70 percent. That, of course, threatens the survival of one of the largest commercial enterprises in history.
In 1995, public utility hearings in Minnesota found that the coal industry had paid more than $1 million to four scientists who were public dissenters on global warming. And ExxonMobil has spent more than $13 million since 1998 on an anti-global warming public relations and lobbying campaign.
In 2000, big oil and big coal scored their biggest electoral victory yet when President George W. Bush was elected president - and subsequently took suggestions from the industry for his climate and energy policies.
As the pace of climate change accelerates, many researchers fear we have already entered a period of irreversible runaway climate change.
Against this background, the ignorance of the American public about global warming stands out as an indictment of the US media.
When the US press has bothered to cover the subject of global warming, it has focused almost exclusively on its political and diplomatic aspects and not on what the warming is doing to our agriculture, water supplies, plant and animal life, public health, and weather.
For years, the fossil fuel industry has lobbied the media to accord the same weight to a handful of global warming skeptics that it accords the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations...
Ah, yes, anger over farfetched possibilities, and a report of the opinion of a majority of the world's atmospheric scientists. Which, of course, must be balanced by the best meterologists Halliburton can buy.
But enough of balance.
More reality based facts for you, as real as the coliforms swimming 20 feet deep in the streets of New Orleans tonight, with reference citations, soon. ¶ 9:08 PM 0 comments links to this post
Homeland Insecurity
...The 2004 hurricane season, as you probably recall, was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane- and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs. According to New Orleans CityBusiness this June 5:
The district has identified $35 million in projects to build and improve levees, floodwalls and pumping stations in St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes. Those projects are included in a Corps line item called Lake Pontchartrain, where funding is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million this year to $2.9 million in 2006. Naomi said it's enough to pay salaries but little else.
"We'll do some design work. We'll design the contracts and get them ready to go if we get the money. But we don't have the money to put the work in the field, and that's the problem," Naomi said.
There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:
That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount.
But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said.
The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late. One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer was a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach. The levee failure appears to be causing a human tragedy of epic proportions:
"We probably have 80 percent of our city under water; with some sections of our city the water is as deep as 20 feet. Both airports are underwater," Mayor Ray Nagin told a radio interviewer.
Washington knew that this day could come at any time, and it knew the things that needed to be done to protect the citizens of New Orleans. But in the tradition of the riverboat gambler, the Bush administration decided to roll the dice on its fool's errand in Iraq, and on a tax cut that mainly benefitted the rich.
And now Bush has lost that gamble, big time. We hope that Congress will investigate what went wrong here.
The president told us that we needed to fight in Iraq to save lives here at home, and yet -- after moving billions of domestic dollars to the Persian Gulf -- there are bodies floating through the streets of Louisana. What does George W. Bush have to say for himself now?
Of course, it's not enough, whatever he says. You might also notice that despite a lot of Mission Accomplished talk, Bush has gutted the FEMA. Thank Hecate for the link. ¶ 4:16 PM 0 comments links to this post
The district has identified $35 million in projects to build and improve levees, floodwalls and pumping stations in St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes. Those projects are included in a Corps line item called Lake Pontchartrain, where funding is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million this year to $2.9 million in 2006. Naomi said it's enough to pay salaries but little else.
"We'll do some design work. We'll design the contracts and get them ready to go if we get the money. But we don't have the money to put the work in the field, and that's the problem," Naomi said.
There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:
That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount.
But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said.
The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late. One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer was a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach. The levee failure appears to be causing a human tragedy of epic proportions:
"We probably have 80 percent of our city under water; with some sections of our city the water is as deep as 20 feet. Both airports are underwater," Mayor Ray Nagin told a radio interviewer.
Washington knew that this day could come at any time, and it knew the things that needed to be done to protect the citizens of New Orleans. But in the tradition of the riverboat gambler, the Bush administration decided to roll the dice on its fool's errand in Iraq, and on a tax cut that mainly benefitted the rich.
And now Bush has lost that gamble, big time. We hope that Congress will investigate what went wrong here.
The president told us that we needed to fight in Iraq to save lives here at home, and yet -- after moving billions of domestic dollars to the Persian Gulf -- there are bodies floating through the streets of Louisana. What does George W. Bush have to say for himself now?
Of course, it's not enough, whatever he says. You might also notice that despite a lot of Mission Accomplished talk, Bush has gutted the FEMA. Thank Hecate for the link. ¶ 4:16 PM 0 comments links to this post
Magical Thinking
Riggsveda at Corrente talks about Happy Talk for people who don't approve of those far-fetched notions in the media post-Katrina, and points to this piece by Jim Kuntsler.
Trust in Free Markets? Well, I have some real estate on the Gulf you might be interested in...
Trust in Free Markets? Sure. Show me one, first. Like the Halliburton bid for Iraqi "reconstruction", right? Like the Free Market respects people who try to keep it Free.
Kuntsler also has a good post on the 22nd about all that Happy Talk by Happy People in the media last week about the price of oil:
Delusional thinking about oil was everywhere in the media last week -- as thick as advertising. Early in the week, Yahoo Finance ran a story with a headline (I paraphrase): "DOW Up Fifty Points as Oil Prices Plunge." The plunge they referred to was oil going from $63.90 a barrel to $63.30. Some plunge. This was after five days of oil ratcheting up out of the high $50s. (It ended the week around $65.)
NPR's Marketplace show and a separate wire story piece on the web offered similar headlines (or lead-ins) which said (again I paraphrase) "US Economy No Longer Affected By Oil Prices." Of course, this is exactly the kind of magical thinking you'd expect to see in a public on extended leave from reality, despite the ubiquity of "reality television." The accepted idea is that since America outsourced most of its heavy industry to China and elsewhere, we now have an economy that runs just fine on Tic-tacs and Diet Pepsi, and oil is not in the picture anymore.
Wrong. America consumes one-quarter of the world's daily production of 84 million barrels of oil. More than half of our share is burned in cars and trucks. In fact, our economy now amounts to little more than running 200 million motor vehicles around the suburban metroplexes in the service of ever more slapped-together McHousing developments, big box stores, and fried chicken huts. That's our economy. That's all we do anymore.
The New York Times chimed in with a cover piece in its Sunday Magazine titled The Beginning of the End of Oil? by veteran journalist Peter Maas. It presented a story that has been around the Internet for more than a year, based on investment banker Matthew Simmons' frequent public speeches about the apparent weakness in the Saudi Arabian oil industry (which Simmons published in book form last month as Twilight in the Desert). Apparently the Times editors have been mulling over the oil story for months and months, wondering if there is anything to it, and perhaps the movement of oil prices into the $60-plus range finally prompted them to run with it.
Maas's article is full of howling omissions and delusions. For one thing, Maas omits any serious reflection of the consequences of a global energy crisis, any specters of geopolitical blowback, or potential problems for America's non-negotiable easy-motoring way of life. That omission grows out of the delusional assumption that some magical market mechanism will conjure up a menu of just-in-time replacements for the vanishing oil. These are referred to as "alternative technologies," a term that points to a more fundamental delusion now rampant among the public, namely the mistaken belief that technology and energy are the same thing, that they are interchangeable, that you can substitute one for the other. Out of oil? Get new technology.
Note to public: technology and energy are not the same things, and continuing to think that they are may place our civilization in jeopardy.
The bottom line of the Times Sunday Magazine article is that they are still not convinced that global peak oil is for real, or that we necessarily ought to be worried about it, with all that "alternative technology" banging around out there in the innovational ethers of the magical market. They bring a magisterial cluelessness to the issue -- while the back pages of the Magazine are devoted to hawking the glitziest high-end products of the suburban housing bubble.
Finally there was the Sunday Times' editorial, "Foolishness on Fuel," which was really about the editors own foolishness. It essayed to assert that America's oil problem was entirely a matter of vehicle fuel efficiency -- with the presumption that our problems would go away if only congress had the spine to mandate higher gas mileage figures from the car industry. The editorial completely failed to recognize that there was any problem with extreme automobile dependency itself, that maybe we should be making other arrangements -- say, walkable communities, or railroad service on par with what they have in Latvia, or local economies liberated from the despotism of WalMart.
This week's performance by the media on oil issues shows how America will dissemble its way into a dark era.
That's the idea, isn't it? ¶ 9:43 AM 1 comments links to this post
Trust in Free Markets? Well, I have some real estate on the Gulf you might be interested in...
Trust in Free Markets? Sure. Show me one, first. Like the Halliburton bid for Iraqi "reconstruction", right? Like the Free Market respects people who try to keep it Free.
Kuntsler also has a good post on the 22nd about all that Happy Talk by Happy People in the media last week about the price of oil:
Delusional thinking about oil was everywhere in the media last week -- as thick as advertising. Early in the week, Yahoo Finance ran a story with a headline (I paraphrase): "DOW Up Fifty Points as Oil Prices Plunge." The plunge they referred to was oil going from $63.90 a barrel to $63.30. Some plunge. This was after five days of oil ratcheting up out of the high $50s. (It ended the week around $65.)
NPR's Marketplace show and a separate wire story piece on the web offered similar headlines (or lead-ins) which said (again I paraphrase) "US Economy No Longer Affected By Oil Prices." Of course, this is exactly the kind of magical thinking you'd expect to see in a public on extended leave from reality, despite the ubiquity of "reality television." The accepted idea is that since America outsourced most of its heavy industry to China and elsewhere, we now have an economy that runs just fine on Tic-tacs and Diet Pepsi, and oil is not in the picture anymore.
Wrong. America consumes one-quarter of the world's daily production of 84 million barrels of oil. More than half of our share is burned in cars and trucks. In fact, our economy now amounts to little more than running 200 million motor vehicles around the suburban metroplexes in the service of ever more slapped-together McHousing developments, big box stores, and fried chicken huts. That's our economy. That's all we do anymore.
The New York Times chimed in with a cover piece in its Sunday Magazine titled The Beginning of the End of Oil? by veteran journalist Peter Maas. It presented a story that has been around the Internet for more than a year, based on investment banker Matthew Simmons' frequent public speeches about the apparent weakness in the Saudi Arabian oil industry (which Simmons published in book form last month as Twilight in the Desert). Apparently the Times editors have been mulling over the oil story for months and months, wondering if there is anything to it, and perhaps the movement of oil prices into the $60-plus range finally prompted them to run with it.
Maas's article is full of howling omissions and delusions. For one thing, Maas omits any serious reflection of the consequences of a global energy crisis, any specters of geopolitical blowback, or potential problems for America's non-negotiable easy-motoring way of life. That omission grows out of the delusional assumption that some magical market mechanism will conjure up a menu of just-in-time replacements for the vanishing oil. These are referred to as "alternative technologies," a term that points to a more fundamental delusion now rampant among the public, namely the mistaken belief that technology and energy are the same thing, that they are interchangeable, that you can substitute one for the other. Out of oil? Get new technology.
Note to public: technology and energy are not the same things, and continuing to think that they are may place our civilization in jeopardy.
The bottom line of the Times Sunday Magazine article is that they are still not convinced that global peak oil is for real, or that we necessarily ought to be worried about it, with all that "alternative technology" banging around out there in the innovational ethers of the magical market. They bring a magisterial cluelessness to the issue -- while the back pages of the Magazine are devoted to hawking the glitziest high-end products of the suburban housing bubble.
Finally there was the Sunday Times' editorial, "Foolishness on Fuel," which was really about the editors own foolishness. It essayed to assert that America's oil problem was entirely a matter of vehicle fuel efficiency -- with the presumption that our problems would go away if only congress had the spine to mandate higher gas mileage figures from the car industry. The editorial completely failed to recognize that there was any problem with extreme automobile dependency itself, that maybe we should be making other arrangements -- say, walkable communities, or railroad service on par with what they have in Latvia, or local economies liberated from the despotism of WalMart.
This week's performance by the media on oil issues shows how America will dissemble its way into a dark era.
That's the idea, isn't it? ¶ 9:43 AM 1 comments links to this post
Monday, August 29, 2005
Phase Shift
With the tragedy unfolding in New Orleans today, the loss of life and pain we feel, and the subsequent blow the national economy is about to suffer, it is important to realize that beyond this act of nature there is a very human factor responsible for much of this disaster.
From the decision to place the Lousiana National Guard in Iraq doing a job they never intended to do, to the paralysis of the federal agencies involved in emergency management, to the de-emphasis of predictive atmospheric science that could call this event before it happened, to the rape of the Lousiana coast line ecology for countless oil adventures, to the poor planning that places one of the main oil portals of the United States in harm's way, to countless acts of thoughtless greed making this act of nature even more difficult to bear, there is largely the cult of Dear Leader to blame.
The real disaster is yet to come home to us.
Consider this map, of what the world was in the Late Cretaceous age, and what will be again if one or both of the poles melt.
Consider what this dislocation will mean in terms of human suffering.
I know it's a bit beyond the people of Bu$hCo to grasp. Surely, though, there is someone in the Company this might strike home with. If only in terms of the money they'll lose if the entire Midwest goes under water.
And let me assure the Beltway Kewl Kids: once there's a body of water separating you from the surviving Rocky Mountain states, you're going to have a very hard time keeping your States United.
Addendum
When I fetch stories, you can be sure I fetch 'em far.
People get into "he said, she said" types of arguments about whether global warming is real, and what it means, and what are realistic endpoints, and if those endpoints are valid.
But let's look at a couple of facts:
First, a relief map of the United States, courtesy of your government.
Notice the three darkest shades of green are areas averaging 500 feet of elevation or less. Notice the lowest elevation, to 250 feet- it extends in the south all the way north to Paducah, Kentucky. The 500 foot line extends all the way north to Lake Michigan. If one or both poles melted, how far north would the Gulf extend? To Traverse City and the Sleeping Bear Dunes?
It's better than the Gulf now in August. Melt the glaciers and there goes the neighborhood...
Farfetched, eh?
As far as melting the caps goes, let's look at some data from NASA here.
Farfetched, eh?
Now, how fast would all this happen? Some look for appreciable change by 2099. Some not at all. Some paint a rosy picture of our ability to cope anyway. It's important to note these changes aren't monotonic, and may synergize with other environmental factors.
In life, I have found it best to be prepared for the worst.
Which is not farfetched at all. ¶ 8:34 AM 1 comments links to this post
From the decision to place the Lousiana National Guard in Iraq doing a job they never intended to do, to the paralysis of the federal agencies involved in emergency management, to the de-emphasis of predictive atmospheric science that could call this event before it happened, to the rape of the Lousiana coast line ecology for countless oil adventures, to the poor planning that places one of the main oil portals of the United States in harm's way, to countless acts of thoughtless greed making this act of nature even more difficult to bear, there is largely the cult of Dear Leader to blame.
The real disaster is yet to come home to us.
Consider this map, of what the world was in the Late Cretaceous age, and what will be again if one or both of the poles melt.
Consider what this dislocation will mean in terms of human suffering.
I know it's a bit beyond the people of Bu$hCo to grasp. Surely, though, there is someone in the Company this might strike home with. If only in terms of the money they'll lose if the entire Midwest goes under water.
And let me assure the Beltway Kewl Kids: once there's a body of water separating you from the surviving Rocky Mountain states, you're going to have a very hard time keeping your States United.
Addendum
When I fetch stories, you can be sure I fetch 'em far.
People get into "he said, she said" types of arguments about whether global warming is real, and what it means, and what are realistic endpoints, and if those endpoints are valid.
But let's look at a couple of facts:
First, a relief map of the United States, courtesy of your government.
Notice the three darkest shades of green are areas averaging 500 feet of elevation or less. Notice the lowest elevation, to 250 feet- it extends in the south all the way north to Paducah, Kentucky. The 500 foot line extends all the way north to Lake Michigan. If one or both poles melted, how far north would the Gulf extend? To Traverse City and the Sleeping Bear Dunes?
It's better than the Gulf now in August. Melt the glaciers and there goes the neighborhood...
Farfetched, eh?
As far as melting the caps goes, let's look at some data from NASA here.
Farfetched, eh?
Now, how fast would all this happen? Some look for appreciable change by 2099. Some not at all. Some paint a rosy picture of our ability to cope anyway. It's important to note these changes aren't monotonic, and may synergize with other environmental factors.
In life, I have found it best to be prepared for the worst.
Which is not farfetched at all. ¶ 8:34 AM 1 comments links to this post
Sunday, August 28, 2005
"The enemy is inside the wire."
Thanks to Truthout for the link:
... "I ask you, Mr Bush, if you believe that this war is for "Our Freedom" and "Our Values" why don't you send your daughters to fight for freedom," wrote Fernando Suarez del Solar recently, who lost his son in Iraq due to the lies of Mr. Bush.
He continued, "Why don't your closest associates send their children to defend these values? Why are the children of immigrant families dying? Why are children from working families who are the least privileged dying? Why Mr. Bush? Why?"
Of course Suarez del Solar knows the answer. It's a rhetorical question asked of a prep school punk who has never earned nor risked anything. A smirking dimwit, who has never truly served his country, let alone fellow human beings outside of his gangster corporate crony pals who inserted him into the highest office…twice.
Today he chooses to ignore the fire which is spreading across the US as he ignores the debacle in Iraq, where the US military must leave, will leave, but are unable to leave for fear of tarnishing what is left of the now sordid reputation of the US.
I get emails daily from sources throughout Iraq…both Iraqi and American. Even inside US bases in the newest colony things don't seem to be going so well, according to an American man who is working there as support.
"I don't know how much longer I can stand working for these idiots and their brothers' mothers' sisters' cousin," he wrote me recently, "They have acres of armored air conditioned trucks but won't pay to fix the alternators, so the drivers must use the worst of the equipment…no armor, no air conditioning…You know the heat here, now add the heat of an engine to that cab and throw in a few rockets, mortars, and IED's [roadside bombs] and it makes for a very bad day. I'm trying to expose the corruption of the Third Country National contractors by finding them a forum to send the truth. Prisoners, slaves, concubines. My life may be a contradiction, but I will not compromise with evil. The enemy is inside the wire."
Wars for empire don't change…and Iraq is the perfect example. Invading armies using slave labor (foreign in this case due to their deep distrust of Iraqis), taking advantage of those who lack privilege, the poor, minorities, to do the dirty work while the top 1% make more money than ever before.
And the pirates behind the US policy-making in Iraq have chosen, perhaps to their chagrin at this point, to disregard some of the latest history from a past occupation of Iraq.
During the previous British occupation of Iraq, the resistance began in Fallujah. As a response the British shelled half of that city to the ground, much like the US military did recently as part of their failed policy. (US soldiers are now dying in and near Fallujah again.)
It was said that if the British left Iraq civil war would ignite. Just as we are hearing today, even though state-sponsored civil war is in full swing, thanks to the occupiers.
The rule of the British Empire over Iraq went on for three decades before the Brits withdrew. Every year of that time found an uprising against the occupiers…and now less than three years into the failed US occupation, lesser uprisings occur daily.
Attacks on US forces in Iraq are now back up over 70 per day…we'll cross the 2,000 dead mark before too much longer, and things are about to get much, much worse. As Iraqis continue to say, "Today is better than tomorrow." The same goes for US troops there.
There is a reason why a relatively recent Army survey found that 54% of all soldiers in Iraq reported either "low" or "very low" morale.
There is also a reason why, again according to the Army, that 30% of all soldiers returning from Iraq develop mental health problems 3-4 months after their return.
And there is a reason why soldiers like Nicolas Prubyla come home and join organizations like Iraq Veterans Against the War.
"Up until five days ago, I had large amounts of blood in my stool," he told me recently, "I've felt tired all the time, I have had loss of hair…loss of the feeling in my right arm…
I'm battling this stuff."
What he is battling is exposure to uranium munitions in Iraq. He is battling radiation sickness as the result of the most recent nuclear war waged by the United States of America. There is a reason why over 11,000 veterans from the '91 Gulf War are dead today, and over 250,000 others are on medical disability. That reason (hundreds and hundreds of tons of uranium munitions dropped on Iraq) is the same thing Prubyla is battling today.
"As the years go on this is going to effect a hell of a lot more people than we think…radioactive dust and the clouds of smoke and dust from firing the DU [depleted uranium] is getting to us now," he said, "And I know I'm not the only person in my unit-my boss got diagnosed with cancer, one of my other buddies who is 23 years-old is getting rashes….every time I do more research on DU-I'm seeing that I have all the side effects."...
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
What does depleted uranium do to people? This topic was covered a bit here, but depleted uranium isn't only for Darth Rumsfeld's Hot Rods. It's used where ever you want superior armor penetration and furious secondary ignition. It's heavily used in Iraq by American forces.
And although it's not fissile and only "slightly" radioactive, its half-life is 4.5 billion years. It's radioactivity is played down as "not remarkable" by defense analysts, and though it has similar toxic effects to lead, these are again "not remarkable" because lead is more soluble.
All the experts would scoff at the assertion there is any correlation between chronic inhalation of uranium oxide dust and cancer.
All the experts seem to be more interested in agreement and not stirring the water than carefully examining the health effects of this (now) ubiquitous component of the Iraqi desert environment.
Care to get rid of your weeds with Agent Orange, anyone?
Any pharmacologist not being paid to say things by the D.o'D., and unconcerned with peer review, would say that uranium-238 accumulates in the body more than lead because it is less soluble.
We have met the enemy, and he is our own complacent self-justification. ¶ 3:46 PM 0 comments links to this post
... "I ask you, Mr Bush, if you believe that this war is for "Our Freedom" and "Our Values" why don't you send your daughters to fight for freedom," wrote Fernando Suarez del Solar recently, who lost his son in Iraq due to the lies of Mr. Bush.
He continued, "Why don't your closest associates send their children to defend these values? Why are the children of immigrant families dying? Why are children from working families who are the least privileged dying? Why Mr. Bush? Why?"
Of course Suarez del Solar knows the answer. It's a rhetorical question asked of a prep school punk who has never earned nor risked anything. A smirking dimwit, who has never truly served his country, let alone fellow human beings outside of his gangster corporate crony pals who inserted him into the highest office…twice.
Today he chooses to ignore the fire which is spreading across the US as he ignores the debacle in Iraq, where the US military must leave, will leave, but are unable to leave for fear of tarnishing what is left of the now sordid reputation of the US.
I get emails daily from sources throughout Iraq…both Iraqi and American. Even inside US bases in the newest colony things don't seem to be going so well, according to an American man who is working there as support.
"I don't know how much longer I can stand working for these idiots and their brothers' mothers' sisters' cousin," he wrote me recently, "They have acres of armored air conditioned trucks but won't pay to fix the alternators, so the drivers must use the worst of the equipment…no armor, no air conditioning…You know the heat here, now add the heat of an engine to that cab and throw in a few rockets, mortars, and IED's [roadside bombs] and it makes for a very bad day. I'm trying to expose the corruption of the Third Country National contractors by finding them a forum to send the truth. Prisoners, slaves, concubines. My life may be a contradiction, but I will not compromise with evil. The enemy is inside the wire."
Wars for empire don't change…and Iraq is the perfect example. Invading armies using slave labor (foreign in this case due to their deep distrust of Iraqis), taking advantage of those who lack privilege, the poor, minorities, to do the dirty work while the top 1% make more money than ever before.
And the pirates behind the US policy-making in Iraq have chosen, perhaps to their chagrin at this point, to disregard some of the latest history from a past occupation of Iraq.
During the previous British occupation of Iraq, the resistance began in Fallujah. As a response the British shelled half of that city to the ground, much like the US military did recently as part of their failed policy. (US soldiers are now dying in and near Fallujah again.)
It was said that if the British left Iraq civil war would ignite. Just as we are hearing today, even though state-sponsored civil war is in full swing, thanks to the occupiers.
The rule of the British Empire over Iraq went on for three decades before the Brits withdrew. Every year of that time found an uprising against the occupiers…and now less than three years into the failed US occupation, lesser uprisings occur daily.
Attacks on US forces in Iraq are now back up over 70 per day…we'll cross the 2,000 dead mark before too much longer, and things are about to get much, much worse. As Iraqis continue to say, "Today is better than tomorrow." The same goes for US troops there.
There is a reason why a relatively recent Army survey found that 54% of all soldiers in Iraq reported either "low" or "very low" morale.
There is also a reason why, again according to the Army, that 30% of all soldiers returning from Iraq develop mental health problems 3-4 months after their return.
And there is a reason why soldiers like Nicolas Prubyla come home and join organizations like Iraq Veterans Against the War.
"Up until five days ago, I had large amounts of blood in my stool," he told me recently, "I've felt tired all the time, I have had loss of hair…loss of the feeling in my right arm…
I'm battling this stuff."
What he is battling is exposure to uranium munitions in Iraq. He is battling radiation sickness as the result of the most recent nuclear war waged by the United States of America. There is a reason why over 11,000 veterans from the '91 Gulf War are dead today, and over 250,000 others are on medical disability. That reason (hundreds and hundreds of tons of uranium munitions dropped on Iraq) is the same thing Prubyla is battling today.
"As the years go on this is going to effect a hell of a lot more people than we think…radioactive dust and the clouds of smoke and dust from firing the DU [depleted uranium] is getting to us now," he said, "And I know I'm not the only person in my unit-my boss got diagnosed with cancer, one of my other buddies who is 23 years-old is getting rashes….every time I do more research on DU-I'm seeing that I have all the side effects."...
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
What does depleted uranium do to people? This topic was covered a bit here, but depleted uranium isn't only for Darth Rumsfeld's Hot Rods. It's used where ever you want superior armor penetration and furious secondary ignition. It's heavily used in Iraq by American forces.
And although it's not fissile and only "slightly" radioactive, its half-life is 4.5 billion years. It's radioactivity is played down as "not remarkable" by defense analysts, and though it has similar toxic effects to lead, these are again "not remarkable" because lead is more soluble.
All the experts would scoff at the assertion there is any correlation between chronic inhalation of uranium oxide dust and cancer.
All the experts seem to be more interested in agreement and not stirring the water than carefully examining the health effects of this (now) ubiquitous component of the Iraqi desert environment.
Care to get rid of your weeds with Agent Orange, anyone?
Any pharmacologist not being paid to say things by the D.o'D., and unconcerned with peer review, would say that uranium-238 accumulates in the body more than lead because it is less soluble.
We have met the enemy, and he is our own complacent self-justification. ¶ 3:46 PM 0 comments links to this post
Shell Game
When it comes to the War on Terra, the democratic party leadership knows the Republicans aren't acting from a logical basis.
They know the Republicans are using the war, as well as the energy issue, as a way to get fithy rich.
They like that money, too.
That's the real reason Biden, Clinton, Lieberman, and even Kerry support the Iraq war.
No reason to look for any other agenda than the almighty dollar, campaign and otherwise.
This polarizing statement, justifiably, gets challenged by Lambert at Corrente.
Let repeat and elaborate my response here.
Many of the Democrats, like Bush were supported by financial contributions of more than $2000/ donor. I doubt there are many cockroach people kicking in those kinds of bucks. Having lived that lifestyle in the cracks of society more than once, I know there is just too much else people living like that need to do with that kind of money.
You can pick it apart by industry: in 2004 big financial groups gave around $190 million to the republicans, but $140 million to the democrats. That's a lot of sugar, and powerful incentive to treat them nicely. And it's easy to make it look individual.
And check out exactly who's doing the giving. In 2004, it's no surprise the defense industries gave almost twice as much to the republicans as to the democrats. Still, chances are the democrats aren't sneezing at that $6 million.
But it may surprise you that people from the securities and finance industries, gave almost ten times as much, about $50 million, apiece to both parties.
And who's the world's biggest private finance and equity investment group?
Surf around Open Secrets, the source of these data, by industry. Admittedly, the DLC and the Clintonistas are far more intelligent at this kind of shell game than Bu$hCo. It's harder to pin down who exactly gives where, or (aside from the Senator from MBNA ) who's got which sugar daddy.
Yet even Biden can make it look like individual donors. Sort of. Still, there's no question he's more circumspect than Cheneyburton.
Consider this: at close to a trillion being sunk into the War on Terra, the approximately $2.1 billion raised for the 2004 election is paying off somebody at about 1000 to 1.
Pretty good return for the money.
I am not going to go all Naderite and tell you not to support the Democrats. In fact, the best long term odds for this country lay in the American public sending a heavily Democratic Congress back to Washington in 2006, impeaching George W. Bush, and sending most of Bu$hCo to prison for quite a long time for their crimes against the American people and against humanity.
I am saying that we have a long struggle ahead, no matter who wins. Because no matter who wins, those who can feed Big Money into the machine will expect a big return on their dollar. Even if we get rid of the feudal Dominionists, we're going to have problems, so it is wise to face up to them. ¶ 10:51 AM 0 comments links to this post
They know the Republicans are using the war, as well as the energy issue, as a way to get fithy rich.
They like that money, too.
That's the real reason Biden, Clinton, Lieberman, and even Kerry support the Iraq war.
No reason to look for any other agenda than the almighty dollar, campaign and otherwise.
This polarizing statement, justifiably, gets challenged by Lambert at Corrente.
Let repeat and elaborate my response here.
Many of the Democrats, like Bush were supported by financial contributions of more than $2000/ donor. I doubt there are many cockroach people kicking in those kinds of bucks. Having lived that lifestyle in the cracks of society more than once, I know there is just too much else people living like that need to do with that kind of money.
You can pick it apart by industry: in 2004 big financial groups gave around $190 million to the republicans, but $140 million to the democrats. That's a lot of sugar, and powerful incentive to treat them nicely. And it's easy to make it look individual.
And check out exactly who's doing the giving. In 2004, it's no surprise the defense industries gave almost twice as much to the republicans as to the democrats. Still, chances are the democrats aren't sneezing at that $6 million.
But it may surprise you that people from the securities and finance industries, gave almost ten times as much, about $50 million, apiece to both parties.
And who's the world's biggest private finance and equity investment group?
Surf around Open Secrets, the source of these data, by industry. Admittedly, the DLC and the Clintonistas are far more intelligent at this kind of shell game than Bu$hCo. It's harder to pin down who exactly gives where, or (aside from the Senator from MBNA ) who's got which sugar daddy.
Yet even Biden can make it look like individual donors. Sort of. Still, there's no question he's more circumspect than Cheneyburton.
Consider this: at close to a trillion being sunk into the War on Terra, the approximately $2.1 billion raised for the 2004 election is paying off somebody at about 1000 to 1.
Pretty good return for the money.
I am not going to go all Naderite and tell you not to support the Democrats. In fact, the best long term odds for this country lay in the American public sending a heavily Democratic Congress back to Washington in 2006, impeaching George W. Bush, and sending most of Bu$hCo to prison for quite a long time for their crimes against the American people and against humanity.
I am saying that we have a long struggle ahead, no matter who wins. Because no matter who wins, those who can feed Big Money into the machine will expect a big return on their dollar. Even if we get rid of the feudal Dominionists, we're going to have problems, so it is wise to face up to them. ¶ 10:51 AM 0 comments links to this post
Saturday, August 27, 2005
But This Isn't Frivolous
A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.
The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution...
If we're lucky, this will be slapped down. Creationism is religion, not science. No one has a gripe with religious schools teaching it in religion classes, but don't pretend it's fact, when it simply isn't.
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll be lucky. This is exactly the kind of lawsuit the Dominionists want to take all the way to the Supreme Court. Which, as we all know, has the best Justice money can buy. ¶ 4:36 PM 3 comments links to this post
The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution...
If we're lucky, this will be slapped down. Creationism is religion, not science. No one has a gripe with religious schools teaching it in religion classes, but don't pretend it's fact, when it simply isn't.
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll be lucky. This is exactly the kind of lawsuit the Dominionists want to take all the way to the Supreme Court. Which, as we all know, has the best Justice money can buy. ¶ 4:36 PM 3 comments links to this post
Identity Crisis
Two Nations At War
There are two nations at war in America. One has its founding holiday on July 4th, in memory of the declaration, in Congress assembled of 13 United States. It is a nation that is often at odds with itself, contentious, pressing interest against interest, faction against faction - as it was meant to do, in order to preserve the freedoms of all from the tyranny of a passing majority.
The other nation is not America, and it has as its founding national holiday September 11th. For it is on that day that it was able to turn a bare majority in the House of Representatives, a questionable election for the Presidency, and a tie in the Senate, into an overwhelming mandate to remake the country. That effort centered around invading Iraq, and then demanding personal fealty to the military from all US citizens.
That attempt has failed, which is why this second nation now urges war against the constitution. As the core of support for the ill considered, and indeed illegal and unconstitutional policies pursued has grown weaker, the movement for this other nation has grown more naked in its hatred of the Bill of Rights...
We have reached a near complete reversal of the 1960's. In the 1960's the left was the source of the most extreme groups. To some extent there were social causes, including discrimination against African Americans, and a war which claimed as many dead in a month as Iraq has in 3 years. However, as importantly, the members of the extreme parts of the left, and here I speak of organizations such as the Red Brigade in Europe, did not recognize the value of civil society. This was echoed in rhetoric by others, and was used as a broad brush to paint all of the left.
For the last 20 years, the pendulum has swung in the other direction. It has not been the left which has advocated violence, but the right. There have been bombings against clinics, there have been militia movements, there was the Oklahoma city bombing, which is still the worst act of domestic terrorism in the United States since the Civil War.
The right has increasingly placed an eliminationist and liquidationist rhetoric at the center of its political stance.
To understand how far we have come, let me recount a story from 1992. I was working at the American Legion in San Francisco, at 2 am in the morning, a member called up and said "David Duke is a pig fucker. I want you to know that." Well, now someone who is as extreme as David Duke heads that organization, and has joined the select company of those who engage in ovine fornication...
Exactly how does the NeoKKKon nation declare war on the Constitution?
Stirling talks about that here:
Any means necessary
The delegates vowed to use whatever means necessary to "ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism."
If anyone has any doubt that events are spiralling out of control, this should squash them. The American Legion has declared war on American Freedoms, it is shameful, dangerous and hateful. Deciding policy is the right and duty of all Americans, and they will take it away from me when the pry it from my cold dead fingers. This is militarism - the danger that flows from standing armies, oft warned by the founders against them, we have seen necessity force on upon us. But it can never be allowed to threat violence against civilians, nor can it be allowed to become a political faction.
In the United States, the military exists to serve the public, and not the other way around. If members of the military cannot uphold their oath to protect and defend the constitution, then they should resign immediately. If the troops can't fight knowing the truth about an illegal war, then we should withdraw them.
That's what's necessary. Let's see if they have the balls to do it.
Personally I doubt it, I also doubt that any official has the courage to do what is right, and arrest Cadmus for agitating for violent suppression of others civil rights. We are coming dangerously close to civil violence, simply because no one has the courage to stop the far right purveyors of it.
The American Legion members now have the ball in their court, if the can't repudiate the extremist and unAmerican statements of Cadmus, they will have dishonoured a proud organization, and they will have show that they have forgotten what it is they fought for.
An American always has the right to dissent. If we cease to have that right, we cease to be Americans.
We will always have that right as human beings, but we may not always have a nation that grants those rights inalienable. ¶ 6:43 AM 0 comments links to this post
There are two nations at war in America. One has its founding holiday on July 4th, in memory of the declaration, in Congress assembled of 13 United States. It is a nation that is often at odds with itself, contentious, pressing interest against interest, faction against faction - as it was meant to do, in order to preserve the freedoms of all from the tyranny of a passing majority.
The other nation is not America, and it has as its founding national holiday September 11th. For it is on that day that it was able to turn a bare majority in the House of Representatives, a questionable election for the Presidency, and a tie in the Senate, into an overwhelming mandate to remake the country. That effort centered around invading Iraq, and then demanding personal fealty to the military from all US citizens.
That attempt has failed, which is why this second nation now urges war against the constitution. As the core of support for the ill considered, and indeed illegal and unconstitutional policies pursued has grown weaker, the movement for this other nation has grown more naked in its hatred of the Bill of Rights...
We have reached a near complete reversal of the 1960's. In the 1960's the left was the source of the most extreme groups. To some extent there were social causes, including discrimination against African Americans, and a war which claimed as many dead in a month as Iraq has in 3 years. However, as importantly, the members of the extreme parts of the left, and here I speak of organizations such as the Red Brigade in Europe, did not recognize the value of civil society. This was echoed in rhetoric by others, and was used as a broad brush to paint all of the left.
For the last 20 years, the pendulum has swung in the other direction. It has not been the left which has advocated violence, but the right. There have been bombings against clinics, there have been militia movements, there was the Oklahoma city bombing, which is still the worst act of domestic terrorism in the United States since the Civil War.
The right has increasingly placed an eliminationist and liquidationist rhetoric at the center of its political stance.
To understand how far we have come, let me recount a story from 1992. I was working at the American Legion in San Francisco, at 2 am in the morning, a member called up and said "David Duke is a pig fucker. I want you to know that." Well, now someone who is as extreme as David Duke heads that organization, and has joined the select company of those who engage in ovine fornication...
Exactly how does the NeoKKKon nation declare war on the Constitution?
Stirling talks about that here:
Any means necessary
The delegates vowed to use whatever means necessary to "ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism."
If anyone has any doubt that events are spiralling out of control, this should squash them. The American Legion has declared war on American Freedoms, it is shameful, dangerous and hateful. Deciding policy is the right and duty of all Americans, and they will take it away from me when the pry it from my cold dead fingers. This is militarism - the danger that flows from standing armies, oft warned by the founders against them, we have seen necessity force on upon us. But it can never be allowed to threat violence against civilians, nor can it be allowed to become a political faction.
In the United States, the military exists to serve the public, and not the other way around. If members of the military cannot uphold their oath to protect and defend the constitution, then they should resign immediately. If the troops can't fight knowing the truth about an illegal war, then we should withdraw them.
That's what's necessary. Let's see if they have the balls to do it.
Personally I doubt it, I also doubt that any official has the courage to do what is right, and arrest Cadmus for agitating for violent suppression of others civil rights. We are coming dangerously close to civil violence, simply because no one has the courage to stop the far right purveyors of it.
The American Legion members now have the ball in their court, if the can't repudiate the extremist and unAmerican statements of Cadmus, they will have dishonoured a proud organization, and they will have show that they have forgotten what it is they fought for.
An American always has the right to dissent. If we cease to have that right, we cease to be Americans.
We will always have that right as human beings, but we may not always have a nation that grants those rights inalienable. ¶ 6:43 AM 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, August 25, 2005
The AEI Delegate Rattles His Sabers
First, an update on the Plame affair from the Los Angeles Times, to remind you of the facts, thanks to Crooks and Liars for the link.
Second, an update on the swinging UN delegate most likely to have whispered secrets to Judith Miller while giving mustache rides, John Bolton.
Not only is Bolton pre emptively condemning the IAEA report clearing Iran of having weapons of mass destruction, he's doing his best to trash the UN for his Big Time boss. ¶ 8:34 PM 3 comments links to this post
Second, an update on the swinging UN delegate most likely to have whispered secrets to Judith Miller while giving mustache rides, John Bolton.
Not only is Bolton pre emptively condemning the IAEA report clearing Iran of having weapons of mass destruction, he's doing his best to trash the UN for his Big Time boss. ¶ 8:34 PM 3 comments links to this post
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer!
What with the national head of the American Legion calling for its members to halt protests against the war in Iraq "by any means necessary", the increasingly fervent calls of Dear Leader for action, and Ayatollah Robertson issuing fatwahs against heads of states with oil and leftist tendencies, it probably isn't a wise time to point out that, unlike what Dear Leader says, the new Iraqi Constitution gives women only slightly more rights than camels, and that many women in Iraq that supported the War against Saddam are, well, bugging out.
Not that I blame them.
Nor would I want to give encouragement to the enemy.
Dear Leader does that all on his own quite nicely. ¶ 12:31 PM 0 comments links to this post
Not that I blame them.
Nor would I want to give encouragement to the enemy.
Dear Leader does that all on his own quite nicely. ¶ 12:31 PM 0 comments links to this post
The Fourth Dimension, or Why Size Matters
Grasping the Depth of Time as a First Step in Understanding Evolution
By Verlyn Klinkenborg
Last month a team of paleontologists announced that it had found several fossilized dinosaur embryos that were 190 million years old - some 90 million years older than any dinosaur embryos found so far. Those kinds of numbers are always a little daunting. Ever since I was a boy in a public elementary school in Iowa, I've been learning to face the eons and eons that are embedded in the universe around us.
I know the numbers as they stand at present, and I know what they mean, in a roughly comparative way. The universe is perhaps 14 billion years old. Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. The oldest hominid fossils are between 6 million and 7 million years old. The oldest distinctly modern human fossils are about 160,000 years old.
The truth of these numbers has the same effect on me as watching the night sky in the high desert. It fills me with a sense of nonspecific immensity. I don't think I'm alone in this.
One of the most powerful limits to the human imagination is our inability to grasp, in a truly intuitive way, the depths of terrestrial and cosmological time. That inability is hardly surprising because our own lives are so very short in comparison. It's hard enough to come to terms with the brief scale of human history. But the difficulty of comprehending what time is on an evolutionary scale, I think, is a major impediment to understanding evolution.
It's been approximately 3.5 billion years since primeval life first originated on this planet. That is not an unimaginable number in itself, if you're thinking of simple, discrete units like dollars or grains of sand. But 3.5 billion years of biological history is different. All those years have really passed, moment by moment, one by one. They encompass an actual, already lived reality, encompassing all the lives of all the organisms that have come and gone in that time. That expanse of time defines the realm of biological possibility in which life in its extraordinary diversity has evolved. It is time that has allowed the making of us.
The idea of such quantities of time is extremely new. Humans began to understand the true scale of geological time in the early 19th century. The probable depth of cosmological time and the extent of the history of the human species have come to light only within our own lifetimes.
That is a lot to absorb and, not surprisingly, many people refuse to absorb it. Nearly every attack on evolution - whether it is called intelligent design or plain creationism, synonyms for the same faith-based rejection of evolution - ultimately requires a foreshortening of cosmological, geological and biological time.
Humans feel much more content imagining a world of more human proportions, with a shorter time scale and a simple narrative sense of cause and effect. But what we prefer to believe makes no difference. The fact that life on Earth has arrived at a point where it is possible for humans to have beliefs is due to the steady ticking away of eons and the trial and error of natural selection.
Evolution is a robust theory, in the scientific sense, that has been tested and confirmed again and again. Intelligent design is not a theory at all, as scientists understand the word, but a well-financed political and religious campaign to muddy science. Its basic proposition - the intervention of a designer, a k a God - cannot be tested. It has no evidence to offer, and its assumptions that humans were divinely created are the same as its conclusions. Its objections to evolution are based on syllogistic reasoning and a highly selective treatment of the physical evidence.
Accepting the fact of evolution does not necessarily mean discarding a personal faith in God. But accepting intelligent design means discarding science. Much has been made of a 2004 poll showing that some 45 percent of Americans believe that the Earth - and humans with it - was created as described in the book of Genesis, and within the past 10,000 years. This isn't a triumph of faith. It's a failure of education.
The purpose of the campaign for intelligent design is to deepen that failure. To present the arguments of intelligent design as part of a debate over evolution is nonsense. From the scientific perspective, there is no debate. But even the illusion of a debate is a sorry victory for antievolutionists, a public relations victory based, as so many have been in recent years, on ignorance and obfuscation.
The essential, but often well-disguised, purpose of intelligent design, is to preserve the myth of a separate, divine creation for humans in the belief that only that can explain who we are. But there is a destructive hubris, a fearful arrogance, in that myth. It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and the moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here. There is a righteousness - a responsibility - in the deep, ancestral origins we share with all of life.
The Universe has been around long enough for our Sun to form, age, explode, re-congeal and form the current planets, and for us to evolve.
That's a long time.
No human has the hardware, software, and "wetware" to accurately visualize this, we can only model it in our minds.
To imagine we are the apple of some hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin's eye is sheer delusion and mythological obsession based on a model of the universe formed in ignorance and superstition to please a medieval theocracy. ¶ 7:38 AM 0 comments links to this post
By Verlyn Klinkenborg
Last month a team of paleontologists announced that it had found several fossilized dinosaur embryos that were 190 million years old - some 90 million years older than any dinosaur embryos found so far. Those kinds of numbers are always a little daunting. Ever since I was a boy in a public elementary school in Iowa, I've been learning to face the eons and eons that are embedded in the universe around us.
I know the numbers as they stand at present, and I know what they mean, in a roughly comparative way. The universe is perhaps 14 billion years old. Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. The oldest hominid fossils are between 6 million and 7 million years old. The oldest distinctly modern human fossils are about 160,000 years old.
The truth of these numbers has the same effect on me as watching the night sky in the high desert. It fills me with a sense of nonspecific immensity. I don't think I'm alone in this.
One of the most powerful limits to the human imagination is our inability to grasp, in a truly intuitive way, the depths of terrestrial and cosmological time. That inability is hardly surprising because our own lives are so very short in comparison. It's hard enough to come to terms with the brief scale of human history. But the difficulty of comprehending what time is on an evolutionary scale, I think, is a major impediment to understanding evolution.
It's been approximately 3.5 billion years since primeval life first originated on this planet. That is not an unimaginable number in itself, if you're thinking of simple, discrete units like dollars or grains of sand. But 3.5 billion years of biological history is different. All those years have really passed, moment by moment, one by one. They encompass an actual, already lived reality, encompassing all the lives of all the organisms that have come and gone in that time. That expanse of time defines the realm of biological possibility in which life in its extraordinary diversity has evolved. It is time that has allowed the making of us.
The idea of such quantities of time is extremely new. Humans began to understand the true scale of geological time in the early 19th century. The probable depth of cosmological time and the extent of the history of the human species have come to light only within our own lifetimes.
That is a lot to absorb and, not surprisingly, many people refuse to absorb it. Nearly every attack on evolution - whether it is called intelligent design or plain creationism, synonyms for the same faith-based rejection of evolution - ultimately requires a foreshortening of cosmological, geological and biological time.
Humans feel much more content imagining a world of more human proportions, with a shorter time scale and a simple narrative sense of cause and effect. But what we prefer to believe makes no difference. The fact that life on Earth has arrived at a point where it is possible for humans to have beliefs is due to the steady ticking away of eons and the trial and error of natural selection.
Evolution is a robust theory, in the scientific sense, that has been tested and confirmed again and again. Intelligent design is not a theory at all, as scientists understand the word, but a well-financed political and religious campaign to muddy science. Its basic proposition - the intervention of a designer, a k a God - cannot be tested. It has no evidence to offer, and its assumptions that humans were divinely created are the same as its conclusions. Its objections to evolution are based on syllogistic reasoning and a highly selective treatment of the physical evidence.
Accepting the fact of evolution does not necessarily mean discarding a personal faith in God. But accepting intelligent design means discarding science. Much has been made of a 2004 poll showing that some 45 percent of Americans believe that the Earth - and humans with it - was created as described in the book of Genesis, and within the past 10,000 years. This isn't a triumph of faith. It's a failure of education.
The purpose of the campaign for intelligent design is to deepen that failure. To present the arguments of intelligent design as part of a debate over evolution is nonsense. From the scientific perspective, there is no debate. But even the illusion of a debate is a sorry victory for antievolutionists, a public relations victory based, as so many have been in recent years, on ignorance and obfuscation.
The essential, but often well-disguised, purpose of intelligent design, is to preserve the myth of a separate, divine creation for humans in the belief that only that can explain who we are. But there is a destructive hubris, a fearful arrogance, in that myth. It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and the moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here. There is a righteousness - a responsibility - in the deep, ancestral origins we share with all of life.
The Universe has been around long enough for our Sun to form, age, explode, re-congeal and form the current planets, and for us to evolve.
That's a long time.
No human has the hardware, software, and "wetware" to accurately visualize this, we can only model it in our minds.
To imagine we are the apple of some hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin's eye is sheer delusion and mythological obsession based on a model of the universe formed in ignorance and superstition to please a medieval theocracy. ¶ 7:38 AM 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
As Cheney Preps Another Langley Visit to Get His War On
No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program
Uranium Traced to Pakistani Equipment
By Dafna Linzer
Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.
"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.
Scientists from the United States, France, Japan, Britain and Russia met in secret during the past nine months to pore over data collected by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to U.S. and foreign officials. Recently, the group, whose existence had not been previously reported, definitively matched samples of the highly enriched uranium -- a key ingredient for a nuclear weapon -- with centrifuge equipment turned over by the government of Pakistan.
Iran has long contended that the uranium traces were the result of contaminated equipment bought years ago from Pakistan. But the Bush administration had pointed to the material as evidence that Iran was making bomb-grade ingredients...
U.S. officials have privately acknowledged for months that they were losing confidence that the uranium traces would turn out to be evidence of a nuclear weapons program. A recent U.S. intelligence estimate found that Iran is further away from making bomb-grade uranium than previously thought, according to U.S. officials...
U.S. officials, eager to move the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council -- which has the authority to impose sanctions -- have begun a new round of briefings for allies designed to convince them that Iran's real intention is to use its energy program as a cover for bomb building. The briefings will focus on the White House's belief that a country with as much oil as Iran would not need an energy program on the scale it is planning, according to two officials...
Unless, of course, they had enough foresight to realize the oil wouldn't last forever.
Iran built its nuclear program in secret over 18 years with the help of Abdul Qadeer Khan, a top Pakistani official and nuclear scientist who sold spare parts from his country's own weapons program to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Khan's black-market dealings were uncovered in 2003. He confessed on national television, was swiftly pardoned by Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and is now under house arrest.
Pakistan has denied IAEA inspectors access to Khan and to the country's nuclear facilities, but earlier this year it agreed to share data and some equipment with the inspectors to expedite the Iran investigation. Among the equipment were discarded centrifuge parts that match those Khan sold to Iran.
John R. Bolton, now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, served as the administration's point man on nuclear issuesduring President Bush's first term. He suggested during congressional testimony in June 2004 that the Iranians were lying about the contamination.
"Another unmistakable indicator of Iran's intentions is the pattern of repeatedly lying to and providing false and incomplete reports to the IAEA," Bolton said. "For example, Iran first denied it had enriched any uranium. Then it said it had not enriched uranium more than 1.2 percent. Later, when evidence of uranium enriched to 36 percent was found, it attributed this to contamination from imported centrifuge parts..."
Bolton has evidently exaggerated, since this uranium contaminated the centrifuge before the Iranians purchased it. Since enriched uranium is depleted of other elements, a trace sample from the centrifuge should have a certain degree of isotopic purity. In fact, the level of uranium decay products in the sample tells you precisely when the centrifuge was last used to purify uranium. Apparently the data show that the centrifuge hasn't been used for the purpose Bolton suggests.
In the meantime, European officials convened an IAEA board meeting two weeks ago to discuss Iran's actions and sought a new report for this week on its program. But the report was pushed back to Sept. 3 so that the group of scientists, including officials from the Energy Department, could meet one last time to draft an account of its findings, according to U.S. and European officials.
The IAEA had put together the group of experts in an effort to foster cooperation but also to eliminate the possibility that its findings would be challenged by the White House, officials said. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the White House rejected IAEA findings that cast doubt on U.S. assertions about then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The IAEA findings turned out to be correct, and no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. ¶ 10:02 PM 0 comments links to this post
Uranium Traced to Pakistani Equipment
By Dafna Linzer
Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.
"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.
Scientists from the United States, France, Japan, Britain and Russia met in secret during the past nine months to pore over data collected by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to U.S. and foreign officials. Recently, the group, whose existence had not been previously reported, definitively matched samples of the highly enriched uranium -- a key ingredient for a nuclear weapon -- with centrifuge equipment turned over by the government of Pakistan.
Iran has long contended that the uranium traces were the result of contaminated equipment bought years ago from Pakistan. But the Bush administration had pointed to the material as evidence that Iran was making bomb-grade ingredients...
U.S. officials have privately acknowledged for months that they were losing confidence that the uranium traces would turn out to be evidence of a nuclear weapons program. A recent U.S. intelligence estimate found that Iran is further away from making bomb-grade uranium than previously thought, according to U.S. officials...
U.S. officials, eager to move the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council -- which has the authority to impose sanctions -- have begun a new round of briefings for allies designed to convince them that Iran's real intention is to use its energy program as a cover for bomb building. The briefings will focus on the White House's belief that a country with as much oil as Iran would not need an energy program on the scale it is planning, according to two officials...
Unless, of course, they had enough foresight to realize the oil wouldn't last forever.
Iran built its nuclear program in secret over 18 years with the help of Abdul Qadeer Khan, a top Pakistani official and nuclear scientist who sold spare parts from his country's own weapons program to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Khan's black-market dealings were uncovered in 2003. He confessed on national television, was swiftly pardoned by Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and is now under house arrest.
Pakistan has denied IAEA inspectors access to Khan and to the country's nuclear facilities, but earlier this year it agreed to share data and some equipment with the inspectors to expedite the Iran investigation. Among the equipment were discarded centrifuge parts that match those Khan sold to Iran.
John R. Bolton, now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, served as the administration's point man on nuclear issuesduring President Bush's first term. He suggested during congressional testimony in June 2004 that the Iranians were lying about the contamination.
"Another unmistakable indicator of Iran's intentions is the pattern of repeatedly lying to and providing false and incomplete reports to the IAEA," Bolton said. "For example, Iran first denied it had enriched any uranium. Then it said it had not enriched uranium more than 1.2 percent. Later, when evidence of uranium enriched to 36 percent was found, it attributed this to contamination from imported centrifuge parts..."
Bolton has evidently exaggerated, since this uranium contaminated the centrifuge before the Iranians purchased it. Since enriched uranium is depleted of other elements, a trace sample from the centrifuge should have a certain degree of isotopic purity. In fact, the level of uranium decay products in the sample tells you precisely when the centrifuge was last used to purify uranium. Apparently the data show that the centrifuge hasn't been used for the purpose Bolton suggests.
In the meantime, European officials convened an IAEA board meeting two weeks ago to discuss Iran's actions and sought a new report for this week on its program. But the report was pushed back to Sept. 3 so that the group of scientists, including officials from the Energy Department, could meet one last time to draft an account of its findings, according to U.S. and European officials.
The IAEA had put together the group of experts in an effort to foster cooperation but also to eliminate the possibility that its findings would be challenged by the White House, officials said. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the White House rejected IAEA findings that cast doubt on U.S. assertions about then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The IAEA findings turned out to be correct, and no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. ¶ 10:02 PM 0 comments links to this post
The Poodle Gets Offered a Ring of Power
Via Truthout:
...He's eyeing up £250K job with arms trade link firm.
Tony Blair is expected to join one of the most exclusive groups of businessmen in the world after he leaves Downing Street.
The PM is being lined up for a highly lucrative position with the Carlyle Group - an American-based investment giant with strong links to the White House and the defense industry.
The firm has been nicknamed "The Ex-Presidents Club" because it has had a host of former world leaders on its books including George Bush Senior, his former secretary of state James Baker and former British PM John Major. There a also a large number of former US Army top brass.
Mr. Blair has been keeping quiet about his plans after his departure from Number 10 - which could be as early as 2007 according to some Labour insiders.
But sources in the City have revealed that he is "seriously considering" a high-profile role with Carlyle - which manages $30billion (£20million) of investments worldwide.
The job could net Mr. Blair up to £500,000 a year for only a few days work a month giving speeches and making "networking" trips on behalf of the company.
The move comes after it emerged that the premier's financial affairs are in an increasingly perilous state His dream home has crashed in value by £700,000 in just seven months and he and Cherie have to find £13,000 a month for the mortgage.
The £3million loan the couple took out to buy the house in London's Connaught Square is 17 times Mr. Blair's current salary...
It probably takes some skills to stay in the saddle. ¶ 9:00 AM 0 comments links to this post
...He's eyeing up £250K job with arms trade link firm.
Tony Blair is expected to join one of the most exclusive groups of businessmen in the world after he leaves Downing Street.
The PM is being lined up for a highly lucrative position with the Carlyle Group - an American-based investment giant with strong links to the White House and the defense industry.
The firm has been nicknamed "The Ex-Presidents Club" because it has had a host of former world leaders on its books including George Bush Senior, his former secretary of state James Baker and former British PM John Major. There a also a large number of former US Army top brass.
Mr. Blair has been keeping quiet about his plans after his departure from Number 10 - which could be as early as 2007 according to some Labour insiders.
But sources in the City have revealed that he is "seriously considering" a high-profile role with Carlyle - which manages $30billion (£20million) of investments worldwide.
The job could net Mr. Blair up to £500,000 a year for only a few days work a month giving speeches and making "networking" trips on behalf of the company.
The move comes after it emerged that the premier's financial affairs are in an increasingly perilous state His dream home has crashed in value by £700,000 in just seven months and he and Cherie have to find £13,000 a month for the mortgage.
The £3million loan the couple took out to buy the house in London's Connaught Square is 17 times Mr. Blair's current salary...
It probably takes some skills to stay in the saddle. ¶ 9:00 AM 0 comments links to this post
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
They Didn't Used to Be a One Trick Pony
Defense Tech notes DARPA has evolved an unconventional attitude about what will make the United States military independent of petroleum.
Robots and plasma weapons, of course. And broadcast energy. Of course.
"...universal connectivity will allow commanders to track individual soldiers and robots as well as logistics system status and readiness,” the summary [of a February Darpa energy workshop] states. These capabilities, coupled with advanced modeling and simulation tools, will allow commanders to rapidly explore and exploit warfighting options, which in the end translates into shorter execution time lines and reduced energy requirements."
Darpa-ites also saw drones as a potential boost to oil alternatives.
"Using more unmanned systems will save energy because they will be smaller and lighter than manned systems that require armor, the summary states. Plus, robots and other unmanned systems “will allow reduction of the number of combat soldiers needed to accomplish the mission, further contributing to reduced energy requirements.”
Electricity will one day be the big replacement for oil, the Darpa conferees believe. And "since electricity can be generated from a variety of sources, it may be possible in 30 years to avoid having to rely on energy and fuel imported into a battlespace," Inside Defense notes.
The military would also need portable generators and "'ultra-high-capacity' electric storage devices to support directed-energy weapons and other 'futuristic gun systems' that require massive amounts of energy in short bursts."
But those ray guns shouldn't be wired up to the generators. The energy should be beamed through the air, instead. "This technology will be valuable because power lines are highly vulnerable to sabotage," the Darpa summary observes. Of course they are.
Yes, indeed, we are running out of fossil fuels, so the solution?
Better robots and ray guns, of course.
Of course, this is now. Prior to 2001 (you know- back when DARPA and Al Gore were busy inventing the internet), DARPA had a rather more forward view of alternative energy called Energy Harvesting:
Objective
The objective of this program was to develop energy storage and conversion components capable of harvesting energy from ambient sources (e.g., solar, wind, thermal, wave-action, currents [streams, rivers, deep ocean], chemical and thermal gradients, barometric fluctuations, biological, electromagnetic radiation, and human activities), and integrate those components with power delivery systems to increase the endurance by a factor of 10 over conventional systems.
Impact
Technologies that can harvest energy from environmental sources can significantly reduce or eliminate battery requirements. For low-power levels, place and forget sensors are feasible, as they will operate indefinitely. This will eliminate the need for battery replacement in highly dangerous or sensitive areas.
For the soldier, energy harvesting technology can be integrated with electronic components, reducing pack weight and increasing the total energy available, and therefore mission endurance.
Program Approach
Major thrusts include mechanical to electrical conversion via ocean currents, wave, heel strike and pack motion by using piezoelectric and electrostrictive materials; thermal to electric conversion at ground-air and ocean-air interfaces by using thermoelectric materials; harvesting energy from chemical gradients in ocean sediments; and exploring naturally occurring fuels (e.g., cellulose and sugars) as a source of hydrogen for small fuel cells. As the energy content is low for these processes, it is critical to integrate harvesting technology with the total power system and match the duty cycle of the application so that losses are minimized.
Major Accomplishments
The following major accomplishments have been achieved for this program, which spanned from FY97 to FY01:
* Achieved the highest specific energy density for a field-activated electroactive polymer and incorporated it into a boot that harvests 300 mW from walking (previous heel strike technology was 1 mW). One watt or greater per boot is achievable using this technology.
* Established the proof of principal for a new generation of nuclear batteries using icosahedral borides.
* Developed an implantable biofuel cell that operates on blood glucose and oxygen.
* Developed and deployed a benthic fuel cell that harvests energy from marine sediments.
* Established the basis for ATP-fueled biomolecular motor devices by integrating individual biomolecular motors with nanostructures and evaluating their mechanical properties.
That was then. So what happened to all these great ideas?
Darth Rumsfeld. ¶ 9:04 PM 0 comments links to this post
Robots and plasma weapons, of course. And broadcast energy. Of course.
"...universal connectivity will allow commanders to track individual soldiers and robots as well as logistics system status and readiness,” the summary [of a February Darpa energy workshop] states. These capabilities, coupled with advanced modeling and simulation tools, will allow commanders to rapidly explore and exploit warfighting options, which in the end translates into shorter execution time lines and reduced energy requirements."
Darpa-ites also saw drones as a potential boost to oil alternatives.
"Using more unmanned systems will save energy because they will be smaller and lighter than manned systems that require armor, the summary states. Plus, robots and other unmanned systems “will allow reduction of the number of combat soldiers needed to accomplish the mission, further contributing to reduced energy requirements.”
Electricity will one day be the big replacement for oil, the Darpa conferees believe. And "since electricity can be generated from a variety of sources, it may be possible in 30 years to avoid having to rely on energy and fuel imported into a battlespace," Inside Defense notes.
The military would also need portable generators and "'ultra-high-capacity' electric storage devices to support directed-energy weapons and other 'futuristic gun systems' that require massive amounts of energy in short bursts."
But those ray guns shouldn't be wired up to the generators. The energy should be beamed through the air, instead. "This technology will be valuable because power lines are highly vulnerable to sabotage," the Darpa summary observes. Of course they are.
Yes, indeed, we are running out of fossil fuels, so the solution?
Better robots and ray guns, of course.
Of course, this is now. Prior to 2001 (you know- back when DARPA and Al Gore were busy inventing the internet), DARPA had a rather more forward view of alternative energy called Energy Harvesting:
Objective
The objective of this program was to develop energy storage and conversion components capable of harvesting energy from ambient sources (e.g., solar, wind, thermal, wave-action, currents [streams, rivers, deep ocean], chemical and thermal gradients, barometric fluctuations, biological, electromagnetic radiation, and human activities), and integrate those components with power delivery systems to increase the endurance by a factor of 10 over conventional systems.
Impact
Technologies that can harvest energy from environmental sources can significantly reduce or eliminate battery requirements. For low-power levels, place and forget sensors are feasible, as they will operate indefinitely. This will eliminate the need for battery replacement in highly dangerous or sensitive areas.
For the soldier, energy harvesting technology can be integrated with electronic components, reducing pack weight and increasing the total energy available, and therefore mission endurance.
Program Approach
Major thrusts include mechanical to electrical conversion via ocean currents, wave, heel strike and pack motion by using piezoelectric and electrostrictive materials; thermal to electric conversion at ground-air and ocean-air interfaces by using thermoelectric materials; harvesting energy from chemical gradients in ocean sediments; and exploring naturally occurring fuels (e.g., cellulose and sugars) as a source of hydrogen for small fuel cells. As the energy content is low for these processes, it is critical to integrate harvesting technology with the total power system and match the duty cycle of the application so that losses are minimized.
Major Accomplishments
The following major accomplishments have been achieved for this program, which spanned from FY97 to FY01:
* Achieved the highest specific energy density for a field-activated electroactive polymer and incorporated it into a boot that harvests 300 mW from walking (previous heel strike technology was 1 mW). One watt or greater per boot is achievable using this technology.
* Established the proof of principal for a new generation of nuclear batteries using icosahedral borides.
* Developed an implantable biofuel cell that operates on blood glucose and oxygen.
* Developed and deployed a benthic fuel cell that harvests energy from marine sediments.
* Established the basis for ATP-fueled biomolecular motor devices by integrating individual biomolecular motors with nanostructures and evaluating their mechanical properties.
That was then. So what happened to all these great ideas?
Darth Rumsfeld. ¶ 9:04 PM 0 comments links to this post
The Art of the Deal
So what makes the attempted Chinese acquisition of Unocal different from its bid for PetroKazakhstan?
The acquisitian of Unocal was portrayed as a national security threat to the United States:
Since the Chinese state-owned oil company CNOOC Ltd. offered to buy oil and gas company Unocal Corp. on Thursday, various news sources have been examining whether or not the deal would threaten US national security. "Congress was building pressure on the Bush administration to carefully examine the bid by CNOOC, which is 70 percent owned by the Chinese government," reports The Associated Press.
"Chinese bid for Unocal adds fuel to fire," reads a headline from Sunday's Washington Post.
In a report on National Public Radio's Morning Edition, Republican Illinois Congressman Donald Manzullo says he worries that the Chinese bid to buy Unocal could mean that China would keep the company's vast Asian oil reserves for itself, and not put the oil on the open market, thereby giving China an economic 'leg up.'
"The Unocal issue arises at a time of record oil prices, unease over China's $160 billion trade surplus with the United States and an appetite in Congress to punish China with tariffs unless it revalues its currency," reports Reuters.
"From the dusty plains of East Africa to the shores of the Caspian Sea, China is seeking to loosen the grip of the United States on world energy resources and secure the fuel it needs to keep its economy in overdrive," reports The New York Times...
Yet a similar deal for similar holdings in Afghanistan's neighber Kazakhstan doesn't raise a ripple of alarm?
Could it be because Kazakhstan is more strongly influenced by Russia than Afghanistan?
Or is it more because Unocal was the apple of Chevron's eye and both were under the financial umbrella of the Carlyle Group? And all historically heavily involved with Bush family finances and the War?
On the other hand, the Kazakhstan deal uses Carlyle-affiliated advisors on both sides of the fence:
Citigroup advised China National Petroleum on the deal while Goldman Sachs advised PetroKazakhstan. Citigroup has agreed to provide the Chinese company with a letter of credit for the entire value of the deal; the state-owned Chinese oil company will not borrow any money from other Chinese government agencies.
It's good to keep it all in the Family. ¶ 8:11 AM 0 comments links to this post
The acquisitian of Unocal was portrayed as a national security threat to the United States:
Since the Chinese state-owned oil company CNOOC Ltd. offered to buy oil and gas company Unocal Corp. on Thursday, various news sources have been examining whether or not the deal would threaten US national security. "Congress was building pressure on the Bush administration to carefully examine the bid by CNOOC, which is 70 percent owned by the Chinese government," reports The Associated Press.
"Chinese bid for Unocal adds fuel to fire," reads a headline from Sunday's Washington Post.
In a report on National Public Radio's Morning Edition, Republican Illinois Congressman Donald Manzullo says he worries that the Chinese bid to buy Unocal could mean that China would keep the company's vast Asian oil reserves for itself, and not put the oil on the open market, thereby giving China an economic 'leg up.'
"The Unocal issue arises at a time of record oil prices, unease over China's $160 billion trade surplus with the United States and an appetite in Congress to punish China with tariffs unless it revalues its currency," reports Reuters.
"From the dusty plains of East Africa to the shores of the Caspian Sea, China is seeking to loosen the grip of the United States on world energy resources and secure the fuel it needs to keep its economy in overdrive," reports The New York Times...
Yet a similar deal for similar holdings in Afghanistan's neighber Kazakhstan doesn't raise a ripple of alarm?
Could it be because Kazakhstan is more strongly influenced by Russia than Afghanistan?
Or is it more because Unocal was the apple of Chevron's eye and both were under the financial umbrella of the Carlyle Group? And all historically heavily involved with Bush family finances and the War?
On the other hand, the Kazakhstan deal uses Carlyle-affiliated advisors on both sides of the fence:
Citigroup advised China National Petroleum on the deal while Goldman Sachs advised PetroKazakhstan. Citigroup has agreed to provide the Chinese company with a letter of credit for the entire value of the deal; the state-owned Chinese oil company will not borrow any money from other Chinese government agencies.
It's good to keep it all in the Family. ¶ 8:11 AM 0 comments links to this post
Anger is the Path to the Dark Side
To paraphrase what Master Yoda says, Once You've Had Black, You Never Go Back.
So just to keep everything on the side of goodness and light, Lambert at Corrente has compiled and is continuously compiling a list of things not to hate about the Bu$hCo Group and what they've done to the Republic.
Check it out.
So much to keep us on the Path to Enlightenment. ¶ 7:28 AM 0 comments links to this post
So just to keep everything on the side of goodness and light, Lambert at Corrente has compiled and is continuously compiling a list of things not to hate about the Bu$hCo Group and what they've done to the Republic.
Check it out.
So much to keep us on the Path to Enlightenment. ¶ 7:28 AM 0 comments links to this post
Monday, August 22, 2005
No Return to a Simplicity that Never Was
The end of cheap energy will not lead to some post-industrial Green world, where people contentedly live with what they make off the land.
Pre-industrial life was not serene and bucolic.
Human nature being what it is, if most can not afford luxury, the many will viciously fight for the perks of the elite.
A better example, according to David Morse, of what is in store if we do not develop efficient energy alternatives now may be found in the conflagrations developing in Africa.
A war of the future is being waged right now in the sprawling desert region of northeastern Africa known as Sudan. The weapons themselves are not futuristic. None of the ray-guns, force-fields, or robotic storm troopers that are the stuff of science fiction; nor, for that matter, the satellite-guided Predator drones or other high-tech weapon systems at the cutting edge of today's arsenal.
No, this war is being fought with Kalashnikovs, clubs and knives. In the western region of Sudan known as Darfur, the preferred tactics are burning and pillaging, castration and rape -- carried out by Arab militias riding on camels and horses. The most sophisticated technologies deployed are, on the one hand, the helicopters used by the Sudanese government to support the militias when they attack black African villages, and on the other hand, quite a different weapon: the seismographs used by foreign oil companies to map oil deposits hundreds of feet below the surface.
This is what makes it a war of the future: not the slick PowerPoint presentations you can imagine in boardrooms in Dallas and Beijing showing proven reserves in one color, estimated reserves in another, vast subterranean puddles that stretch west into Chad, and south to Nigeria and Uganda; not the technology; just the simple fact of the oil.
This is a resource war, fought by surrogates, involving great powers whose economies are predicated on growth, contending for a finite pool of resources. It is a war straight out of the pages of Michael Klare's book, Blood and Oil; and it would be a glaring example of the consequences of our addiction to oil, if it were not also an invisible war.
Invisible?
Invisible because it is happening in Africa. Invisible because our mainstream media are subsidized by the petroleum industry. Think of all the car ads you see on television, in newspapers and magazines. Think of the narcissism implicit in our automobile culture, our suburban sprawl, our obsessive focus on the rich and famous, the giddy assumption that all this can continue indefinitely when we know it can't -- and you see why Darfur slips into darkness. And Darfur is only the tip of the sprawling, scarred state known as Sudan. Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a New York Times column that ABC News had a total of 18 minutes of Darfur coverage in its nightly newscasts all last year, and that was to the credit of Peter Jennings; NBC had only 5 minutes, CBS only 3 minutes. This is, of course, a micro-fraction of the time devoted to Michael Jackson.
Why is it, I wonder, that when a genocide takes place in Africa, our attention is always riveted on some black American miscreant superstar? During the genocide in Rwanda ten years ago, when 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered in 100 days, it was the trial of O.J. Simpson that had our attention.
Yes, racism enters into our refusal to even try to understand Africa, let alone value African lives. And yes, surely we're witnessing the kind of denial that Samantha Power documents in A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide; the sheer difficulty we have acknowledging genocide. Once we acknowledge it, she observes, we pay lip-service to humanitarian ideals, but stand idly by. And yes, turmoil in Africa may evoke our experience in Somalia, with its graphic images of American soldiers being dragged through the streets by their heels. But all of this is trumped, I believe, by something just as deep: an unwritten conspiracy of silence that prevents the media from making the connections that would threaten our petroleum-dependent lifestyle, that would lead us to acknowledge the fact that the industrial world's addiction to oil is laying waste to Africa.
When Darfur does occasionally make the news -- photographs of burned villages, charred corpses, malnourished children -- it is presented without context. In truth, Darfur is part of a broader oil-driven crisis in northern Africa. An estimated 300 to 400 Darfurians are dying every day. Yet the message from our media is that we Americans are "helpless" to prevent this humanitarian tragedy, even as we gas up our SUVs with these people's lives.
Even Kristof -- whose efforts as a mainstream journalist to keep Darfur in the spotlight are worthy of a Pulitzer -- fails to make the connection to oil; and yet oil was the driving force behind Sudan's civil war. Oil is driving the genocide in Darfur. Oil drives the Bush administration's policy toward Sudan and the rest of Africa. And oil is likely to topple Sudan and its neighbors into chaos...
This is worth reading, and considering that most of the violence between nations in the world today could be remedied if fossil fuels were no longer a limiting factor for economic development.
Like MaxSpeak says (thanks to Atrios for the link)
Do markets really solve all problems? Most problems? Nothing ever goes wrong? I guess it depends on how you define "wrong." For instance, Amartya Sen wrote a book about poverty and famines which describes how markets solved the problems of people having no money to buy food: they die of starvation, the ultimate steady state.
If oil runs out, sure there will be substitutes. How fast will these come online, if they do? How much will they cost? What will be the costs of adjustment? Will that be fun? Who knows? Markets solve problems. Solutions do not exclude freezing in the dark, a new kind of equilbrium.
Nobody should be let loose in the wild with a Ph.D. in economics unless they've been required to take three or four courses in history, preferably taught by non-economists. ¶ 10:38 PM 1 comments links to this post
Pre-industrial life was not serene and bucolic.
Human nature being what it is, if most can not afford luxury, the many will viciously fight for the perks of the elite.
A better example, according to David Morse, of what is in store if we do not develop efficient energy alternatives now may be found in the conflagrations developing in Africa.
A war of the future is being waged right now in the sprawling desert region of northeastern Africa known as Sudan. The weapons themselves are not futuristic. None of the ray-guns, force-fields, or robotic storm troopers that are the stuff of science fiction; nor, for that matter, the satellite-guided Predator drones or other high-tech weapon systems at the cutting edge of today's arsenal.
No, this war is being fought with Kalashnikovs, clubs and knives. In the western region of Sudan known as Darfur, the preferred tactics are burning and pillaging, castration and rape -- carried out by Arab militias riding on camels and horses. The most sophisticated technologies deployed are, on the one hand, the helicopters used by the Sudanese government to support the militias when they attack black African villages, and on the other hand, quite a different weapon: the seismographs used by foreign oil companies to map oil deposits hundreds of feet below the surface.
This is what makes it a war of the future: not the slick PowerPoint presentations you can imagine in boardrooms in Dallas and Beijing showing proven reserves in one color, estimated reserves in another, vast subterranean puddles that stretch west into Chad, and south to Nigeria and Uganda; not the technology; just the simple fact of the oil.
This is a resource war, fought by surrogates, involving great powers whose economies are predicated on growth, contending for a finite pool of resources. It is a war straight out of the pages of Michael Klare's book, Blood and Oil; and it would be a glaring example of the consequences of our addiction to oil, if it were not also an invisible war.
Invisible?
Invisible because it is happening in Africa. Invisible because our mainstream media are subsidized by the petroleum industry. Think of all the car ads you see on television, in newspapers and magazines. Think of the narcissism implicit in our automobile culture, our suburban sprawl, our obsessive focus on the rich and famous, the giddy assumption that all this can continue indefinitely when we know it can't -- and you see why Darfur slips into darkness. And Darfur is only the tip of the sprawling, scarred state known as Sudan. Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a New York Times column that ABC News had a total of 18 minutes of Darfur coverage in its nightly newscasts all last year, and that was to the credit of Peter Jennings; NBC had only 5 minutes, CBS only 3 minutes. This is, of course, a micro-fraction of the time devoted to Michael Jackson.
Why is it, I wonder, that when a genocide takes place in Africa, our attention is always riveted on some black American miscreant superstar? During the genocide in Rwanda ten years ago, when 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered in 100 days, it was the trial of O.J. Simpson that had our attention.
Yes, racism enters into our refusal to even try to understand Africa, let alone value African lives. And yes, surely we're witnessing the kind of denial that Samantha Power documents in A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide; the sheer difficulty we have acknowledging genocide. Once we acknowledge it, she observes, we pay lip-service to humanitarian ideals, but stand idly by. And yes, turmoil in Africa may evoke our experience in Somalia, with its graphic images of American soldiers being dragged through the streets by their heels. But all of this is trumped, I believe, by something just as deep: an unwritten conspiracy of silence that prevents the media from making the connections that would threaten our petroleum-dependent lifestyle, that would lead us to acknowledge the fact that the industrial world's addiction to oil is laying waste to Africa.
When Darfur does occasionally make the news -- photographs of burned villages, charred corpses, malnourished children -- it is presented without context. In truth, Darfur is part of a broader oil-driven crisis in northern Africa. An estimated 300 to 400 Darfurians are dying every day. Yet the message from our media is that we Americans are "helpless" to prevent this humanitarian tragedy, even as we gas up our SUVs with these people's lives.
Even Kristof -- whose efforts as a mainstream journalist to keep Darfur in the spotlight are worthy of a Pulitzer -- fails to make the connection to oil; and yet oil was the driving force behind Sudan's civil war. Oil is driving the genocide in Darfur. Oil drives the Bush administration's policy toward Sudan and the rest of Africa. And oil is likely to topple Sudan and its neighbors into chaos...
This is worth reading, and considering that most of the violence between nations in the world today could be remedied if fossil fuels were no longer a limiting factor for economic development.
Like MaxSpeak says (thanks to Atrios for the link)
Do markets really solve all problems? Most problems? Nothing ever goes wrong? I guess it depends on how you define "wrong." For instance, Amartya Sen wrote a book about poverty and famines which describes how markets solved the problems of people having no money to buy food: they die of starvation, the ultimate steady state.
If oil runs out, sure there will be substitutes. How fast will these come online, if they do? How much will they cost? What will be the costs of adjustment? Will that be fun? Who knows? Markets solve problems. Solutions do not exclude freezing in the dark, a new kind of equilbrium.
Nobody should be let loose in the wild with a Ph.D. in economics unless they've been required to take three or four courses in history, preferably taught by non-economists. ¶ 10:38 PM 1 comments links to this post
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Running on Empty and Unwilling to Admit It
From the same flat earth people that give you "controversy" where none really exists regarding evolution we have this gem of "he said vs. she said" reporting on the Hubbert oil production curve in the Sunday Magazine:
This demand-driven scarcity has prompted the emergence of a cottage industry of experts who predict an impending crisis that will dwarf anything seen before. Their point is not that we are running out of oil, per se; although as much as half of the world's recoverable reserves are estimated to have been consumed, about a trillion barrels remain underground. Rather, they are concerned with what is called ''capacity'' -- the amount of oil that can be pumped to the surface on a daily basis. These experts -- still a minority in the oil world -- contend that because of the peculiarities of geology and the limits of modern technology, it will soon be impossible for the world's reservoirs to surrender enough oil to meet daily demand.
One of the starkest warnings came in a February report commissioned by the United States Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory. ''Because oil prices have been relatively high for the past decade, oil companies have conducted extensive exploration over that period, but their results have been disappointing,'' stated the report, assembled by Science Applications International, a research company that works on security and energy issues. ''If recent trends hold, there is little reason to expect that exploration success will dramatically improve in the future. . . . The image is one of a world moving from a long period in which reserves additions were much greater than consumption to an era in which annual additions are falling increasingly short of annual consumption. This is but one of a number of trends that suggest the world is fast approaching the inevitable peaking of conventional world oil production.''
The reference to ''peaking'' is not a haphazard word choice -- ''peaking'' is a term used in oil geology to define the critical point at which reservoirs can no longer produce increasing amounts of oil. (This tends to happen when reservoirs are about half-empty.) ''Peak oil'' is the point at which maximum production is reached; afterward, no matter how many wells are drilled in a country, production begins to decline. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members may have enough oil to last for generations, but that is no longer the issue. The eventual and painful shift to different sources of energy -- the start of the post-oil age -- does not begin when the last drop of oil is sucked from under the Arabian desert. It begins when producers are unable to continue increasing their output to meet rising demand. Crunch time comes long before the last drop.
''The world has never faced a problem like this,'' the report for the Energy Department concluded. ''Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.''
Most experts do not share Simmons's concerns about the imminence of peak oil. One of the industry's most prominent consultants, Daniel Yergin, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about petroleum, dismisses the doomsday visions. ''This is not the first time that the world has 'run out of oil,''' he wrote in a recent Washington Post opinion essay. ''It's more like the fifth. Cycles of shortage and surplus characterize the entire history of the oil industry.'' Yergin says that a number of oil projects that are under construction will increase the supply by 20 percent in five years and that technological advances will increase the amount of oil that can be recovered from existing reservoirs...
...One diplomat I spoke to recalled a comment from Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the larger-than-life Saudi oil minister during the 1970's: ''The Stone Age didn't end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.''...
And damn the torpedos and those nattering nabobs of negativism indeed.
But it does end more or less on the correct note:
...The most worrisome part of the crisis ahead revolves around a set of statistics from the Energy Information Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The E.I.A. forecast in 2004 that by 2020 Saudi Arabia would produce 18.2 million barrels of oil a day, and that by 2025 it would produce 22.5 million barrels a day. Those estimates were unusual, though. They were not based on secret information about Saudi capacity, but on the projected needs of energy consumers. The figures simply assumed that Saudi Arabia would be able to produce whatever the United States needed it to produce. Just last month, the E.I.A. suddenly revised those figures downward -- not because of startling new information about world demand or Saudi supply but because the figures had given so much ammunition to critics. Husseini, for example, described the 2004 forecast as unrealistic.
''That's not how you would manage a national, let alone an international, economy,'' he explained. ''That's the part that is scary. You draw some assumptions and then say, 'O.K., based on these assumptions, let's go forward and consume like hell and burn like hell.''' When I asked whether the kingdom could produce 20 million barrels a day -- about twice what it is producing today from fields that may be past their prime -- Husseini paused for a second or two. It wasn't clear if he was taking a moment to figure out the answer or if he needed a moment to decide if he should utter it. He finally replied with a single word: No.
''It's becoming unrealistic,'' he said. ''The expectations are beyond what is achievable. This is a global problem . . . that is not going to be solved by tinkering with the Saudi industry.''
It would be unfair to blame the Saudis alone for failing to warn of whatever shortages or catastrophes might lie ahead.
In the political and corporate realms of the oil world, there are few incentives to be forthright. Executives of major oil companies have been reluctant to raise alarms; the mere mention of scarce supplies could alienate the governments that hand out lucrative exploration contracts and also send a message to investors that oil companies, though wildly profitable at the moment, have a Malthusian long-term future. Fortunately, that attitude seems to be beginning to change. Chevron's ''easy oil is over'' advertising campaign is an indication that even the boosters of an oil-drenched future are not as bullish as they once were.
Politicians remain in the dark. During the 2004 presidential campaign, which occurred as gas prices were rising to record levels, the debate on energy policy was all but nonexistent. The Bush campaign produced an advertisement that concluded: ''Some people have wacky ideas. Like taxing gasoline more so people drive less. That's John Kerry.'' Although many environmentalists would have been delighted if Kerry had proposed that during the campaign, in fact the ad was referring to a 50-cents-a-gallon tax that Kerry supported 11 years ago as part of a package of measures to reduce the deficit. (The gas tax never made it to a vote in the Senate.) Kerry made no mention of taxing gasoline during the campaign; his proposal for doing something about high gas prices was to pressure OPEC to increase supplies.
Husseini, for one, doesn't buy that approach. ''Everybody is looking at the producers to pull the chestnuts out of the fire, as if it's our job to fix everybody's problems,'' he told me. ''It's not our problem to tell a democratically elected government that you have to do something about your runaway consumers. If your government can't do the job, you can't expect other governments to do it for them.'' Back in the 70's, President Carter called for the moral equivalent of war to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; he was not re-elected. Since then, few politicians have spoken of an energy crisis or suggested that major policy changes are necessary to avert one. The energy bill signed earlier this month by President Bush did not even raise fuel-efficiency standards for passenger cars. When a crisis comes -- whether in a year or 2 or 10 -- it will be all the more painful because we will have done little or nothing to prepare for it.
Since the Carlyle people took over, there seem to be two classes of writers at The New York Pravda.
You have the outright Republican plants like Judith Miller and the witless parrots of the party line like Jodi Wilgoren.
Then you have the more traditional (for the Times ) people doing reality-based reporting, like Peter Maas. But they equivocate, perhaps to please their masters. It's only the big names with large readerships like Krugman, Herbert, or Dowd that can call it the way they see it.
And yes, if viable alternative energy sources are developed too soon, all that desert becomes only so much sand, and the House of Saud a backwater the wave of technological and social progress will never reach. ¶ 9:42 PM 0 comments links to this post
This demand-driven scarcity has prompted the emergence of a cottage industry of experts who predict an impending crisis that will dwarf anything seen before. Their point is not that we are running out of oil, per se; although as much as half of the world's recoverable reserves are estimated to have been consumed, about a trillion barrels remain underground. Rather, they are concerned with what is called ''capacity'' -- the amount of oil that can be pumped to the surface on a daily basis. These experts -- still a minority in the oil world -- contend that because of the peculiarities of geology and the limits of modern technology, it will soon be impossible for the world's reservoirs to surrender enough oil to meet daily demand.
One of the starkest warnings came in a February report commissioned by the United States Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory. ''Because oil prices have been relatively high for the past decade, oil companies have conducted extensive exploration over that period, but their results have been disappointing,'' stated the report, assembled by Science Applications International, a research company that works on security and energy issues. ''If recent trends hold, there is little reason to expect that exploration success will dramatically improve in the future. . . . The image is one of a world moving from a long period in which reserves additions were much greater than consumption to an era in which annual additions are falling increasingly short of annual consumption. This is but one of a number of trends that suggest the world is fast approaching the inevitable peaking of conventional world oil production.''
The reference to ''peaking'' is not a haphazard word choice -- ''peaking'' is a term used in oil geology to define the critical point at which reservoirs can no longer produce increasing amounts of oil. (This tends to happen when reservoirs are about half-empty.) ''Peak oil'' is the point at which maximum production is reached; afterward, no matter how many wells are drilled in a country, production begins to decline. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members may have enough oil to last for generations, but that is no longer the issue. The eventual and painful shift to different sources of energy -- the start of the post-oil age -- does not begin when the last drop of oil is sucked from under the Arabian desert. It begins when producers are unable to continue increasing their output to meet rising demand. Crunch time comes long before the last drop.
''The world has never faced a problem like this,'' the report for the Energy Department concluded. ''Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.''
Most experts do not share Simmons's concerns about the imminence of peak oil. One of the industry's most prominent consultants, Daniel Yergin, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about petroleum, dismisses the doomsday visions. ''This is not the first time that the world has 'run out of oil,''' he wrote in a recent Washington Post opinion essay. ''It's more like the fifth. Cycles of shortage and surplus characterize the entire history of the oil industry.'' Yergin says that a number of oil projects that are under construction will increase the supply by 20 percent in five years and that technological advances will increase the amount of oil that can be recovered from existing reservoirs...
...One diplomat I spoke to recalled a comment from Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the larger-than-life Saudi oil minister during the 1970's: ''The Stone Age didn't end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.''...
And damn the torpedos and those nattering nabobs of negativism indeed.
But it does end more or less on the correct note:
...The most worrisome part of the crisis ahead revolves around a set of statistics from the Energy Information Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The E.I.A. forecast in 2004 that by 2020 Saudi Arabia would produce 18.2 million barrels of oil a day, and that by 2025 it would produce 22.5 million barrels a day. Those estimates were unusual, though. They were not based on secret information about Saudi capacity, but on the projected needs of energy consumers. The figures simply assumed that Saudi Arabia would be able to produce whatever the United States needed it to produce. Just last month, the E.I.A. suddenly revised those figures downward -- not because of startling new information about world demand or Saudi supply but because the figures had given so much ammunition to critics. Husseini, for example, described the 2004 forecast as unrealistic.
''That's not how you would manage a national, let alone an international, economy,'' he explained. ''That's the part that is scary. You draw some assumptions and then say, 'O.K., based on these assumptions, let's go forward and consume like hell and burn like hell.''' When I asked whether the kingdom could produce 20 million barrels a day -- about twice what it is producing today from fields that may be past their prime -- Husseini paused for a second or two. It wasn't clear if he was taking a moment to figure out the answer or if he needed a moment to decide if he should utter it. He finally replied with a single word: No.
''It's becoming unrealistic,'' he said. ''The expectations are beyond what is achievable. This is a global problem . . . that is not going to be solved by tinkering with the Saudi industry.''
It would be unfair to blame the Saudis alone for failing to warn of whatever shortages or catastrophes might lie ahead.
In the political and corporate realms of the oil world, there are few incentives to be forthright. Executives of major oil companies have been reluctant to raise alarms; the mere mention of scarce supplies could alienate the governments that hand out lucrative exploration contracts and also send a message to investors that oil companies, though wildly profitable at the moment, have a Malthusian long-term future. Fortunately, that attitude seems to be beginning to change. Chevron's ''easy oil is over'' advertising campaign is an indication that even the boosters of an oil-drenched future are not as bullish as they once were.
Politicians remain in the dark. During the 2004 presidential campaign, which occurred as gas prices were rising to record levels, the debate on energy policy was all but nonexistent. The Bush campaign produced an advertisement that concluded: ''Some people have wacky ideas. Like taxing gasoline more so people drive less. That's John Kerry.'' Although many environmentalists would have been delighted if Kerry had proposed that during the campaign, in fact the ad was referring to a 50-cents-a-gallon tax that Kerry supported 11 years ago as part of a package of measures to reduce the deficit. (The gas tax never made it to a vote in the Senate.) Kerry made no mention of taxing gasoline during the campaign; his proposal for doing something about high gas prices was to pressure OPEC to increase supplies.
Husseini, for one, doesn't buy that approach. ''Everybody is looking at the producers to pull the chestnuts out of the fire, as if it's our job to fix everybody's problems,'' he told me. ''It's not our problem to tell a democratically elected government that you have to do something about your runaway consumers. If your government can't do the job, you can't expect other governments to do it for them.'' Back in the 70's, President Carter called for the moral equivalent of war to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; he was not re-elected. Since then, few politicians have spoken of an energy crisis or suggested that major policy changes are necessary to avert one. The energy bill signed earlier this month by President Bush did not even raise fuel-efficiency standards for passenger cars. When a crisis comes -- whether in a year or 2 or 10 -- it will be all the more painful because we will have done little or nothing to prepare for it.
Since the Carlyle people took over, there seem to be two classes of writers at The New York Pravda.
You have the outright Republican plants like Judith Miller and the witless parrots of the party line like Jodi Wilgoren.
Then you have the more traditional (for the Times ) people doing reality-based reporting, like Peter Maas. But they equivocate, perhaps to please their masters. It's only the big names with large readerships like Krugman, Herbert, or Dowd that can call it the way they see it.
And yes, if viable alternative energy sources are developed too soon, all that desert becomes only so much sand, and the House of Saud a backwater the wave of technological and social progress will never reach. ¶ 9:42 PM 0 comments links to this post
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Active Denial
More people are starting to notice the new toys Darth Rumsfeld has in store for all of us.
Here are facts- but they're presented a little oddly:
A tough-talking Texan named Edward Hammond has to be a key element of any accurate study of the spooky history of what the military calls the "Active Denial System."
The head of The Sunshine Project, a Texas-based group opposing biological weapons, Hammond shows his disdain for military excesses through swear words and federal disclosure suits that seek to lift a window on military science projects. Two times now, he says, Marine Corp staff handling his Freedom of Information Act claims have mailed him the wrong envelope, mistakenly sending him materials meant for another military office, envelopes that contained classified information...
Obviously these people never visit places like Defense Tech or the DARPA websites, where you can download all you want to know about exotic science toys for free.
Some people should get out more often.
The Secrets of 'Active Denial'
The Active Denial System is a Pentagon-funded, $51 million crowd control device that rides atop a Humvee, looks like a TV dish, and shoots energy waves 1/64 of an inch deep into human skin. It dispenses brief but intolerable bursts of pain, sending bad guys fleeing but supposedly leaving no lasting damage. (During a Pentagon press briefing in 2001, this reporter felt a zap from an ADS prototype on his fingertip and can attest to the brief but fleeting sensation that a hot light bulb was pressing against the skin). ADS works outside the range of small arms fire.
After a decade-long development cycle, the ADS is field ready but not free of controversy. Military leaders, as noted in a recent USA Today article, say it will save lives by helping U.S. troops avoid bombs and bullets in urban zones where insurgents mix with civilians. Temporary pain beats bullets and bombs, but Edward Hammond's files have rekindled scientific questions about how the classified system works, what it does to the body and how it will be used in the streets of Basra or Baghdad or, one day, Boston...
Don't you love secrets that get buried in USA Today? Sorry, my snark is showing. Let us continue, for there are some interesting links.
But caution: some link to Department of Justice Homeland Security sites that imbed cookies in your machine and record your email address without providing information about anything. Look before you follow links.
There is this fun link, though, that goes to a .pdf on biological effects of this microwave weapon... except if you follow it you get a .mil site with Page Not Found, cookies, and tagged:
the majority if not all literature detailing research on the bioeffects of the weapons' specific wavelength (95 gigahertz) appears to have been conducted by researchers linked to the Pentagon's weapon development program. In an ADS fact sheet ( that's the bum link- follow it to no information and get 'scoped by .mil software ) , the Air Force says a panel of non-governmental scientists and medical experts reviewed bio-effects tests on humans. When asked for the names of those experts, a press official at the Air Force Research Laboratory's Human Effectiveness Directorate at Brooks City Base, Texas, said experts were not immediately available to answer. The Air Force's Garcia said he knows of no independent research. A Marine Corp spokesman said the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, the military organization in charge of ADS, is "unaware of any release of classified documents or information relating to Active Denial System."
Sure. Just ask Raytheon... or better yet, since they've also purged their websites, go straight to the .gov Department of Energy lab website fluffpiece bragging about how they tested it for Raytheon.
Team investigates Active Denial System for security applications
Millimeter-wave device puts the ‘heat’ on adversaries
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A multi-organizational team is adapting for DOE use a technology that can help keep security adversaries out of DOE sites that contain nuclear assets.
The DOE Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance (SSA) is exploring the potential to use directed energy weapons technology sponsored by the Department of Defense (DoD), named Active Denial Technology (ADT), to help protect DOE nuclear assets.
SSA is sponsoring Sandia National Laboratories, a National Nuclear Security Administration lab, to investigate how the technology can be used on adversaries by developing a new small-sized Active Denial System (ADS) to meet the unique and rapidly evolving security needs of DOE.
To help solve the many technical issues associated with this challenge, Sandia has partnered with Raytheon and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), because both organizations have significant experience with earlier ADS system developments.
ADS systems are a new class of nonlethal weaponry using 95 GHz-millimeter-wave directed energy. This technology is capable of rapidly heating a person’s skin to achieve a pain threshold that has been demonstrated by AFRL human subject testing to be very effective at repelling people, without burning the skin or causing other secondary effects.
The device is an alternative to lethal force.
In the mid 1990s the Air Force funded development of an ADT system demonstrator that was led by AFRL and built by Raytheon in partnership with Communications & Power Inc. (CPI) and Malibu Research. The success of this demonstration system has resulted in several ongoing DoD-sponsored projects, such as the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate’s Vehicle Mounted Active Denial System (VMADS) and the Office of Force Transformation’s (OFT’s) project SHERIFF.
Steve Scott, manager of Sandia’s Access Delay Technology Department, says, “DOE and Sandia have been closely tracking ADT developments and have recognized its potential to enhance the protection of DOE nuclear facilities. This has been confirmed by conducting a feasibility study in 2002, under the supervision of researcher Jim Pacheco.”
Acting on the feasibility study’s conclusions, SSA’s Carl Pocratsky (SO-20) initiated an effort at Sandia to explore and develop a small Active Denial System (ADS) that is more suitable for DOE fixed-site applications. To date, DoD efforts have focused on larger systems, considered by many to be better suited for military applications at extended ranges.
In 2004, the AFRL’s Human Effectiveness Directorate (HEDR) completed a study that analyzed pre-existing test data to estimate the potential effectiveness of an ADS that has a smaller beam. Also in 2004, Sandia conducted simulations of how the smaller ADS might be used and how it would perform against adversary attack scenarios within a DOE facility using the Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS) software modeling tool.
“The results of the AFRL small beam ADS effectiveness study and the JCATS study were very encouraging and provided a strong basis for continuing the development of a comparitively small ADS for DOE fixed-site applications,” says Pacheco.
“Recently there has been significant progress with this project,” says Willy Morse, Sandia’s principal investigator. “On May 5 we took acceptance of the SSA ADS prototype system built by Raytheon’s Advanced Electromagnetic Technologies (AET) Center in partnership with CPI and Malibu Research. Initial characterization and performance tests were completed at the end of May.”
On May 19 a memorandum of understanding was completed between DOE-SSA, Sandia, DoD-OFT, and AFRL. This memorandum establishes a formal partnership between the DoD and DOE in developing small-sized ADSs. During the next six months the AFRL’s Human Effectiveness Directorate, Brooks City-Base, is being funded by the OFT to complete human effects testing. This testing will use the SSA ADS system to determine its effectiveness for DOD applications and validate the conclusions of the 2004 small-beam-size effectiveness study sponsored by SSA.
Testing results from Sandia, AFRL, and OFT will guide the operational concept and design of a second-generation small-size ADS system expected to be fielded at several DOE nuclear facilities as early as 2008. DOE-SSA and Sandia will continue to actively seek opportunities to collaborate with other government agencies on technical issues associated with developing and deploying ADS systems.
System uses beam of electromagnetic energy to heat human
Active Denial Technology (ADT) provides an effective nonlethal active-response mechanism to disperse, disturb, distract, and establish the intent of intruders.
ADT emits a 95 GHz non-ionizing electromagnetic beam of energy that penetrates approximately 1/64 of an inch into human skin tissue, where nerve receptors are concentrated. Within seconds, the beam will heat the exposed skin tissue to a level where intolerable pain is experienced and natural defense mechanisms take over.
This intense heating sensation stops only if the individual moves out of the beam’s path or the beam is turned off. The sensation caused by the system has been described by test subjects as feeling like touching a hot frying pan or the intense radiant heat from a fire. Burn injury is prevented by limiting the beam’s intensity and duration. Of course, you wouldn't want to hurt anybody with your weapon, right?
DoD-sponsored millimeter-wave human effectiveness testing, initiated in 2001, has demonstrated ADT as both effective and safe without any long-term effects. It is expected that the DoD-funded human effectiveness testing of the small-beam ADS by the AFRL HEDR during the next six to eight months will validate its effectiveness and safety as a nonlethal weapon system.
It's a great biz, being a Carlyle affiliate. You get $44 million to develop a new hell weapon, and the D.o'E. and D.o'D. do all the work and advertising for you. All you have to do is subcontract a little cut of the pie to Lockheed-Martin, the Patron of the Sandia labs. And you get to sell it to the Chinese, Saudis, and everyone else, too. All under Classified cover. ¶ 9:05 AM 0 comments links to this post
Here are facts- but they're presented a little oddly:
A tough-talking Texan named Edward Hammond has to be a key element of any accurate study of the spooky history of what the military calls the "Active Denial System."
The head of The Sunshine Project, a Texas-based group opposing biological weapons, Hammond shows his disdain for military excesses through swear words and federal disclosure suits that seek to lift a window on military science projects. Two times now, he says, Marine Corp staff handling his Freedom of Information Act claims have mailed him the wrong envelope, mistakenly sending him materials meant for another military office, envelopes that contained classified information...
Obviously these people never visit places like Defense Tech or the DARPA websites, where you can download all you want to know about exotic science toys for free.
Some people should get out more often.
The Secrets of 'Active Denial'
The Active Denial System is a Pentagon-funded, $51 million crowd control device that rides atop a Humvee, looks like a TV dish, and shoots energy waves 1/64 of an inch deep into human skin. It dispenses brief but intolerable bursts of pain, sending bad guys fleeing but supposedly leaving no lasting damage. (During a Pentagon press briefing in 2001, this reporter felt a zap from an ADS prototype on his fingertip and can attest to the brief but fleeting sensation that a hot light bulb was pressing against the skin). ADS works outside the range of small arms fire.
After a decade-long development cycle, the ADS is field ready but not free of controversy. Military leaders, as noted in a recent USA Today article, say it will save lives by helping U.S. troops avoid bombs and bullets in urban zones where insurgents mix with civilians. Temporary pain beats bullets and bombs, but Edward Hammond's files have rekindled scientific questions about how the classified system works, what it does to the body and how it will be used in the streets of Basra or Baghdad or, one day, Boston...
Don't you love secrets that get buried in USA Today? Sorry, my snark is showing. Let us continue, for there are some interesting links.
But caution: some link to Department of Justice Homeland Security sites that imbed cookies in your machine and record your email address without providing information about anything. Look before you follow links.
There is this fun link, though, that goes to a .pdf on biological effects of this microwave weapon... except if you follow it you get a .mil site with Page Not Found, cookies, and tagged:
the majority if not all literature detailing research on the bioeffects of the weapons' specific wavelength (95 gigahertz) appears to have been conducted by researchers linked to the Pentagon's weapon development program. In an ADS fact sheet ( that's the bum link- follow it to no information and get 'scoped by .mil software ) , the Air Force says a panel of non-governmental scientists and medical experts reviewed bio-effects tests on humans. When asked for the names of those experts, a press official at the Air Force Research Laboratory's Human Effectiveness Directorate at Brooks City Base, Texas, said experts were not immediately available to answer. The Air Force's Garcia said he knows of no independent research. A Marine Corp spokesman said the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, the military organization in charge of ADS, is "unaware of any release of classified documents or information relating to Active Denial System."
Sure. Just ask Raytheon... or better yet, since they've also purged their websites, go straight to the .gov Department of Energy lab website fluffpiece bragging about how they tested it for Raytheon.
Team investigates Active Denial System for security applications
Millimeter-wave device puts the ‘heat’ on adversaries
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A multi-organizational team is adapting for DOE use a technology that can help keep security adversaries out of DOE sites that contain nuclear assets.
The DOE Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance (SSA) is exploring the potential to use directed energy weapons technology sponsored by the Department of Defense (DoD), named Active Denial Technology (ADT), to help protect DOE nuclear assets.
SSA is sponsoring Sandia National Laboratories, a National Nuclear Security Administration lab, to investigate how the technology can be used on adversaries by developing a new small-sized Active Denial System (ADS) to meet the unique and rapidly evolving security needs of DOE.
To help solve the many technical issues associated with this challenge, Sandia has partnered with Raytheon and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), because both organizations have significant experience with earlier ADS system developments.
ADS systems are a new class of nonlethal weaponry using 95 GHz-millimeter-wave directed energy. This technology is capable of rapidly heating a person’s skin to achieve a pain threshold that has been demonstrated by AFRL human subject testing to be very effective at repelling people, without burning the skin or causing other secondary effects.
The device is an alternative to lethal force.
In the mid 1990s the Air Force funded development of an ADT system demonstrator that was led by AFRL and built by Raytheon in partnership with Communications & Power Inc. (CPI) and Malibu Research. The success of this demonstration system has resulted in several ongoing DoD-sponsored projects, such as the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate’s Vehicle Mounted Active Denial System (VMADS) and the Office of Force Transformation’s (OFT’s) project SHERIFF.
Steve Scott, manager of Sandia’s Access Delay Technology Department, says, “DOE and Sandia have been closely tracking ADT developments and have recognized its potential to enhance the protection of DOE nuclear facilities. This has been confirmed by conducting a feasibility study in 2002, under the supervision of researcher Jim Pacheco.”
Acting on the feasibility study’s conclusions, SSA’s Carl Pocratsky (SO-20) initiated an effort at Sandia to explore and develop a small Active Denial System (ADS) that is more suitable for DOE fixed-site applications. To date, DoD efforts have focused on larger systems, considered by many to be better suited for military applications at extended ranges.
In 2004, the AFRL’s Human Effectiveness Directorate (HEDR) completed a study that analyzed pre-existing test data to estimate the potential effectiveness of an ADS that has a smaller beam. Also in 2004, Sandia conducted simulations of how the smaller ADS might be used and how it would perform against adversary attack scenarios within a DOE facility using the Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS) software modeling tool.
“The results of the AFRL small beam ADS effectiveness study and the JCATS study were very encouraging and provided a strong basis for continuing the development of a comparitively small ADS for DOE fixed-site applications,” says Pacheco.
“Recently there has been significant progress with this project,” says Willy Morse, Sandia’s principal investigator. “On May 5 we took acceptance of the SSA ADS prototype system built by Raytheon’s Advanced Electromagnetic Technologies (AET) Center in partnership with CPI and Malibu Research. Initial characterization and performance tests were completed at the end of May.”
On May 19 a memorandum of understanding was completed between DOE-SSA, Sandia, DoD-OFT, and AFRL. This memorandum establishes a formal partnership between the DoD and DOE in developing small-sized ADSs. During the next six months the AFRL’s Human Effectiveness Directorate, Brooks City-Base, is being funded by the OFT to complete human effects testing. This testing will use the SSA ADS system to determine its effectiveness for DOD applications and validate the conclusions of the 2004 small-beam-size effectiveness study sponsored by SSA.
Testing results from Sandia, AFRL, and OFT will guide the operational concept and design of a second-generation small-size ADS system expected to be fielded at several DOE nuclear facilities as early as 2008. DOE-SSA and Sandia will continue to actively seek opportunities to collaborate with other government agencies on technical issues associated with developing and deploying ADS systems.
System uses beam of electromagnetic energy to heat human
Active Denial Technology (ADT) provides an effective nonlethal active-response mechanism to disperse, disturb, distract, and establish the intent of intruders.
ADT emits a 95 GHz non-ionizing electromagnetic beam of energy that penetrates approximately 1/64 of an inch into human skin tissue, where nerve receptors are concentrated. Within seconds, the beam will heat the exposed skin tissue to a level where intolerable pain is experienced and natural defense mechanisms take over.
This intense heating sensation stops only if the individual moves out of the beam’s path or the beam is turned off. The sensation caused by the system has been described by test subjects as feeling like touching a hot frying pan or the intense radiant heat from a fire. Burn injury is prevented by limiting the beam’s intensity and duration. Of course, you wouldn't want to hurt anybody with your weapon, right?
DoD-sponsored millimeter-wave human effectiveness testing, initiated in 2001, has demonstrated ADT as both effective and safe without any long-term effects. It is expected that the DoD-funded human effectiveness testing of the small-beam ADS by the AFRL HEDR during the next six to eight months will validate its effectiveness and safety as a nonlethal weapon system.
It's a great biz, being a Carlyle affiliate. You get $44 million to develop a new hell weapon, and the D.o'E. and D.o'D. do all the work and advertising for you. All you have to do is subcontract a little cut of the pie to Lockheed-Martin, the Patron of the Sandia labs. And you get to sell it to the Chinese, Saudis, and everyone else, too. All under Classified cover. ¶ 9:05 AM 0 comments links to this post
The Company Board Grows Uneasy With the CEO pWesident
Via BuzzFlash:
With President Bush kicking back at his ranch, the task of nipping a nascent antiwar movement in the bud fell to Vice President Cheney yesterday, and he went at it with his typical gusto.
To the extent that Cindy Sheehan and other supporters of an Iraqi pullout aim to start a national conversation about American options in Iraq, Cheney made it very clear that as far as he's concerned, that conversation only extends this far: Are you with us or are you against us?
The text of Cheney's speech at a convention of veterans in Springfield, Mo., was distributed to the White House press corps in Crawford, lest anyone overlook it.
Casting the war in Iraq as a battle in the same great tradition as the Revolutionary War -- and as a natural response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- Cheney likened any retreat from the administration's current policies to "turn[ing] over the future of mankind to tiny groups of fanatics committing indiscriminate murder, enslaving whole populations, oppressing women, imposing an ideology of hatred on an entire region, and arming to create death and destruction on an unbelievable scale."
And the only thinkable way to honor the wounded and the dead in Iraq is to fight to the end, he said. "Every man and woman who fights and sacrifices in this war is serving a just and noble cause. This nation will always be grateful to them, and we will honor their sacrifice by completing our mission."
It was not, in a nutshell, a detailed, reasoned response to the increasingly forceful call for troop withdrawal...
Hmmm... peace with honor. Where have I heard that one before?
Even the usual Bu$h sycophants are questioning this behavior- for example, Mrs. Alan Greenspan:
Andrea Mitchell reports for NBC News: "As anti-war criticism grows, Vice President Dick Cheney addressed Purple Heart winners Thursday and strongly defended the conflict. 'We are hunting down the terrorists and training Iraqi security forces so they can take over responsibility for defending their own country,' said Cheney. 'Over time, as Iraqi forces stand up, American forces will stand down.' "
Says Mitchell: "All of this is becoming a political problem, as even some Bush supporters worry about finding an exit strategy from Iraq while the death toll mounts -- both for Iraqis and Americans."
The cheerleaders are starting to question the gameplan:
The Springfield News-Leader points out this morning that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11.
"The blunder into Iraq and the rising toll there is stealing American resolve. It has blurred the focus on the global war on terror.
"Cheney's speech was a step toward reminding Americans that this is a worldwide conflict. We must extract ourselves, at the proper time, from Iraq and leave it in the hands of a democratically elected government. And we must go after al-Qaida everywhere it is and destroy it.
"When the White House truly regains that vision, Americans will rally behind it."
They aren't quite ready to discuss the possibility that the vision is a mirage.
And, of course, the republican peanut gallery wants a real warlord, not some silly police action. What's a guy gotta do for a good wargasm?
CNN reports: "Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska on Thursday said the United States is 'getting more and more bogged down' in Iraq and stood by his comments that the White House is disconnected from reality and losing the war.
That tends to make the DINOcrats want to respond with attacks of their own on their own (thanks to Atrios for the link).
Heavens, you wouldn't want somebody not owned by Carlyle to become Codpiece-in-Chief, would you? What would happen to the War on Terra?
Meanwhile Hillary and McCain notice the Alaskan permafrost has turned to mud this summer and the water's rising on the Artic shore, each trying to convince America and the Company they would provide more competent leadership than Cheneyburton's heir designate in '08.
Who ever that turns out to be will doubtless install Big Time Dick somewhere cushy where he doesn't have to go to the trouble of re$election in order to keep the cash flow running. ¶ 7:44 AM 0 comments links to this post
With President Bush kicking back at his ranch, the task of nipping a nascent antiwar movement in the bud fell to Vice President Cheney yesterday, and he went at it with his typical gusto.
To the extent that Cindy Sheehan and other supporters of an Iraqi pullout aim to start a national conversation about American options in Iraq, Cheney made it very clear that as far as he's concerned, that conversation only extends this far: Are you with us or are you against us?
The text of Cheney's speech at a convention of veterans in Springfield, Mo., was distributed to the White House press corps in Crawford, lest anyone overlook it.
Casting the war in Iraq as a battle in the same great tradition as the Revolutionary War -- and as a natural response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- Cheney likened any retreat from the administration's current policies to "turn[ing] over the future of mankind to tiny groups of fanatics committing indiscriminate murder, enslaving whole populations, oppressing women, imposing an ideology of hatred on an entire region, and arming to create death and destruction on an unbelievable scale."
And the only thinkable way to honor the wounded and the dead in Iraq is to fight to the end, he said. "Every man and woman who fights and sacrifices in this war is serving a just and noble cause. This nation will always be grateful to them, and we will honor their sacrifice by completing our mission."
It was not, in a nutshell, a detailed, reasoned response to the increasingly forceful call for troop withdrawal...
Hmmm... peace with honor. Where have I heard that one before?
Even the usual Bu$h sycophants are questioning this behavior- for example, Mrs. Alan Greenspan:
Andrea Mitchell reports for NBC News: "As anti-war criticism grows, Vice President Dick Cheney addressed Purple Heart winners Thursday and strongly defended the conflict. 'We are hunting down the terrorists and training Iraqi security forces so they can take over responsibility for defending their own country,' said Cheney. 'Over time, as Iraqi forces stand up, American forces will stand down.' "
Says Mitchell: "All of this is becoming a political problem, as even some Bush supporters worry about finding an exit strategy from Iraq while the death toll mounts -- both for Iraqis and Americans."
The cheerleaders are starting to question the gameplan:
The Springfield News-Leader points out this morning that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11.
"The blunder into Iraq and the rising toll there is stealing American resolve. It has blurred the focus on the global war on terror.
"Cheney's speech was a step toward reminding Americans that this is a worldwide conflict. We must extract ourselves, at the proper time, from Iraq and leave it in the hands of a democratically elected government. And we must go after al-Qaida everywhere it is and destroy it.
"When the White House truly regains that vision, Americans will rally behind it."
They aren't quite ready to discuss the possibility that the vision is a mirage.
And, of course, the republican peanut gallery wants a real warlord, not some silly police action. What's a guy gotta do for a good wargasm?
CNN reports: "Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska on Thursday said the United States is 'getting more and more bogged down' in Iraq and stood by his comments that the White House is disconnected from reality and losing the war.
That tends to make the DINOcrats want to respond with attacks of their own on their own (thanks to Atrios for the link).
Heavens, you wouldn't want somebody not owned by Carlyle to become Codpiece-in-Chief, would you? What would happen to the War on Terra?
Meanwhile Hillary and McCain notice the Alaskan permafrost has turned to mud this summer and the water's rising on the Artic shore, each trying to convince America and the Company they would provide more competent leadership than Cheneyburton's heir designate in '08.
Who ever that turns out to be will doubtless install Big Time Dick somewhere cushy where he doesn't have to go to the trouble of re$election in order to keep the cash flow running. ¶ 7:44 AM 0 comments links to this post
Faith-based Physics
Newton and Einstein? Spawn of Satan trying to trick us all.
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus." ¶ 7:34 AM 1 comments links to this post
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus." ¶ 7:34 AM 1 comments links to this post
Friday, August 19, 2005
Land of the Brave, Home of the Fix
What They Did Last Fall
By PAUL KRUGMAN
By running for the U.S. Senate, Katherine Harris, Florida's former secretary of state, has stirred up some ugly memories. And that's a good thing, because those memories remain relevant. There was at least as much electoral malfeasance in 2004 as there was in 2000, even if it didn't change the outcome. And the next election may be worse.
In his recent book "Steal This Vote" - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I've seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.
But few Americans have heard these facts. Perhaps journalists have felt that it would be divisive to cast doubt on the Bush administration's legitimacy. If so, their tender concern for the nation's feelings has gone for naught: Cindy Sheehan's supporters are camped in Crawford, and America is more bitterly divided than ever.
Meanwhile, the whitewash of what happened in Florida in 2000 showed that election-tampering carries no penalty, and political operatives have acted accordingly. For example, in 2002 the Republican Party in New Hampshire hired a company to jam Democratic and union phone banks on Election Day.
And what about 2004?
Mr. Gumbel throws cold water on those who take the discrepancy between the exit polls and the final result as evidence of a stolen election. (I told you it's a judicious book.) He also seems, on first reading, to play down what happened in Ohio. But the theme of his book is that America has a long, bipartisan history of dirty elections.
He told me that he wasn't brushing off the serious problems in Ohio, but that "this is what American democracy typically looks like, especially in a presidential election in a battleground state that is controlled substantially by one party."
So what does U.S. democracy look like? There have been two Democratic reports on Ohio in 2004, one commissioned by Representative John Conyers Jr., the other by the Democratic National Committee.
The D.N.C. report is very cautious: "The purpose of this investigation," it declares, "was not to challenge or question the results of the election in any way." It says there is no evidence that votes were transferred away from John Kerry - but it does suggest that many potential Kerry votes were suppressed. Although the Conyers report is less cautious, it stops far short of claiming that the wrong candidate got Ohio's electoral votes.
But both reports show that votes were suppressed by long lines at polling places - lines caused by inadequate numbers of voting machines - and that these lines occurred disproportionately in areas likely to vote Democratic. Both reports also point to problems involving voters who were improperly forced to cast provisional votes, many of which were discarded.
The Conyers report goes further, highlighting the blatant partisanship of election officials. In particular, the behavior of Ohio's secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell - who supervised the election while serving as co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio - makes Ms. Harris's actions in 2000 seem mild by comparison.
And then there are the election night stories. Warren County locked down its administration building and barred public observers from the vote-counting, citing an F.B.I. warning of a terrorist threat. But the F.B.I. later denied issuing any such warning. Miami County reported that voter turnout was an improbable 98.55 percent of registered voters. And so on.
We aren't going to rerun the last three elections. But what about the future?
Our current political leaders would suffer greatly if either house of Congress changed hands in 2006, or if the presidency changed hands in 2008. The lids would come off all the simmering scandals, from the selling of the Iraq war to profiteering by politically connected companies. The Republicans will be strongly tempted to make sure that they win those elections by any means necessary. And everything we've seen suggests that they will give in to that temptation. ¶ 9:29 AM 0 comments links to this post
By PAUL KRUGMAN
By running for the U.S. Senate, Katherine Harris, Florida's former secretary of state, has stirred up some ugly memories. And that's a good thing, because those memories remain relevant. There was at least as much electoral malfeasance in 2004 as there was in 2000, even if it didn't change the outcome. And the next election may be worse.
In his recent book "Steal This Vote" - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I've seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.
But few Americans have heard these facts. Perhaps journalists have felt that it would be divisive to cast doubt on the Bush administration's legitimacy. If so, their tender concern for the nation's feelings has gone for naught: Cindy Sheehan's supporters are camped in Crawford, and America is more bitterly divided than ever.
Meanwhile, the whitewash of what happened in Florida in 2000 showed that election-tampering carries no penalty, and political operatives have acted accordingly. For example, in 2002 the Republican Party in New Hampshire hired a company to jam Democratic and union phone banks on Election Day.
And what about 2004?
Mr. Gumbel throws cold water on those who take the discrepancy between the exit polls and the final result as evidence of a stolen election. (I told you it's a judicious book.) He also seems, on first reading, to play down what happened in Ohio. But the theme of his book is that America has a long, bipartisan history of dirty elections.
He told me that he wasn't brushing off the serious problems in Ohio, but that "this is what American democracy typically looks like, especially in a presidential election in a battleground state that is controlled substantially by one party."
So what does U.S. democracy look like? There have been two Democratic reports on Ohio in 2004, one commissioned by Representative John Conyers Jr., the other by the Democratic National Committee.
The D.N.C. report is very cautious: "The purpose of this investigation," it declares, "was not to challenge or question the results of the election in any way." It says there is no evidence that votes were transferred away from John Kerry - but it does suggest that many potential Kerry votes were suppressed. Although the Conyers report is less cautious, it stops far short of claiming that the wrong candidate got Ohio's electoral votes.
But both reports show that votes were suppressed by long lines at polling places - lines caused by inadequate numbers of voting machines - and that these lines occurred disproportionately in areas likely to vote Democratic. Both reports also point to problems involving voters who were improperly forced to cast provisional votes, many of which were discarded.
The Conyers report goes further, highlighting the blatant partisanship of election officials. In particular, the behavior of Ohio's secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell - who supervised the election while serving as co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio - makes Ms. Harris's actions in 2000 seem mild by comparison.
And then there are the election night stories. Warren County locked down its administration building and barred public observers from the vote-counting, citing an F.B.I. warning of a terrorist threat. But the F.B.I. later denied issuing any such warning. Miami County reported that voter turnout was an improbable 98.55 percent of registered voters. And so on.
We aren't going to rerun the last three elections. But what about the future?
Our current political leaders would suffer greatly if either house of Congress changed hands in 2006, or if the presidency changed hands in 2008. The lids would come off all the simmering scandals, from the selling of the Iraq war to profiteering by politically connected companies. The Republicans will be strongly tempted to make sure that they win those elections by any means necessary. And everything we've seen suggests that they will give in to that temptation. ¶ 9:29 AM 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Funny, They Don't Sound Like Enemies...
Thanks to the translation from French by Leslie Thatcher at Truthout, we have another story you won't hear on CNN:
The gesture is symbolic, but when members of an imposing North Korean delegation bowed for a long time in front of the monument to the South Korean dead from the fratricidal war of 1950 to 1953, an emotional threshold was crossed in the reconciliation of the two countries. Sunday, for the first time, a North Korean delegation, lead by Kim Ki-nam, Vice President of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland, paid tribute to the southern soldiers who fell during the war at the Seoul National Cemetery.
Monday, August 15, day of commemoration of the Japanese defeat - and for Koreans, the anniversary of their national liberation - 60,000 South Koreans, standing, welcomed the North Korean delegation in the World Cup Football Stadium to cries of "Korea is one!"
History is accelerating in the peninsula. On June 15, for the fifth anniversary of the first summit between the leaders of the two countries, ceremonies animated by the same patriotic fervor took place in Pyongyang. In Seoul, where a football match between the teams of North and South marked the event, the stadium was decorated only - as had been the case in the North Korean capital in June - with the flags of unified Korea: a blue peninsula on a white background. "The national tragedy can no longer continue," Mr. Kim declared to ovations.
The North Korean two-hundred-strong delegation's four day visit to Seoul continued with a visit to the National Assembly. On Wednesday, August 17, the visit was supposed to be capped by a reception in the presence of President Roh Moo-hyun, to whom the delegation's leader gave a message from North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.
It's not the first delegation from the North to come to Seoul, but generally the objectives of these visits are political or economic. This time, the reconciliation of "people to people" was advanced, as had been the case in Pyongyang in June. This displacement was not exempt from political implications either, since the Six Party Talks (the two Koreas, China, United States, Japan, and Russia) on North Korea's nuclear ambitions are supposed to resume August 29 in Beijing.
It is more and more obvious that South Korea, while remaining firm in its opposition to North Korean nuclearization, is dissociating itself from the United States' intransigent position toward Pyongyang. Seoul has just declared itself to be in favor of the peaceful use of nuclear energy Pyongyang demands, divorcing itself thereby from the categorical rejection of Washington, which deems that the regime cannot be trusted. The civil use of atomic energy was the main snag in the Six Party Talks in July in Beijing: "North Korea has a right to use atomic energy for civilian purposes," declared Chung Dong-young: a position shared by China and Russia.
Pyongyang is cultivating rapprochement with the South by increasing gestures of reconciliation. According to a recent poll by the conservative daily newspaper Chosun Ilbo, 66% of Koreans aged 16-25 would be on Pyongyang's side should the United States launch a war against North Korea. The generations that experienced the war are more reticent, and the North Korean delegation's visit to the cemetery was intended for their benefit. Another sign of détente: the two Koreas endowed themselves with a "red telephone" on August 10th to avoid border incidents. It's a first direct line between their military authorities.
The development of inter-Korean relations is a reality Washington is forced to take into account: it is less and less likely that Seoul will align itself with the American hard line, using sanctions as a key, against Pyongyang.
Washington limit itself to realities? Isn't that what those Frenchmen do? Since Algeria, anyway. ¶ 9:53 PM 1 comments links to this post
The gesture is symbolic, but when members of an imposing North Korean delegation bowed for a long time in front of the monument to the South Korean dead from the fratricidal war of 1950 to 1953, an emotional threshold was crossed in the reconciliation of the two countries. Sunday, for the first time, a North Korean delegation, lead by Kim Ki-nam, Vice President of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland, paid tribute to the southern soldiers who fell during the war at the Seoul National Cemetery.
Monday, August 15, day of commemoration of the Japanese defeat - and for Koreans, the anniversary of their national liberation - 60,000 South Koreans, standing, welcomed the North Korean delegation in the World Cup Football Stadium to cries of "Korea is one!"
History is accelerating in the peninsula. On June 15, for the fifth anniversary of the first summit between the leaders of the two countries, ceremonies animated by the same patriotic fervor took place in Pyongyang. In Seoul, where a football match between the teams of North and South marked the event, the stadium was decorated only - as had been the case in the North Korean capital in June - with the flags of unified Korea: a blue peninsula on a white background. "The national tragedy can no longer continue," Mr. Kim declared to ovations.
The North Korean two-hundred-strong delegation's four day visit to Seoul continued with a visit to the National Assembly. On Wednesday, August 17, the visit was supposed to be capped by a reception in the presence of President Roh Moo-hyun, to whom the delegation's leader gave a message from North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.
It's not the first delegation from the North to come to Seoul, but generally the objectives of these visits are political or economic. This time, the reconciliation of "people to people" was advanced, as had been the case in Pyongyang in June. This displacement was not exempt from political implications either, since the Six Party Talks (the two Koreas, China, United States, Japan, and Russia) on North Korea's nuclear ambitions are supposed to resume August 29 in Beijing.
It is more and more obvious that South Korea, while remaining firm in its opposition to North Korean nuclearization, is dissociating itself from the United States' intransigent position toward Pyongyang. Seoul has just declared itself to be in favor of the peaceful use of nuclear energy Pyongyang demands, divorcing itself thereby from the categorical rejection of Washington, which deems that the regime cannot be trusted. The civil use of atomic energy was the main snag in the Six Party Talks in July in Beijing: "North Korea has a right to use atomic energy for civilian purposes," declared Chung Dong-young: a position shared by China and Russia.
Pyongyang is cultivating rapprochement with the South by increasing gestures of reconciliation. According to a recent poll by the conservative daily newspaper Chosun Ilbo, 66% of Koreans aged 16-25 would be on Pyongyang's side should the United States launch a war against North Korea. The generations that experienced the war are more reticent, and the North Korean delegation's visit to the cemetery was intended for their benefit. Another sign of détente: the two Koreas endowed themselves with a "red telephone" on August 10th to avoid border incidents. It's a first direct line between their military authorities.
The development of inter-Korean relations is a reality Washington is forced to take into account: it is less and less likely that Seoul will align itself with the American hard line, using sanctions as a key, against Pyongyang.
Washington limit itself to realities? Isn't that what those Frenchmen do? Since Algeria, anyway. ¶ 9:53 PM 1 comments links to this post
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
The Sound of Crickets and Cicadas
...as fireflies drift at the end of a Michigan summer.
Fortunately the drill didn't go live.
We'll probably never know the whole story.
I like what that Rod Serling wanna-be Jeff Wells says about this kind of thing.
..."When the other shoe drops, it probably won't be the one we're expecting. But you know what? After all our studious anticipation, we'll know enough to know it's a shoe, and who dropped it. And there's also this: there is the possibility that public expectation - raising our own terror alert over "chatter," suspicious movements and exercises - could possibly forestall synthetic terror events. Why not? It's the same logic Tom Ridge applied to measure the success of Homeland Security. It can never be verified but I have to wonder what might have not happened if, before 7/7, someone had got wind of the drills and posted "Look out, London: the morning of July 7 there's an 'anti-terror' simulation of simultaneous detonations of three bombs at the following stations." (A "fear-mongerer" might have added "OMG, Giuliani's going to be in town!") If the news of the drill had entered public conciousness beforehand to the degree that Fort Monroe's drill has in Charleston - this was a front page story - it's difficult to imagine the bombings proceeding as planned. And so, when no bombs exploded, those who had sounded the alarm would likely think they'd gotten excited over nothing, and might be reticent to do the same again. In such a scenario, this is the price of success: ignorance.
"So we shouldn't be shy on Thursday, after the world hasn't blown up more than usual on Wednesday, about sharing what we see, next time we see an ominous convergance of opportunities. It's not forecasting - we've already done that to the limits of our knowledge when we say Americans can expect 90% probability of more of the same - it's saying This is probably nothing, but - Heads up. We're not crying wolf here. After all, we know there is a wolf, and we know him well enough to know he'll strike again when he has the chance and the need. But perhaps, the closer we observe him, and the more vocal we are about it, the more we reduce his chances. His need - there's not much we can do about that..."
No, we can't do much about his need. A wolf is a wolf. We can pen up his pack where they can do us no harm. We can if we have the resolve.
And if every progressive blog has at least heard of the possibility of an opportunity for an attack, it makes it much less likely.
Why do suppose there was so much noise about Y2K terror- and none apparently appeared? Far from being foolish, there was at least one real terror plot that was discovered and aborted. I think it was the vigilance that blocked the violence.
Once Bu$hCo gained control, for whatever reason, the vigilance was lacking.
To disasterous effect.
You can believe it: if we took our eyes off of what Cheneyburton has in store for Iran, and quit our shrill incessant noise about the Iraqi war, Bu$hCo would be sending in private contractors to seize every oilfield from Syria to the Afghanistan border. They would do it under the cover and spending the lives of American soldiers.
But if the Company is watching us, we're watching them, too. ¶ 10:43 PM 0 comments links to this post
Fortunately the drill didn't go live.
We'll probably never know the whole story.
I like what that Rod Serling wanna-be Jeff Wells says about this kind of thing.
..."When the other shoe drops, it probably won't be the one we're expecting. But you know what? After all our studious anticipation, we'll know enough to know it's a shoe, and who dropped it. And there's also this: there is the possibility that public expectation - raising our own terror alert over "chatter," suspicious movements and exercises - could possibly forestall synthetic terror events. Why not? It's the same logic Tom Ridge applied to measure the success of Homeland Security. It can never be verified but I have to wonder what might have not happened if, before 7/7, someone had got wind of the drills and posted "Look out, London: the morning of July 7 there's an 'anti-terror' simulation of simultaneous detonations of three bombs at the following stations." (A "fear-mongerer" might have added "OMG, Giuliani's going to be in town!") If the news of the drill had entered public conciousness beforehand to the degree that Fort Monroe's drill has in Charleston - this was a front page story - it's difficult to imagine the bombings proceeding as planned. And so, when no bombs exploded, those who had sounded the alarm would likely think they'd gotten excited over nothing, and might be reticent to do the same again. In such a scenario, this is the price of success: ignorance.
"So we shouldn't be shy on Thursday, after the world hasn't blown up more than usual on Wednesday, about sharing what we see, next time we see an ominous convergance of opportunities. It's not forecasting - we've already done that to the limits of our knowledge when we say Americans can expect 90% probability of more of the same - it's saying This is probably nothing, but - Heads up. We're not crying wolf here. After all, we know there is a wolf, and we know him well enough to know he'll strike again when he has the chance and the need. But perhaps, the closer we observe him, and the more vocal we are about it, the more we reduce his chances. His need - there's not much we can do about that..."
No, we can't do much about his need. A wolf is a wolf. We can pen up his pack where they can do us no harm. We can if we have the resolve.
And if every progressive blog has at least heard of the possibility of an opportunity for an attack, it makes it much less likely.
Why do suppose there was so much noise about Y2K terror- and none apparently appeared? Far from being foolish, there was at least one real terror plot that was discovered and aborted. I think it was the vigilance that blocked the violence.
Once Bu$hCo gained control, for whatever reason, the vigilance was lacking.
To disasterous effect.
You can believe it: if we took our eyes off of what Cheneyburton has in store for Iran, and quit our shrill incessant noise about the Iraqi war, Bu$hCo would be sending in private contractors to seize every oilfield from Syria to the Afghanistan border. They would do it under the cover and spending the lives of American soldiers.
But if the Company is watching us, we're watching them, too. ¶ 10:43 PM 0 comments links to this post
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Cylons-R-US
One of the frontiers of Future Combat Systems is Robotics.
Why draft 'em when you can make 'em?
One of the more successful efforts in Robotics has to do with Unmanned Aircraft, possibly because autopilots were one of the first artificial intelligence systems.
It is curious that DARPA releases what ought to be one of its most exciting and revolutionary but practical concepts in robot aircraft in a document that can be captured and distributed to every techno-geek, competing foreign government, or budding terrorist that reads the web.
A lot of this materiel is being used as I write. A lot is in the pilot stage, and some hasn't begun to be tested.
For what's new, for example, check out (p.6):
2.1.3 RQ-4 Global Hawk
User Service: Air Force
Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman
Inventory: 12 Delivered/58 Planned (7 ACTD + 51 Production aircraft)
Background: The Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk is a high altitude, long endurance UA designed to provide wide area coverage of up to 40,000 nm2 per day. The size differences between the RQ-4A (Block 10) and RQ-4B (Blocks 20, 30, 40) models are shown above. Global Hawk completed its first flight in February 1998 and transitioned from an ACTD into engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) in March 2001. Global Hawk carries both an EO/IR sensor and a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) with moving target indicator (MTI) capability, allowing day/night, all-weather reconnaissance. Sensor data is relayed over CDL LOS (X-band) and/or beyond line- of-site (BLOS) (Ku-band SATCOM) data links to its mission control element (MCE), which distributes imagery to up to seven theater exploitation systems...
Is it only me, or is it a strange thing for DARPA to brag about it's newest spy drones, and the models about to be built? Is it odd to talk about- to advertise futuristic experimental and doubtless (in other documents) Top Secret unmanned stealth fighters like (p. 11)
Boeing X-45C (L) and Northrop Grumman X-47B (R) J-UCAS Demonstrators
...
Characteristics:
Model---------------X-45C------------X-47B
Length--------------39 ft-------------38 ft
Wing Span-----------49 ft-------------62 ft
Gross Weight--------36,500 lb---------46,000 lb
Payload Capacity----4,500 lb----------4,500 lb
...
And more. Lots more. Fuel capacity, engine make, max/loiter speeds, ceiling, all the specifications someone who might have to fight it might want to know.
Or how about the brand new system DARPA wants to add to augment our ability to watch incoming Cruise missiles?
2.5.3 Joint Land Attack Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS)
User Service: Joint (Army Lead)
Manufacturer: Raytheon/TCOM
Inventory: 12 Planned
Background: JLENS is primarily intended to tackle the growing threat of cruise missiles to U.S. forces deployed abroad with radars to provide over-the-horizon surveillance. A JLENS system consists of two aerostats, one containing a surveillance radar (SuR) and one containing a precision track illumination radar (PTIR). Each aerostat is tethered to a mobile mooring station and attached to a processing station via a fiber optic/power tether. The SuR provides the initial target detection and the
cueing to the PTIR, which generates a fire control quality track. The JLENS system is integrated into the joint tactical architecture via Link 16, cooperative engagement capability, single-channel ground and air radio system, and enhanced position location reporting system. Both radar systems will include identification, friend or foe interrogators...---p.33
It's a blimp, for crying out loud, a stationary target, and now anybody firing a cruise missile realizes they might want to shoot these things down first...
How much money are they spending building and implementing these toys? Not to mention shooting their surprise potential down before it's started.
(see Table 2.6-1). In the wake of September 11, 2001, FY03 was the first billion-dollar year in UAS history and FY05 will be the first two billion-dollar year (see Figure 2.6-1 and Tables 2.6-2 and 2.6-3). The U.S. UAS inventory is expected to grow from 250 today to 675 by 2010 and 1400 by 2015 (not including micro and mini UA) and to support a wider range of missions—e.g. signals intelligence (SIGINT), cargo, communication relay, and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)—compared to today’s imagery reconnaissance and strike roles.--pp.36-37.
One gets the impression it's been a good wake indeed.
Keeping this stuff Top Secret would be a little silly, particularly since our buddies the Russians are not only kissy-face with Dear Leader (like our buddies the Saudis) they're actually building a lot of stuff for us and deploying their own models (see pp 38-40).
And, presumably, buying it from- us? Or more precisely, the people who own the US these days. The whole document reads like an advertising brochure, and not just for Northop-Grumman or General Atomics. Because it's not just private contractors building this stuff, it's private contractors running it. Or showing the D.o'D. how to use it:
All DoD UAS operating today employ contractors to conduct the majority of their UAS training requirements....
-p.76
The entire document is splashed with Heroic high tech soldiers in Iraq, usually manly crewcut men (Jeff Gannon would fit right in) deploying drone aircraft designed to watch- and shoot at- insurgents.
There's a whole Homeland Security section. Yes, Virginia, they are watching you. They even show action pictures of it.
Where is all this vast and shiny expenditure heading? Why, to autonomous Warfighters, of course.
The number one future priority:
1. Develop and operationally assess for potential fielding a joint unmanned combat aircraft system capable of performing SEAD/Strike/Electronic Attack/ISR in high threat environments. (OSD, USAF, USN)...
-p. 75
This is all part of the Joint Roadmap for Robotics, downloadable at http://www.jointrobotics.com/activities_new/masterplan.shtml.
You know I'll have more to say about that later.
Note that the D.o'D. is again using a contractors to distribute a roadmap of current equipment, experimental plans, and projections for the next 25 years.
That's so the War Machine can franchise itself. ¶ 10:21 PM 0 comments links to this post
Why draft 'em when you can make 'em?
One of the more successful efforts in Robotics has to do with Unmanned Aircraft, possibly because autopilots were one of the first artificial intelligence systems.
It is curious that DARPA releases what ought to be one of its most exciting and revolutionary but practical concepts in robot aircraft in a document that can be captured and distributed to every techno-geek, competing foreign government, or budding terrorist that reads the web.
A lot of this materiel is being used as I write. A lot is in the pilot stage, and some hasn't begun to be tested.
For what's new, for example, check out (p.6):
2.1.3 RQ-4 Global Hawk
User Service: Air Force
Manufacturer: Northrop Grumman
Inventory: 12 Delivered/58 Planned (7 ACTD + 51 Production aircraft)
Background: The Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk is a high altitude, long endurance UA designed to provide wide area coverage of up to 40,000 nm2 per day. The size differences between the RQ-4A (Block 10) and RQ-4B (Blocks 20, 30, 40) models are shown above. Global Hawk completed its first flight in February 1998 and transitioned from an ACTD into engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) in March 2001. Global Hawk carries both an EO/IR sensor and a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) with moving target indicator (MTI) capability, allowing day/night, all-weather reconnaissance. Sensor data is relayed over CDL LOS (X-band) and/or beyond line- of-site (BLOS) (Ku-band SATCOM) data links to its mission control element (MCE), which distributes imagery to up to seven theater exploitation systems...
Is it only me, or is it a strange thing for DARPA to brag about it's newest spy drones, and the models about to be built? Is it odd to talk about- to advertise futuristic experimental and doubtless (in other documents) Top Secret unmanned stealth fighters like (p. 11)
Boeing X-45C (L) and Northrop Grumman X-47B (R) J-UCAS Demonstrators
...
Characteristics:
Model---------------X-45C------------X-47B
Length--------------39 ft-------------38 ft
Wing Span-----------49 ft-------------62 ft
Gross Weight--------36,500 lb---------46,000 lb
Payload Capacity----4,500 lb----------4,500 lb
...
And more. Lots more. Fuel capacity, engine make, max/loiter speeds, ceiling, all the specifications someone who might have to fight it might want to know.
Or how about the brand new system DARPA wants to add to augment our ability to watch incoming Cruise missiles?
2.5.3 Joint Land Attack Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS)
User Service: Joint (Army Lead)
Manufacturer: Raytheon/TCOM
Inventory: 12 Planned
Background: JLENS is primarily intended to tackle the growing threat of cruise missiles to U.S. forces deployed abroad with radars to provide over-the-horizon surveillance. A JLENS system consists of two aerostats, one containing a surveillance radar (SuR) and one containing a precision track illumination radar (PTIR). Each aerostat is tethered to a mobile mooring station and attached to a processing station via a fiber optic/power tether. The SuR provides the initial target detection and the
cueing to the PTIR, which generates a fire control quality track. The JLENS system is integrated into the joint tactical architecture via Link 16, cooperative engagement capability, single-channel ground and air radio system, and enhanced position location reporting system. Both radar systems will include identification, friend or foe interrogators...---p.33
It's a blimp, for crying out loud, a stationary target, and now anybody firing a cruise missile realizes they might want to shoot these things down first...
How much money are they spending building and implementing these toys? Not to mention shooting their surprise potential down before it's started.
(see Table 2.6-1). In the wake of September 11, 2001, FY03 was the first billion-dollar year in UAS history and FY05 will be the first two billion-dollar year (see Figure 2.6-1 and Tables 2.6-2 and 2.6-3). The U.S. UAS inventory is expected to grow from 250 today to 675 by 2010 and 1400 by 2015 (not including micro and mini UA) and to support a wider range of missions—e.g. signals intelligence (SIGINT), cargo, communication relay, and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)—compared to today’s imagery reconnaissance and strike roles.--pp.36-37.
One gets the impression it's been a good wake indeed.
Keeping this stuff Top Secret would be a little silly, particularly since our buddies the Russians are not only kissy-face with Dear Leader (like our buddies the Saudis) they're actually building a lot of stuff for us and deploying their own models (see pp 38-40).
And, presumably, buying it from- us? Or more precisely, the people who own the US these days. The whole document reads like an advertising brochure, and not just for Northop-Grumman or General Atomics. Because it's not just private contractors building this stuff, it's private contractors running it. Or showing the D.o'D. how to use it:
All DoD UAS operating today employ contractors to conduct the majority of their UAS training requirements....
-p.76
The entire document is splashed with Heroic high tech soldiers in Iraq, usually manly crewcut men (Jeff Gannon would fit right in) deploying drone aircraft designed to watch- and shoot at- insurgents.
There's a whole Homeland Security section. Yes, Virginia, they are watching you. They even show action pictures of it.
Where is all this vast and shiny expenditure heading? Why, to autonomous Warfighters, of course.
The number one future priority:
1. Develop and operationally assess for potential fielding a joint unmanned combat aircraft system capable of performing SEAD/Strike/Electronic Attack/ISR in high threat environments. (OSD, USAF, USN)...
-p. 75
This is all part of the Joint Roadmap for Robotics, downloadable at http://www.jointrobotics.com/activities_new/masterplan.shtml.
You know I'll have more to say about that later.
Note that the D.o'D. is again using a contractors to distribute a roadmap of current equipment, experimental plans, and projections for the next 25 years.
That's so the War Machine can franchise itself. ¶ 10:21 PM 0 comments links to this post
Monday, August 15, 2005
Reality-based Education
Pharyngula points to an excellent essay regarding the teaching of evolution.
In the beginning, creationists tried to ban the teaching of evolution altogether. Most famously, 80 years ago, John Scopes was tried for breaking a Tennessee law outlawing such instruction. He was found guilty, and evolution effectively disappeared from the high school curriculum shortly thereafter, though it continued to be taught in universities.
But when university scientists began writing high school biology textbooks in the late 1950s and early '60s, evolution returned to the curriculum, provoking a second outbreak of anti-evolutionism during the '70s and '80s.
Creationism was repackaged as "creation science" in the hope that it would be taught along with evolution.
In the '70s and '80s, at least 26 states tried to legislate equal time for creation science with evolution, bringing the courts back in. The 1982 U.S. district court decision in McLean v. Arkansas— Scopes II — showed that such laws violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by promoting a sectarian religious idea inappropriate for the public school science classrooms. In 1987, the Supreme Court reached the same decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Such decisions doomed creation science in the public schools, but they opened a niche for a repackaging of creationism: "intelligent design" (ID).
Like creation science, ID was presented as a scientific "alternative" to evolution, though its scientific content was intentionally vague. Its proponents claimed to have a method to identify natural phenomena that are, supposedly, incapable of being explained by evolution. ID advocates contend that "irreducibly complex" structures such as the bacterial flagellum can only be explained by appealing to the action of an intelligent agent.
To secure a wide base of creationist supporters, ID advocates are coy about when and how such actions occurred. Because creation science, which insists on a 6,000-year-old Earth, is still the dominant form of anti-evolutionism, ID can't afford to take a stand to the contrary. Nonetheless, the mainstream of the ID movement is sympathetic to what theologians call progressive creationism, where God creates in fits and starts over time, rather than in six days. It's still creationism, and so is ID.
To avoid this accusation, and thus circumvent the Establishment Clause, ID advocates are also coy about the identity of the designer, claiming that it doesn't have to be God. But, token allusions to the possibility of extraterrestrial or time-traveling biochemists notwithstanding, no one is fooled into thinking that the designer is not the Designer: God.
Initially, ID proponents encouraged the teaching of ID in the public schools, but lately they've had second thoughts. They likely have figured out that if a school district required the teaching of ID, a judge would inevitably ask, "By the way, who's the 'intelligent designer'? Sounds a lot like God." And the jig will be up.
To avoid this legal predicament, the ID movement's leaders have shifted strategy, encouraging school districts and teachers not to teach ID but to teach "evidence against evolution" or "the controversy." This message comes too late for Dover, Pa., where last fall the school board passed a policy requiring the teaching of ID. In September, Dover's ID policy will go on trial, in what might aptly be called Scopes III.
Elsewhere — in Kansas, for example, where a creationist majority on the State Board of Education is monkeying with the state's science standards — "teach the controversy" is the new rallying cry of creationists. The hope is that if students are taught that evolution is suspect, they will automatically embrace creationism. But "teach the controversy" is not a pedagogical device that will help them in college: Evolution is taught matter-of-factly at the nation's most prestigious universities, including religious institutions such as Brigham Young, Baylor and Notre Dame.
The propaganda that evolution is a theory in crisis is hardly new. In 1925, William Jennings Bryan falsely contended that evolutionary science was on the verge of collapse, as his heirs argue today. Yet the evidence for evolution is stronger than ever.
Historically, improvements in the teaching of evolution are inevitably followed by a backlash. When anti-evolutionists couldn't ban evolution, they tried to get creationism taught alongside it. When the courts said creationism couldn't be taught in public schools, anti-evolutionists called for teaching spurious "evidence against evolution" in the hope that students would come to mistrust evolution and accept creationism by default...
What ought to be taught in high school science class? The basic methods and results of the consensus view of the scientific community. Evolution is part, and a vital part, of this consensus; creation science and intelligent design are not. Students should understand evolution, both if they are going on to college and for general scientific literacy. But in too many places across the country, students are not learning it.
And that's a problem, because it is widely recognized that the 21st century will be the century of biology, in which genomic, medical and biotechnological discoveries are bound to revolutionize our economy and our lives — and those of our children. America needs to produce the scientists who will pioneer in these fields, which means maintaining and improving the quality of science education — including a healthy dose of evolution, uncompromised by sectarian dogma, bad science and fake "critical analysis." Because those high school kids in India, China, Korea and Singapore are learning evolution, even if ours aren't.
Reality. At USA Today of all places. Whatever's going on there, let's hope it spreads. ¶ 10:51 PM 2 comments links to this post
In the beginning, creationists tried to ban the teaching of evolution altogether. Most famously, 80 years ago, John Scopes was tried for breaking a Tennessee law outlawing such instruction. He was found guilty, and evolution effectively disappeared from the high school curriculum shortly thereafter, though it continued to be taught in universities.
But when university scientists began writing high school biology textbooks in the late 1950s and early '60s, evolution returned to the curriculum, provoking a second outbreak of anti-evolutionism during the '70s and '80s.
Creationism was repackaged as "creation science" in the hope that it would be taught along with evolution.
In the '70s and '80s, at least 26 states tried to legislate equal time for creation science with evolution, bringing the courts back in. The 1982 U.S. district court decision in McLean v. Arkansas— Scopes II — showed that such laws violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by promoting a sectarian religious idea inappropriate for the public school science classrooms. In 1987, the Supreme Court reached the same decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Such decisions doomed creation science in the public schools, but they opened a niche for a repackaging of creationism: "intelligent design" (ID).
Like creation science, ID was presented as a scientific "alternative" to evolution, though its scientific content was intentionally vague. Its proponents claimed to have a method to identify natural phenomena that are, supposedly, incapable of being explained by evolution. ID advocates contend that "irreducibly complex" structures such as the bacterial flagellum can only be explained by appealing to the action of an intelligent agent.
To secure a wide base of creationist supporters, ID advocates are coy about when and how such actions occurred. Because creation science, which insists on a 6,000-year-old Earth, is still the dominant form of anti-evolutionism, ID can't afford to take a stand to the contrary. Nonetheless, the mainstream of the ID movement is sympathetic to what theologians call progressive creationism, where God creates in fits and starts over time, rather than in six days. It's still creationism, and so is ID.
To avoid this accusation, and thus circumvent the Establishment Clause, ID advocates are also coy about the identity of the designer, claiming that it doesn't have to be God. But, token allusions to the possibility of extraterrestrial or time-traveling biochemists notwithstanding, no one is fooled into thinking that the designer is not the Designer: God.
Initially, ID proponents encouraged the teaching of ID in the public schools, but lately they've had second thoughts. They likely have figured out that if a school district required the teaching of ID, a judge would inevitably ask, "By the way, who's the 'intelligent designer'? Sounds a lot like God." And the jig will be up.
To avoid this legal predicament, the ID movement's leaders have shifted strategy, encouraging school districts and teachers not to teach ID but to teach "evidence against evolution" or "the controversy." This message comes too late for Dover, Pa., where last fall the school board passed a policy requiring the teaching of ID. In September, Dover's ID policy will go on trial, in what might aptly be called Scopes III.
Elsewhere — in Kansas, for example, where a creationist majority on the State Board of Education is monkeying with the state's science standards — "teach the controversy" is the new rallying cry of creationists. The hope is that if students are taught that evolution is suspect, they will automatically embrace creationism. But "teach the controversy" is not a pedagogical device that will help them in college: Evolution is taught matter-of-factly at the nation's most prestigious universities, including religious institutions such as Brigham Young, Baylor and Notre Dame.
The propaganda that evolution is a theory in crisis is hardly new. In 1925, William Jennings Bryan falsely contended that evolutionary science was on the verge of collapse, as his heirs argue today. Yet the evidence for evolution is stronger than ever.
Historically, improvements in the teaching of evolution are inevitably followed by a backlash. When anti-evolutionists couldn't ban evolution, they tried to get creationism taught alongside it. When the courts said creationism couldn't be taught in public schools, anti-evolutionists called for teaching spurious "evidence against evolution" in the hope that students would come to mistrust evolution and accept creationism by default...
What ought to be taught in high school science class? The basic methods and results of the consensus view of the scientific community. Evolution is part, and a vital part, of this consensus; creation science and intelligent design are not. Students should understand evolution, both if they are going on to college and for general scientific literacy. But in too many places across the country, students are not learning it.
And that's a problem, because it is widely recognized that the 21st century will be the century of biology, in which genomic, medical and biotechnological discoveries are bound to revolutionize our economy and our lives — and those of our children. America needs to produce the scientists who will pioneer in these fields, which means maintaining and improving the quality of science education — including a healthy dose of evolution, uncompromised by sectarian dogma, bad science and fake "critical analysis." Because those high school kids in India, China, Korea and Singapore are learning evolution, even if ours aren't.
Reality. At USA Today of all places. Whatever's going on there, let's hope it spreads. ¶ 10:51 PM 2 comments links to this post
Sunday, August 14, 2005
New Tales from the DARPA Side of the Force
Lots of new stuff of interest at Defense Tech.
Yes, Virginia, we are living in a Philip K. Dick novel, and more so every day.
*The first public appearance of the Robot Fighter.
*Sonic blasters and super sensitive listening devices are being experimented with in Iraq (human experimentation on "insurgents"?) and distributed to some police forces like Los Angeles in the Homeland.
*The Pentagon came out with its Unmanned Forces Roadmap for the next 25 years, which is a declassified .pdf document you can get here from the Federation of American Scientists.
That's one roadmap you'll be hearing more about here in the days to come. ¶ 10:19 PM 0 comments links to this post
Yes, Virginia, we are living in a Philip K. Dick novel, and more so every day.
*The first public appearance of the Robot Fighter.
*Sonic blasters and super sensitive listening devices are being experimented with in Iraq (human experimentation on "insurgents"?) and distributed to some police forces like Los Angeles in the Homeland.
*The Pentagon came out with its Unmanned Forces Roadmap for the next 25 years, which is a declassified .pdf document you can get here from the Federation of American Scientists.
That's one roadmap you'll be hearing more about here in the days to come. ¶ 10:19 PM 0 comments links to this post
Who Ya Gonna Believe?
albert champion points to a nice perspective on the Able Danger revelations.
We knew the terrorists of 9/11 were waltzing around the country doing things like going to strip joints and throwing wild parties, but aside from the kinds of things a righteous Dominionist would disapprove of, the main$tream media has been really quiet about exactly what they were doing and who they were partying with.
Time sez:
Just how damning are allegations by Congressman Curt Weldon that a secret Pentagon intelligence operation pegged hijacker Mohammed Atta as a threat nearly two years before he led the 9/11 attacks? When Weldon first made the charge in a new book and in a June speech on the House floor, it met with little attention, but perhaps due to the August heat or the approaching fourth anniversary of the attacks, the accusation ignited controversy last week.
The question is whether it has any substance. Weldon says a data-mining exercise, called Able Danger, spotted Atta and other hijackers in 1999, but Pentagon lawyers in September 2000 blocked officials running the program from handing the tip to the FBI. Weldon’s further allegation that the 9/11 commission was alerted to the alleged oversight but ignored it prompted the defunct panel to conduct an investigation last week before issuing a statement late Friday saying members had received only an 11th-hour mention of Atta that “was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation"...
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Hopsicker asks :
Upon what basis did the 9.11 Commission conclude that the FBI’s timeline was correct and that an elite Army Intel unit was mistaken in saying they were tracking Mohamed Atta roaming freely across America during 1999 and 2000?
And why exactly is this important?
Calling unwelcome attention to the massive inaccuracies in the FBI’s timeline was probably not Republican Curt Weldon’s purpose when he brought the story to light...But if his efforts to implicate Clinton Administration officials results in highlighting the FBI's incomplete and corrupt investigation, we think he get some kind of medal, maybe called the Inadvertent 'Dumb-Ass' Hero Award.
We suspect his Republican friends would much prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. Because it isn’t just one elite Army Intel unit that’s saying it... In the aftermath of the 9.11 attack numerous eyewitnesses came forward to attest to Atta’s presence in the U.S. before June of 2000.
Their number even includes a U.S. Government official with a signed and dated loan application from Mohamed Atta his-ownself.
In interviews with major news organizations Johnelle Bryant, an official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, revealed that Atta and three other September 11th terrorists visited her Florida office seeking a government loan.
ABC’s Brian Ross reported: “Johnelle Bryant is the USDA loan officer in Homestead, Florida, who Atta approached in May of 2000, long before al-Qaeda and bin Laden were household words.”
Mr. Atta swung by in May, 2000, and Ms. Bryant remembers quite a bit about it.
"At first," she says, "he refused to speak with me," on the grounds that she was, in his words, "but a female."
"I told him that if he was interested in getting a farm-service agency loan in my servicing area, then he would need to deal with me."
Ms. Bryant says the applicant was asking for $650,000 to start a crop-dusting business. His plan was to buy a six-seater twin-prop and then remove the seats. "He wanted to build a chemical tank that would fit inside the aircraft and take up every available square inch of the aircraft except for where the pilot would be sitting."
Here’s the kicker, or rather, the smoking gun: Before Atta left her office he filled out a loan application.
Loan applications are dated, aren’t they? That’s why Johnelle Bryant knows exactly when Atta was in her office. so, without even referencing any of the other numerous indicators of Atta’s presence in the U.S., one thing that can be said with absolute certainty:
The FBI’s timeline, their chronology of events, the essential tool of any homicide investigation, is wrong. And not wrong by accident, either.
Wrong on purpose. Wrong by design.
By the way: don’t try dropping by Bryant’s Homestead office to confirm the details with her, as we did...She’s no longer there.
She’s (presumably) been airlifted to the Island of Lost Witnesses...
There's lots more to ponder. The gist is there are some major inconsistencies in the timeline the FBI published with the 9/11 commission. But as to what the truth is... only the Players know. ¶ 5:23 PM 0 comments links to this post
We knew the terrorists of 9/11 were waltzing around the country doing things like going to strip joints and throwing wild parties, but aside from the kinds of things a righteous Dominionist would disapprove of, the main$tream media has been really quiet about exactly what they were doing and who they were partying with.
Time sez:
Just how damning are allegations by Congressman Curt Weldon that a secret Pentagon intelligence operation pegged hijacker Mohammed Atta as a threat nearly two years before he led the 9/11 attacks? When Weldon first made the charge in a new book and in a June speech on the House floor, it met with little attention, but perhaps due to the August heat or the approaching fourth anniversary of the attacks, the accusation ignited controversy last week.
The question is whether it has any substance. Weldon says a data-mining exercise, called Able Danger, spotted Atta and other hijackers in 1999, but Pentagon lawyers in September 2000 blocked officials running the program from handing the tip to the FBI. Weldon’s further allegation that the 9/11 commission was alerted to the alleged oversight but ignored it prompted the defunct panel to conduct an investigation last week before issuing a statement late Friday saying members had received only an 11th-hour mention of Atta that “was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation"...
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Hopsicker asks :
Upon what basis did the 9.11 Commission conclude that the FBI’s timeline was correct and that an elite Army Intel unit was mistaken in saying they were tracking Mohamed Atta roaming freely across America during 1999 and 2000?
And why exactly is this important?
Calling unwelcome attention to the massive inaccuracies in the FBI’s timeline was probably not Republican Curt Weldon’s purpose when he brought the story to light...But if his efforts to implicate Clinton Administration officials results in highlighting the FBI's incomplete and corrupt investigation, we think he get some kind of medal, maybe called the Inadvertent 'Dumb-Ass' Hero Award.
We suspect his Republican friends would much prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. Because it isn’t just one elite Army Intel unit that’s saying it... In the aftermath of the 9.11 attack numerous eyewitnesses came forward to attest to Atta’s presence in the U.S. before June of 2000.
Their number even includes a U.S. Government official with a signed and dated loan application from Mohamed Atta his-ownself.
In interviews with major news organizations Johnelle Bryant, an official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, revealed that Atta and three other September 11th terrorists visited her Florida office seeking a government loan.
ABC’s Brian Ross reported: “Johnelle Bryant is the USDA loan officer in Homestead, Florida, who Atta approached in May of 2000, long before al-Qaeda and bin Laden were household words.”
Mr. Atta swung by in May, 2000, and Ms. Bryant remembers quite a bit about it.
"At first," she says, "he refused to speak with me," on the grounds that she was, in his words, "but a female."
"I told him that if he was interested in getting a farm-service agency loan in my servicing area, then he would need to deal with me."
Ms. Bryant says the applicant was asking for $650,000 to start a crop-dusting business. His plan was to buy a six-seater twin-prop and then remove the seats. "He wanted to build a chemical tank that would fit inside the aircraft and take up every available square inch of the aircraft except for where the pilot would be sitting."
Here’s the kicker, or rather, the smoking gun: Before Atta left her office he filled out a loan application.
Loan applications are dated, aren’t they? That’s why Johnelle Bryant knows exactly when Atta was in her office. so, without even referencing any of the other numerous indicators of Atta’s presence in the U.S., one thing that can be said with absolute certainty:
The FBI’s timeline, their chronology of events, the essential tool of any homicide investigation, is wrong. And not wrong by accident, either.
Wrong on purpose. Wrong by design.
By the way: don’t try dropping by Bryant’s Homestead office to confirm the details with her, as we did...She’s no longer there.
She’s (presumably) been airlifted to the Island of Lost Witnesses...
There's lots more to ponder. The gist is there are some major inconsistencies in the timeline the FBI published with the 9/11 commission. But as to what the truth is... only the Players know. ¶ 5:23 PM 0 comments links to this post
Are Technophobes Necessary?
The New York Pravda editorial page as usual skips past the details and gets right down to the nitty-gritty the Dominionists and the Carlyle War Machine would like the people to think about:
Is the Space Station Necessary?
Now that the space shuttle fleet has been grounded until NASA can solve its foam-shedding problem, it's time to re-examine the future of the International Space Station.
The space station is circling the globe, partly finished, some 240 miles overhead. Its fate and that of the shuttle fleet are intertwined. The shuttle is a finicky and technologically outdated vehicle that should be replaced with a safer and more reliable spacecraft. The rub is that a replacement is at least five years away and the space station cannot be completed without many more shuttle flights.
If the space station did not have to be finished, there would be little reason to keep the shuttle fleet in operation beyond a single flight to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope. But how important, really, is the station?...
Juxtaposed to it is this little ditty: Meanwhile, People Starve.
Somehow the Pravda NeoLibs Hawks weren't really concerned about starving innocent people in the lead -up to the Iraqi War where Judith Miller and the Pravda played a front line role in convincing the nation to go for broke.
Why the bother to shoot down the international space station?
Think of all that money that could be going to DARPA contractors. Northrop-Grumman. Raytheon. All the D.o'D. black budget items that aren't as transparent as NASA.
Don't get me wrong. With an ex-CIA money launderer in charge of NASA, I'm quite sure the budget is a little, shall we say, padded. It's also a good bet that despite the fact the man is a Ph.D. physicist from M.I.T., scientific curiosity isn't tops on his agenda.
But let's get real. They don't like the space station because it can't be Darth Rumsfeld's tinker toy. They can't make a Death Star with the Russians on board.
Count on it: they'll see this one fall and burn up like Mir, and float another one- D.o'D. controlled- for their interplanetarypork aspirations.
Meanwhile, as pointed out to me by a friend, global warming has progressed to a point where Mount Kilimanjaro is stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years. This photo was intended to be shown at London this summer, but with all the terra'ist chaos, somehow the point just didn't sink in to the main$tream media.
It's a similar tactic: distraction and subversion.
The space program could be designed as a model for international co operation and the development of new technology to spur international economies. But that grates on the Dominionists, who don't like all those new fangled ideas being spread around, nor do they like the evidence for a non-theological cosmology. It grates on the Military-Industrial complex, who like the idea of moving technological toys for quick bucks, not the idea of producing technology directed for a purpose. And finally it grates on the NeoCon jingoists, who view co operation as big obstacle to Empire. ¶ 3:02 PM 0 comments links to this post
Is the Space Station Necessary?
Now that the space shuttle fleet has been grounded until NASA can solve its foam-shedding problem, it's time to re-examine the future of the International Space Station.
The space station is circling the globe, partly finished, some 240 miles overhead. Its fate and that of the shuttle fleet are intertwined. The shuttle is a finicky and technologically outdated vehicle that should be replaced with a safer and more reliable spacecraft. The rub is that a replacement is at least five years away and the space station cannot be completed without many more shuttle flights.
If the space station did not have to be finished, there would be little reason to keep the shuttle fleet in operation beyond a single flight to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope. But how important, really, is the station?...
Juxtaposed to it is this little ditty: Meanwhile, People Starve.
Somehow the Pravda NeoLibs Hawks weren't really concerned about starving innocent people in the lead -up to the Iraqi War where Judith Miller and the Pravda played a front line role in convincing the nation to go for broke.
Why the bother to shoot down the international space station?
Think of all that money that could be going to DARPA contractors. Northrop-Grumman. Raytheon. All the D.o'D. black budget items that aren't as transparent as NASA.
Don't get me wrong. With an ex-CIA money launderer in charge of NASA, I'm quite sure the budget is a little, shall we say, padded. It's also a good bet that despite the fact the man is a Ph.D. physicist from M.I.T., scientific curiosity isn't tops on his agenda.
But let's get real. They don't like the space station because it can't be Darth Rumsfeld's tinker toy. They can't make a Death Star with the Russians on board.
Count on it: they'll see this one fall and burn up like Mir, and float another one- D.o'D. controlled- for their interplanetary
Meanwhile, as pointed out to me by a friend, global warming has progressed to a point where Mount Kilimanjaro is stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years. This photo was intended to be shown at London this summer, but with all the terra'ist chaos, somehow the point just didn't sink in to the main$tream media.
It's a similar tactic: distraction and subversion.
The space program could be designed as a model for international co operation and the development of new technology to spur international economies. But that grates on the Dominionists, who don't like all those new fangled ideas being spread around, nor do they like the evidence for a non-theological cosmology. It grates on the Military-Industrial complex, who like the idea of moving technological toys for quick bucks, not the idea of producing technology directed for a purpose. And finally it grates on the NeoCon jingoists, who view co operation as big obstacle to Empire. ¶ 3:02 PM 0 comments links to this post
Friday, August 12, 2005
The Carlyle Group Hearts Google
You knew it was only a matter of time (thanks to Lambert ) :
Somehow, even through all the outages and that Chinese government thing, I always thought of Google as a different kind of corporation. Another illusion—shattered. A strong draft of UK-grade irony here...
... Via alert reader Alice Marshall, Google now has a new Vice President: Scott "Sucker MC" McClellan lacky and Caryle Group Associate Dan "I am the Mouth of Bremer" Senor. Yech...
Over at my favorite Canadian tinfoil site, Jeff Wells reminds us the best way to cook a frog is by a slow boil.
After the shock of a mass casuality event, and during the aftershocks of martial law, what will be the chief tone Homeland Security will want to set? It will be reassurance. Why? Because FEMA may have many camps, but it doesn't have enough to hold everyone. For the few to maintain power, the many need to participate in their own subjugation. They must be self-contained. And so, Michael Chertoff will attempt to alleviate the psychological sting of martial law, while he rubs the poison in, and invite Americans to "go about their business." (Privacy fears unjustified, Chertoff said this week.) It will be a soft sell of "temporary" measures, dictated by a supposed self-necessity. Americans will be encouraged to pretend that things are normal, or normal enough, and that the measures, while serious and unfortunate, don't affect them. And to keep it that way, many will watch what they say and watch what they do, and become detainees under self-monitored house arrest. ¶ 10:20 PM 0 comments links to this post
Somehow, even through all the outages and that Chinese government thing, I always thought of Google as a different kind of corporation. Another illusion—shattered. A strong draft of UK-grade irony here...
... Via alert reader Alice Marshall, Google now has a new Vice President: Scott "Sucker MC" McClellan lacky and Caryle Group Associate Dan "I am the Mouth of Bremer" Senor. Yech...
Over at my favorite Canadian tinfoil site, Jeff Wells reminds us the best way to cook a frog is by a slow boil.
After the shock of a mass casuality event, and during the aftershocks of martial law, what will be the chief tone Homeland Security will want to set? It will be reassurance. Why? Because FEMA may have many camps, but it doesn't have enough to hold everyone. For the few to maintain power, the many need to participate in their own subjugation. They must be self-contained. And so, Michael Chertoff will attempt to alleviate the psychological sting of martial law, while he rubs the poison in, and invite Americans to "go about their business." (Privacy fears unjustified, Chertoff said this week.) It will be a soft sell of "temporary" measures, dictated by a supposed self-necessity. Americans will be encouraged to pretend that things are normal, or normal enough, and that the measures, while serious and unfortunate, don't affect them. And to keep it that way, many will watch what they say and watch what they do, and become detainees under self-monitored house arrest. ¶ 10:20 PM 0 comments links to this post
It's Worse Than They Thought
Satellite and weather-balloon research released Friday removes a last bastion of scientific doubt about global warming, researchers say.
Surface temperatures have shown small but steady increases since the 1970s, but the tropics had shown little atmospheric heating - and even some cooling. Now, after sleuthing reported in three papers released by the journal Science, revisions have been made to that atmospheric data.
After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations...
So get your boats ready, campers:
Two global coupled climate models show that even if the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had been stabilized in the year 2000, we are already committed to further global warming of about another half degree and an additional 320% sea level rise caused by thermal expansion by the end of the 21st century. Projected weakening of the meridional overturning circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean does not lead to a net cooling in Europe. At any given point in time, even if concentrations are stabilized, there is a commitment to future climate changes that will be greater than those we have already observed.
----------Science, Vol 307, Issue 5716, 1769-1772 , 18 March 2005 ¶ 10:39 AM 0 comments links to this post
Surface temperatures have shown small but steady increases since the 1970s, but the tropics had shown little atmospheric heating - and even some cooling. Now, after sleuthing reported in three papers released by the journal Science, revisions have been made to that atmospheric data.
After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations...
So get your boats ready, campers:
Two global coupled climate models show that even if the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had been stabilized in the year 2000, we are already committed to further global warming of about another half degree and an additional 320% sea level rise caused by thermal expansion by the end of the 21st century. Projected weakening of the meridional overturning circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean does not lead to a net cooling in Europe. At any given point in time, even if concentrations are stabilized, there is a commitment to future climate changes that will be greater than those we have already observed.
----------Science, Vol 307, Issue 5716, 1769-1772 , 18 March 2005 ¶ 10:39 AM 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, August 11, 2005
They Stone 'Em in the Kingdom
Some observations on some odd behavior...
In a rare move, the Army relieved a four-star general of his command amid allegations that he had an extramarital affair with a civilian, Army officials said yesterday.
Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes, 55, led the Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va., where he supervised the recruitment and academic programs at 33 Army schools, from basic training to the war colleges. Byrnes, who several military sources said had a previously unblemished record, was set to retire in November after 36 years of service.
The Army released few details about the decision to relieve one of its 11 four-star generals, with spokesmen saying only that Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, relieved Byrnes of his command on Monday as the result of an investigation by the Defense Department's inspector general. A spokesman said Army officials could find no case of another four-star general being relieved of duty in modern times...
His defense attorney, Lt. Col. David H. Robertson, said the allegation against Byrnes involves an affair with a private citizen. Byrnes has been separated from his wife since May 2004; their divorce was finalized on Monday, coincidentally the same day he was relieved of command, Robertson said...
Yes, the same D.o'D. run by people who maintained a male prostitute to deliver propaganda for White House press briefings fired this General.
Sure, I believe that. Who wouldn't? Apparently not Simbaud, who points to two alternative explanations.
The paranoid explanation (wild man Wayne Madsen):
The sudden firing of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine (TRADOC) Commander, four star General and New York City native Kevin P. Byrnes, one of only 11 four star generals in the Army, has much more to do with a policy dispute than an anonymous Pentagon-reported story about an alleged "extra-marital affair." Although Byrnes has recently been involved in divorce proceedings, Pentagon insiders report that Byrnes was fired for insubordination . . . .
What has not been reported is that recently, one of Byrnes' subordinate commands, Fort Rucker in Alabama, had been told to stand by for an influx of 50,000 military trainees -- a level the base has not seen since the Vietnam War. Byrnes' relief of command came on the heels of the Pentagon announcing that it might permit Spanish-language entrance examinations. Byrnes, who was in charge of Army training, would not only face recruits with lower education levels, criminal records, but a lack of proficiency in English. Pentagon insiders report that it was Byrnes' policy disagreements with the Pentagon neo-cons over the new recruitment policies and the potential for calling up Army retirees and reinstating military conscription without adequate TRADOC funding that resulted in his firing. The personal misconduct charges were concocted by the Pentagon to cover up the fact that there are serious disagreements with Bush and Rumsfeld among the flag officer ranks in the military...
This has a wiff of reality about it, though. The next one is somewhat more intriguing:
The tinfoil explanation (Prison Planet):
Other sources however have offered a different explanation for Byrnes' dismissal which ties in with the Bush administration's unpopular plan to attack Iran and the staged nuclear attack in the US which would provide the pretext to do so.
According to reporter Greg Szymanski, anonymous military sources said that Brynes was the leader of a faction that was preparing to instigate a coup against the neo-con hawks in an attempt to prevent further global conflict.
Indications are that, much like popular opinion amongst the general public, half the military oppose the neo-con's agenda and half support it.
Further revelations were imparted by journalist Leland Lehrman who appeared today on The Alex Jones Show.
Lehrman's army sources, including a former Captain in intelligence, became outraged when they learned that the official story behind 9/11 was impossible.
They told Lehrman that the imminent Northcom nuclear terror exercise based in Charleston, S.C, where a nuclear warhead is smuggled off a ship and detonated, was originally intended to 'go live' - as in the drill would be used as the cover for a real false flag staged attack. This website has relentlessly discussed similar style drills which took place on the morning of 9/11 and on the morning of 7/7 in London.
"Speculation exists that he had potentially discovered the fact that it was gonna go live and that he was trying to put a stop to it or also speculation indicates that he may be part of a military coup designed to prevent the ridiculous idea of doing a nuclear war with Iran, " said Lehrman.
Lehrman said that other sources had told him all army leave had been cancelled from September 7th onwards, opening the possibility for war to be declared within that time frame...
Speaking of terra'ist activities, what do you call it when a young Wrepublican boards an airplane with a home-made bomb?
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A small explosive device was found in a passenger's carryon bag as the man passed through a checkpoint, and federal agents arrested him, the FBI said Thursday.
Officials have found no apparent connection between Charles Alfred Dreyling Jr. and any terrorist group or activity, said Agent Gary Johnson, an FBI spokesman.
Dreyling, 24, was going through the security checkpoint at Will Rogers World Airport on Wednesday when a Transportation Security Administration employee noticed something suspicious in his bag on the X-ray machine, Johnson said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Troester described the device as a carbon-dioxide cartridge with a black-powder detonator.
But Dreyling's landlord, former Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys, said he had created a "glorified firecracker" and forgot it was in his luggage.
"I know Charlie Dreyling quite well," Humphreys said. "I appreciate what the authorities are doing making our airlines safe. I have every confidence that they'll find out Charlie Dreyling is a fine young man and no terrorist."
Dreyling had planned to take a Delta flight that travels to Philadelphia through Atlanta, airport spokeswoman Karen Carney said.
He was at the Oklahoma County jail on a federal hold and was to appear before a federal magistrate Thursday afternoon, the U.S. Attorney's office said. He could face charges related to possessing an explosive device at an airport, Johnson said.
The arrest did not disrupt any flights, Carney said...
I wonder if it had exploded, would we be dropping nukes on Tehran right now?
I wonder if recent events have Karl Rove and Tom DeLay trying to talk Company people into finding someone to do something similar right now? ¶ 9:21 PM 0 comments links to this post
In a rare move, the Army relieved a four-star general of his command amid allegations that he had an extramarital affair with a civilian, Army officials said yesterday.
Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes, 55, led the Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va., where he supervised the recruitment and academic programs at 33 Army schools, from basic training to the war colleges. Byrnes, who several military sources said had a previously unblemished record, was set to retire in November after 36 years of service.
The Army released few details about the decision to relieve one of its 11 four-star generals, with spokesmen saying only that Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, relieved Byrnes of his command on Monday as the result of an investigation by the Defense Department's inspector general. A spokesman said Army officials could find no case of another four-star general being relieved of duty in modern times...
His defense attorney, Lt. Col. David H. Robertson, said the allegation against Byrnes involves an affair with a private citizen. Byrnes has been separated from his wife since May 2004; their divorce was finalized on Monday, coincidentally the same day he was relieved of command, Robertson said...
Yes, the same D.o'D. run by people who maintained a male prostitute to deliver propaganda for White House press briefings fired this General.
Sure, I believe that. Who wouldn't? Apparently not Simbaud, who points to two alternative explanations.
The paranoid explanation (wild man Wayne Madsen):
The sudden firing of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine (TRADOC) Commander, four star General and New York City native Kevin P. Byrnes, one of only 11 four star generals in the Army, has much more to do with a policy dispute than an anonymous Pentagon-reported story about an alleged "extra-marital affair." Although Byrnes has recently been involved in divorce proceedings, Pentagon insiders report that Byrnes was fired for insubordination . . . .
What has not been reported is that recently, one of Byrnes' subordinate commands, Fort Rucker in Alabama, had been told to stand by for an influx of 50,000 military trainees -- a level the base has not seen since the Vietnam War. Byrnes' relief of command came on the heels of the Pentagon announcing that it might permit Spanish-language entrance examinations. Byrnes, who was in charge of Army training, would not only face recruits with lower education levels, criminal records, but a lack of proficiency in English. Pentagon insiders report that it was Byrnes' policy disagreements with the Pentagon neo-cons over the new recruitment policies and the potential for calling up Army retirees and reinstating military conscription without adequate TRADOC funding that resulted in his firing. The personal misconduct charges were concocted by the Pentagon to cover up the fact that there are serious disagreements with Bush and Rumsfeld among the flag officer ranks in the military...
This has a wiff of reality about it, though. The next one is somewhat more intriguing:
The tinfoil explanation (Prison Planet):
Other sources however have offered a different explanation for Byrnes' dismissal which ties in with the Bush administration's unpopular plan to attack Iran and the staged nuclear attack in the US which would provide the pretext to do so.
According to reporter Greg Szymanski, anonymous military sources said that Brynes was the leader of a faction that was preparing to instigate a coup against the neo-con hawks in an attempt to prevent further global conflict.
Indications are that, much like popular opinion amongst the general public, half the military oppose the neo-con's agenda and half support it.
Further revelations were imparted by journalist Leland Lehrman who appeared today on The Alex Jones Show.
Lehrman's army sources, including a former Captain in intelligence, became outraged when they learned that the official story behind 9/11 was impossible.
They told Lehrman that the imminent Northcom nuclear terror exercise based in Charleston, S.C, where a nuclear warhead is smuggled off a ship and detonated, was originally intended to 'go live' - as in the drill would be used as the cover for a real false flag staged attack. This website has relentlessly discussed similar style drills which took place on the morning of 9/11 and on the morning of 7/7 in London.
"Speculation exists that he had potentially discovered the fact that it was gonna go live and that he was trying to put a stop to it or also speculation indicates that he may be part of a military coup designed to prevent the ridiculous idea of doing a nuclear war with Iran, " said Lehrman.
Lehrman said that other sources had told him all army leave had been cancelled from September 7th onwards, opening the possibility for war to be declared within that time frame...
Speaking of terra'ist activities, what do you call it when a young Wrepublican boards an airplane with a home-made bomb?
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A small explosive device was found in a passenger's carryon bag as the man passed through a checkpoint, and federal agents arrested him, the FBI said Thursday.
Officials have found no apparent connection between Charles Alfred Dreyling Jr. and any terrorist group or activity, said Agent Gary Johnson, an FBI spokesman.
Dreyling, 24, was going through the security checkpoint at Will Rogers World Airport on Wednesday when a Transportation Security Administration employee noticed something suspicious in his bag on the X-ray machine, Johnson said.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Bob Troester described the device as a carbon-dioxide cartridge with a black-powder detonator.
But Dreyling's landlord, former Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys, said he had created a "glorified firecracker" and forgot it was in his luggage.
"I know Charlie Dreyling quite well," Humphreys said. "I appreciate what the authorities are doing making our airlines safe. I have every confidence that they'll find out Charlie Dreyling is a fine young man and no terrorist."
Dreyling had planned to take a Delta flight that travels to Philadelphia through Atlanta, airport spokeswoman Karen Carney said.
He was at the Oklahoma County jail on a federal hold and was to appear before a federal magistrate Thursday afternoon, the U.S. Attorney's office said. He could face charges related to possessing an explosive device at an airport, Johnson said.
The arrest did not disrupt any flights, Carney said...
I wonder if it had exploded, would we be dropping nukes on Tehran right now?
I wonder if recent events have Karl Rove and Tom DeLay trying to talk Company people into finding someone to do something similar right now? ¶ 9:21 PM 0 comments links to this post
Because That Would Be Telling
The Sept. 11 commission knew military intelligence officials had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a member of al-Qaida who might be part of U.S.-based terror cell more than a year before the terror attacks but decided not to include that in its final report, a spokesman acknowledged Thursday.
Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the commission's follow-up project called the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, had said earlier this week that the panel was unaware of intelligence specifically naming Atta. But he said subsequent information provided Wednesday confirmed that the commission had been aware of the intelligence.
The information did not make it into the final report because it was not consistent with what the commission knew about Atta's whereabouts before the attacks, Felzenberg said.
The intelligence about Atta recently was disclosed by Rep. Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees. The Pennsylvania Republican has expressed anger that the intelligence never was forwarded by the military establishment to the FBI.
The discourse project, Pentagon and at least two congressional committees are looking into the issue. If found accurate, the intelligence would change the timeline for when government officials first became aware of Atta's links to al-Qaida.
According to Weldon, a classified military intelligence unit called "Able Danger" identified Atta and three other hijackers in 1999 as potential members of a terrorist cell in New York City. Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the unit's recommendation that the information be turned over to the FBI in 2000...
Thanks to Woody for the heads up.
This link was from Rigorous Intuition, where they've a lot of interesting links tonight.
Here’s the scenario …A seafaring vessel transporting a 10-kiloton nuclear warhead makes its way into a port off the coast of Charleston, S.C. Terrorists aboard the ship attempt to smuggle the warhead off the ship to detonate it. Is this really a possibility?
Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS) here is planning its next exercise on the premise that this crisis is indeed plausible.
Sudden Response 05 will take place this August on Fort Monroe and will be carried out as an internal command post exercise. The exercise is intended to train the JTF-CS staff to plan and execute Consequence Management operations in support of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV’s response to a nuclear detonation...
You get a lot of Homeland Security cookies with that one. Not for the tinfoil paranoid. ¶ 8:47 PM 0 comments links to this post
Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the commission's follow-up project called the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, had said earlier this week that the panel was unaware of intelligence specifically naming Atta. But he said subsequent information provided Wednesday confirmed that the commission had been aware of the intelligence.
The information did not make it into the final report because it was not consistent with what the commission knew about Atta's whereabouts before the attacks, Felzenberg said.
The intelligence about Atta recently was disclosed by Rep. Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees. The Pennsylvania Republican has expressed anger that the intelligence never was forwarded by the military establishment to the FBI.
The discourse project, Pentagon and at least two congressional committees are looking into the issue. If found accurate, the intelligence would change the timeline for when government officials first became aware of Atta's links to al-Qaida.
According to Weldon, a classified military intelligence unit called "Able Danger" identified Atta and three other hijackers in 1999 as potential members of a terrorist cell in New York City. Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the unit's recommendation that the information be turned over to the FBI in 2000...
Thanks to Woody for the heads up.
This link was from Rigorous Intuition, where they've a lot of interesting links tonight.
Here’s the scenario …A seafaring vessel transporting a 10-kiloton nuclear warhead makes its way into a port off the coast of Charleston, S.C. Terrorists aboard the ship attempt to smuggle the warhead off the ship to detonate it. Is this really a possibility?
Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS) here is planning its next exercise on the premise that this crisis is indeed plausible.
Sudden Response 05 will take place this August on Fort Monroe and will be carried out as an internal command post exercise. The exercise is intended to train the JTF-CS staff to plan and execute Consequence Management operations in support of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV’s response to a nuclear detonation...
You get a lot of Homeland Security cookies with that one. Not for the tinfoil paranoid. ¶ 8:47 PM 0 comments links to this post
Hedonic Adjustments
Because it's the quality that matters.
Now that we're on the downside of the Hubbert Oil curve, the prices of petroleum and petroleum-based products will inevitably rise.
So how do Greenspan and Bu$hCo get away with the lie that inflation is under control?
Uggabugga points out how the main$tream media propagates the disinformation, but if you read the fine print you can find the spin source:
Gasoline has risen $1.00 from $1.50 to $2.50 in three years, a 66% increase, or 18% per year. And that's just gasoline at the pump. Higher gasoline prices also affect what you pay for other goods since transportation costs are folded into food and other merchandise.
How come the inflation rate is reported to be so low? Samuelson gives a hint with this line: (emp add)
"In June new car prices -- after adjustment for quality improvements -- were actually 2.1 percent lower than 10 years earlier, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."
That's the controversial "hedonic adjustments" you've heard about. A new computer comes out with double the CPU speed, but has same retail price as a similar model a year ago. The adjustment by the BLS results in a computer at half the price! This didn't happen in the past. Improvements in performance had been assumed to be part of the territory and not something to be "adjusted" for.
Hedonic adjustments are an economic tool used to compare actual prices with the quality of what you're enjoying right now.
So if you're paying $2.50 a gallon for gasoline, it's obvious that you're only really paying a dollar or so, because with that gasoline you're buying a Righteous Dear Leader and everything the Company has to improve your life.
If your vote is vaporized into the ether by an algorithm from the Diebold Corporation, you are actually more empowered than ever before, because you've $elected a popular president.
Or at least that's what the hedonic adjustment says. ¶ 7:22 AM 0 comments links to this post
Now that we're on the downside of the Hubbert Oil curve, the prices of petroleum and petroleum-based products will inevitably rise.
So how do Greenspan and Bu$hCo get away with the lie that inflation is under control?
Uggabugga points out how the main$tream media propagates the disinformation, but if you read the fine print you can find the spin source:
Gasoline has risen $1.00 from $1.50 to $2.50 in three years, a 66% increase, or 18% per year. And that's just gasoline at the pump. Higher gasoline prices also affect what you pay for other goods since transportation costs are folded into food and other merchandise.
How come the inflation rate is reported to be so low? Samuelson gives a hint with this line: (emp add)
"In June new car prices -- after adjustment for quality improvements -- were actually 2.1 percent lower than 10 years earlier, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."
That's the controversial "hedonic adjustments" you've heard about. A new computer comes out with double the CPU speed, but has same retail price as a similar model a year ago. The adjustment by the BLS results in a computer at half the price! This didn't happen in the past. Improvements in performance had been assumed to be part of the territory and not something to be "adjusted" for.
Hedonic adjustments are an economic tool used to compare actual prices with the quality of what you're enjoying right now.
So if you're paying $2.50 a gallon for gasoline, it's obvious that you're only really paying a dollar or so, because with that gasoline you're buying a Righteous Dear Leader and everything the Company has to improve your life.
If your vote is vaporized into the ether by an algorithm from the Diebold Corporation, you are actually more empowered than ever before, because you've $elected a popular president.
Or at least that's what the hedonic adjustment says. ¶ 7:22 AM 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Halliburton: Bringing Good Things to Iranian Life
Scandal-plagued Halliburton, the oil services company once headed by Vice President Dick was secretly working with one of Iran’s top nuclear program officials on natural gas related projects and, allegedly, selling the officials' oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, according to Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies’ business dealings.
Just last week a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, which just reported a 284 percent increase in its fourth quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the financial means to build a nuclear weapon.
Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said has ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies, on oil development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team.
“Nasseri, a senior Iranian diplomat negotiating with Europe over Iran's controversial nuclear program is at the heart of deals with US energy companies to develop the country's oil industry”, the Financial Times reported.
Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets and accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton, according to Iranian government officials.
It’s unclear whether Halliburton was privy to any of Iran’s nuclear activities. A company spokesperson did not return numerous calls for comment. A White House spokesperson also did not return calls for comment.
Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton became public knowledge in January when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars natural gas drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered in the Cayman Islands.
Following the announcement, Halliburton announced the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. The BBC reported that Halliburton, which took in $30-$40 million from its Iranian operations in 2003, "was winding down its work due to a poor business environment." ...
This isn't just about a sleazy back room deal by bunch of uranium-for-oil smuggling gangstahs.
The Company has connections to Iran reaching back to the hostage crisis of the 1970s.
Although the administration has discredited the story, there are former hostages who think the new hardline Iranian president was one of the minds behind the kidnappers.
..."As soon as I saw the face, it rang a lot of bells to me," Don Sharer, who served as the embassy's naval attache at the time, told CNN.
"...Take 20 years off of him. He was there. He was there in the background, more like an adviser."
Abbas Abdi, the man well-known to be the leader of the 1979 hostage-takers, told CNN that Ahmadinejad, the Tehran mayor, "absolutely was not" part of the event that involved the captivity of 52 people.
Abdi later became a supporter of reformist President Mohammed Khatami and was recently released from jail for advocating closer ties with the United States.
Iranian officials also deny Ahmadinejad was involved...
Like any of that can be taken at face value.
With a new Iranian hardline preznit, deeply religious and righteous as Hell, Iran is doing the manly macho one might say Texan thing and cranking up its uranium enrichment facilities again.
ISFAHAN, Iran - A defiant
Iran resumed full operations at its uranium conversion plant Wednesday, as Europe and the United States struggled to find a way to stop the Islamic republic from pushing ahead with a nuclear program they fear will lead to weapons of mass destruction.
ADVERTISEMENT
With
United Nations inspectors watching, Iranian officials removed U.N. seals that had been placed voluntarily on equipment at the facility eight months ago when Tehran agreed to freeze most of its nuclear program.
Technicians then immediately resumed work on the process that turns raw uranium into gas for enrichment.
The breaking of the seals at the facility in the mountains outside the southern city of Isfahan was the latest move of Iranian brinkmanship over its nuclear ambitions. The hard-line government's determination to move ahead left Europe and the United States scrambling over what to do next...
Scrambling? Surely you jest. Why, I'm sure Big Time Dick and the other Carlyle Barons are investing shrewdly in this opportunity even as you read this.
Doubtless the new deeply religious King of a devout nation surrounded by burning sands and sitting on top of most of the world's oil is pleased to see his biggest customer and his biggest sectarian and remaining production rival are getting ready to do the Wild Thing. It's gotta be good for him to lay his money down. No matter who gets burned, he and his Princes win.
Not to mention the posse at General Electric ( more good things from Saudi Arabia ), Bechtel, General Dynamics, and the rest of the Carlyle Crew. ¶ 10:01 PM 1 comments links to this post
Just last week a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, which just reported a 284 percent increase in its fourth quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the financial means to build a nuclear weapon.
Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said has ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies, on oil development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team.
“Nasseri, a senior Iranian diplomat negotiating with Europe over Iran's controversial nuclear program is at the heart of deals with US energy companies to develop the country's oil industry”, the Financial Times reported.
Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets and accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton, according to Iranian government officials.
It’s unclear whether Halliburton was privy to any of Iran’s nuclear activities. A company spokesperson did not return numerous calls for comment. A White House spokesperson also did not return calls for comment.
Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton became public knowledge in January when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars natural gas drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered in the Cayman Islands.
Following the announcement, Halliburton announced the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. The BBC reported that Halliburton, which took in $30-$40 million from its Iranian operations in 2003, "was winding down its work due to a poor business environment." ...
This isn't just about a sleazy back room deal by bunch of uranium-for-oil smuggling gangstahs.
The Company has connections to Iran reaching back to the hostage crisis of the 1970s.
Although the administration has discredited the story, there are former hostages who think the new hardline Iranian president was one of the minds behind the kidnappers.
..."As soon as I saw the face, it rang a lot of bells to me," Don Sharer, who served as the embassy's naval attache at the time, told CNN.
"...Take 20 years off of him. He was there. He was there in the background, more like an adviser."
Abbas Abdi, the man well-known to be the leader of the 1979 hostage-takers, told CNN that Ahmadinejad, the Tehran mayor, "absolutely was not" part of the event that involved the captivity of 52 people.
Abdi later became a supporter of reformist President Mohammed Khatami and was recently released from jail for advocating closer ties with the United States.
Iranian officials also deny Ahmadinejad was involved...
Like any of that can be taken at face value.
With a new Iranian hardline preznit, deeply religious and righteous as Hell, Iran is doing the manly macho one might say Texan thing and cranking up its uranium enrichment facilities again.
ISFAHAN, Iran - A defiant
Iran resumed full operations at its uranium conversion plant Wednesday, as Europe and the United States struggled to find a way to stop the Islamic republic from pushing ahead with a nuclear program they fear will lead to weapons of mass destruction.
ADVERTISEMENT
With
United Nations inspectors watching, Iranian officials removed U.N. seals that had been placed voluntarily on equipment at the facility eight months ago when Tehran agreed to freeze most of its nuclear program.
Technicians then immediately resumed work on the process that turns raw uranium into gas for enrichment.
The breaking of the seals at the facility in the mountains outside the southern city of Isfahan was the latest move of Iranian brinkmanship over its nuclear ambitions. The hard-line government's determination to move ahead left Europe and the United States scrambling over what to do next...
Scrambling? Surely you jest. Why, I'm sure Big Time Dick and the other Carlyle Barons are investing shrewdly in this opportunity even as you read this.
Doubtless the new deeply religious King of a devout nation surrounded by burning sands and sitting on top of most of the world's oil is pleased to see his biggest customer and his biggest sectarian and remaining production rival are getting ready to do the Wild Thing. It's gotta be good for him to lay his money down. No matter who gets burned, he and his Princes win.
Not to mention the posse at General Electric ( more good things from Saudi Arabia ), Bechtel, General Dynamics, and the rest of the Carlyle Crew. ¶ 10:01 PM 1 comments links to this post
More Churning in the Combine
Looks like Pat Fitzgerald is burning his candle at both ends now there's a good chance the Bu$hCo $yndicate will have his new boss shut him down in October.
CHICAGO - Federal prosecutors investigating corruption at a state pension fund have subpoenaed records concerning $4.5 million in fees a Washington-based investment firm is paying the new treasurer of the Republican National Committee, government sources confirmed Tuesday.
The subpoena calls for documents related to the fund, the Carlyle Group and Robert Kjellander, said sources familiar with the investigation who spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying prosecutors want details of the probe kept secret.
Kjellander, a Springfield-based lobbyist who headed President Bush's re-election campaign in three states, was named the RNC's treasurer over the weekend.
Illinois Teachers Retirement System officials expressed concern about the amount of finders fees Carlyle offered Kjellander for helping to land business with the pension fund - $3.1 million paid and $1.4 million due.
"I believe that we were all taken aback when we learned of the size of his compensation for services to the Carlyle Group," said Jon Bauman, executive director of the pension fund... ¶ 9:54 PM 2 comments links to this post
CHICAGO - Federal prosecutors investigating corruption at a state pension fund have subpoenaed records concerning $4.5 million in fees a Washington-based investment firm is paying the new treasurer of the Republican National Committee, government sources confirmed Tuesday.
The subpoena calls for documents related to the fund, the Carlyle Group and Robert Kjellander, said sources familiar with the investigation who spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying prosecutors want details of the probe kept secret.
Kjellander, a Springfield-based lobbyist who headed President Bush's re-election campaign in three states, was named the RNC's treasurer over the weekend.
Illinois Teachers Retirement System officials expressed concern about the amount of finders fees Carlyle offered Kjellander for helping to land business with the pension fund - $3.1 million paid and $1.4 million due.
"I believe that we were all taken aback when we learned of the size of his compensation for services to the Carlyle Group," said Jon Bauman, executive director of the pension fund... ¶ 9:54 PM 2 comments links to this post
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
With Liens Like This, Who Needs Enemies?
Mortgaged to the House of Saud
The only evidence you need that President Bush is losing the "war on terror" is this: On Sunday, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia said that relations with the United States "couldn't be better."
Tell that to the parents of those who have died in two wars defending this corrupt spawning ground of violent extremism. Never mind the ugly facts: We are deeply entwined with Saudi Arabia even though it shares none of our values and supports our enemies.
Yet on Friday, Bush's father and Vice President Dick Cheney made another in a long line of obsequious American pilgrimages to Riyadh to assure the Saudis that we continue to be grateful for the punishment they dish out.
"The relationship has tremendously improved with the United States," Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal told a news conference in Riyadh. "With the government, of course, it is very harmonious, as it ever was. Whether it has returned to the same level as it was before in terms of public opinion [in both countries], that is debatable."
Well, score one for public opinion. It makes sense to distrust the mercenary and distasteful alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia. We protect the repressive kingdom that spawned Osama bin Laden, and most of the 9/11 hijackers, in exchange for the Saudis keeping our fecklessly oil-addicted country lubricated.
Yes, it has stuck deep in the craw of many of us Americans that after 9/11, Washington squandered global goodwill and a huge percentage of our resources invading a country that had nothing to do with al Qaeda, while continuing to pander to this dysfunctional dynasty. After all, Saudi Arabia is believed to have paid Bin Laden's murderous gang millions in protection money in the years before 9/11, and it lavishly funds extremist religious schools throughout the region that preach and teach anti-Western jihad.
"Al Qaeda found fertile fundraising ground in the kingdom," noted the 9/11 commission report in one of its many careful understatements. The fact is, without Saudi Arabia, there would be no al Qaeda today.
Our president loves to use the word "evil" in his speeches, yet throughout his life he and his family have had deep personal, political and financial ties with a country that represents everything the American Revolution stood against: tyranny, religious intolerance, corrupt royalty and popular ignorance. This is a country where women aren't allowed to drive and those who show "too much skin" can be beaten in the street by officially sanctioned mobs of fanatics. A medieval land where newspapers routinely publish the most outlandish anti-Semitic rants. A place where executions are held in public, torture is the norm in prison and the most extreme and expansionist version of Islam is the state religion.
It's hard to see how Saddam Hussein's brutal and secular Iraq was worse than the brutal theocracy run by the House of Saud. Yet one nation we raze and the other we fete. Is it any wonder that much of the world sees the United States as the planet's biggest hypocrite?
As insider books by former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, journalist Bob Woodward and others have recounted, punishing Saudi Arabia in any way for its long ideological and financial support of terrorism was not even on the table in the days after 9/11. Instead, within hours of the planes hitting the towers, the powerful neoconservatives in the White House rushed to use the tragedy as an excuse for a long-dreamed invasion of Iraq.
Meanwhile, after two wars to make the Middle East safe for the Saudis, wars that cost hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives, the price of oil is soaring - up 42% from just a year ago. Good thing we just passed a pork-laden energy bill that will do little to nothing to ease our crushing - and rising - dependence on imported oil. Federal officials project that by 2025, the US will have to import 68% of its oil to meet demand, up from 58% today.
There are those who argue that the best rationale for invading Iraq was to ease our dependence on Saudi Arabia's massive oil fields, which might allow for a more rational or moral relationship. Yet the dark irony is that with Iraq in chaos and its oil flow limited by insurgent attacks and a bungled reconstruction, Saudi Arabia is now more important to the United States than ever.
It's scary, but these gaping contradictions don't seem to trouble our president a whit.
As the drumbeat of devastating terrorist attacks in Baghdad, London and elsewhere continue, Bush prattles on - five times in a speech last Wednesday - about his pyrrhic victories in the "war on terror." This is a sorry rhetorical device that disguises the fact that the forces of Islamic fanaticism in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the world are stronger than ever. ¶ 5:21 PM 0 comments links to this post
The only evidence you need that President Bush is losing the "war on terror" is this: On Sunday, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia said that relations with the United States "couldn't be better."
Tell that to the parents of those who have died in two wars defending this corrupt spawning ground of violent extremism. Never mind the ugly facts: We are deeply entwined with Saudi Arabia even though it shares none of our values and supports our enemies.
Yet on Friday, Bush's father and Vice President Dick Cheney made another in a long line of obsequious American pilgrimages to Riyadh to assure the Saudis that we continue to be grateful for the punishment they dish out.
"The relationship has tremendously improved with the United States," Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal told a news conference in Riyadh. "With the government, of course, it is very harmonious, as it ever was. Whether it has returned to the same level as it was before in terms of public opinion [in both countries], that is debatable."
Well, score one for public opinion. It makes sense to distrust the mercenary and distasteful alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia. We protect the repressive kingdom that spawned Osama bin Laden, and most of the 9/11 hijackers, in exchange for the Saudis keeping our fecklessly oil-addicted country lubricated.
Yes, it has stuck deep in the craw of many of us Americans that after 9/11, Washington squandered global goodwill and a huge percentage of our resources invading a country that had nothing to do with al Qaeda, while continuing to pander to this dysfunctional dynasty. After all, Saudi Arabia is believed to have paid Bin Laden's murderous gang millions in protection money in the years before 9/11, and it lavishly funds extremist religious schools throughout the region that preach and teach anti-Western jihad.
"Al Qaeda found fertile fundraising ground in the kingdom," noted the 9/11 commission report in one of its many careful understatements. The fact is, without Saudi Arabia, there would be no al Qaeda today.
Our president loves to use the word "evil" in his speeches, yet throughout his life he and his family have had deep personal, political and financial ties with a country that represents everything the American Revolution stood against: tyranny, religious intolerance, corrupt royalty and popular ignorance. This is a country where women aren't allowed to drive and those who show "too much skin" can be beaten in the street by officially sanctioned mobs of fanatics. A medieval land where newspapers routinely publish the most outlandish anti-Semitic rants. A place where executions are held in public, torture is the norm in prison and the most extreme and expansionist version of Islam is the state religion.
It's hard to see how Saddam Hussein's brutal and secular Iraq was worse than the brutal theocracy run by the House of Saud. Yet one nation we raze and the other we fete. Is it any wonder that much of the world sees the United States as the planet's biggest hypocrite?
As insider books by former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, journalist Bob Woodward and others have recounted, punishing Saudi Arabia in any way for its long ideological and financial support of terrorism was not even on the table in the days after 9/11. Instead, within hours of the planes hitting the towers, the powerful neoconservatives in the White House rushed to use the tragedy as an excuse for a long-dreamed invasion of Iraq.
Meanwhile, after two wars to make the Middle East safe for the Saudis, wars that cost hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives, the price of oil is soaring - up 42% from just a year ago. Good thing we just passed a pork-laden energy bill that will do little to nothing to ease our crushing - and rising - dependence on imported oil. Federal officials project that by 2025, the US will have to import 68% of its oil to meet demand, up from 58% today.
There are those who argue that the best rationale for invading Iraq was to ease our dependence on Saudi Arabia's massive oil fields, which might allow for a more rational or moral relationship. Yet the dark irony is that with Iraq in chaos and its oil flow limited by insurgent attacks and a bungled reconstruction, Saudi Arabia is now more important to the United States than ever.
It's scary, but these gaping contradictions don't seem to trouble our president a whit.
As the drumbeat of devastating terrorist attacks in Baghdad, London and elsewhere continue, Bush prattles on - five times in a speech last Wednesday - about his pyrrhic victories in the "war on terror." This is a sorry rhetorical device that disguises the fact that the forces of Islamic fanaticism in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the world are stronger than ever. ¶ 5:21 PM 0 comments links to this post
Monday, August 08, 2005
Failed $tate
If you haven't gotten into the habit of reading TomDispatch, you should:
...The truth is that Iraq, which was to be only the first stop on a Bush administration (and neocon) military tour of the Middle East, and then assumedly the world, has so far proven the last stop on the global domination line. It has revealed to a startled world the remarkable weakness of the Earth's last superpower, the land which was, Roman-style, supposed to imprint a Pax Americana on the planet. It has ripped up the all-volunteer military and confounded the dreams of the ever angrier neocons.
In the period before 9/11, neocon writers often focused on the spread of a failed-state world, a supposed jungle of unrulable instability out there on the peripheries, one on which only the sole global hyperpower would assumedly have the capability to impose some level of order. Some of those neocons, in their eagerness to whack various regimes in the Middle East -- Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon -- probably didn't care greatly if, as a result, they created failed states throughout the region. Chaos didn't perhaps seem the worst fate for many of those lands (as long as Ariel Sharon's Israel was strengthened in the process).
Little did they know. Now, they have indeed succeeded in creating a failed-state right in the oil-rich heart of the Middle East and the chaos of Iraq has proceeded to suck the American military as well as Bush administration policies and dreams of every sort down with it, creating maneuvering space for countries as disparate as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.
In fact, it's unlikely that the Bush administration -- possibly any American government -- will be able to live comfortably with Iraq as a failed state, its ripples of chaos spreading regionally, even globally. And yet the administration has already demonstrated with definitive thoroughness that it is capable of doing little about the situation -- except continually making it worse.
Someday, withdrawal will come, "permanent" bases or no. Staying is not conceivable and the longer we remain, the worse the situation is likely to be when we depart. But on such subjects and on the matter of taking any responsibility for its actions, this administration is not only shameless, but quite hopeless. It can only create more chaos, foster yet more mad plans for future operations like -- if the latest rumors leaked to ex-CIA official Philip Giraldi of American Conservative magazine are to be believed -- taking out the Iranian nuclear program using... doh!... nuclear weapons. Even Homer Simpson, six beers to the wind, couldn't have come up with that one, but evidently our Vice President has...
Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
Pity Bu$hie can't read without his earpiece, and Big Time Dick is too busy counting the WarBuck$ to feel the pain. Besides, these same plans are coming out as big fluff pieces, distractions planted with the main worry about American troops being used on U.S. soil.
The war plans represent a historic shift for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant to become involved in domestic operations and is legally constrained from engaging in law enforcement. Indeed, defense officials continue to stress that they intend for the troops to play largely a supporting role in homeland emergencies, bolstering police, firefighters and other civilian response groups.
Like it's never happened yet.
Protecting the Homeland was what the National Guard was for. But while they're sweating the heat in Iraq, you might as well bring those DynCorp/ CACI/ Blackwater private contractors home, Big Time. After the next Big Strike run by your Saudi buddies they'll smoke out those terra'ists fighting your plans to drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.
But Englehardt's got it. The Bu$hCo strategeries are all like the demented plans of some stoned Yale fratboys. The harder Big Time hits, the messier it gets.
Fifty years from now they'll seem hilarious to our great-grandchildren.
Assuming, of course, we stop them in time, and there's anyone left in the world to do the laughing. ¶ 9:49 PM 0 comments links to this post
...The truth is that Iraq, which was to be only the first stop on a Bush administration (and neocon) military tour of the Middle East, and then assumedly the world, has so far proven the last stop on the global domination line. It has revealed to a startled world the remarkable weakness of the Earth's last superpower, the land which was, Roman-style, supposed to imprint a Pax Americana on the planet. It has ripped up the all-volunteer military and confounded the dreams of the ever angrier neocons.
In the period before 9/11, neocon writers often focused on the spread of a failed-state world, a supposed jungle of unrulable instability out there on the peripheries, one on which only the sole global hyperpower would assumedly have the capability to impose some level of order. Some of those neocons, in their eagerness to whack various regimes in the Middle East -- Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon -- probably didn't care greatly if, as a result, they created failed states throughout the region. Chaos didn't perhaps seem the worst fate for many of those lands (as long as Ariel Sharon's Israel was strengthened in the process).
Little did they know. Now, they have indeed succeeded in creating a failed-state right in the oil-rich heart of the Middle East and the chaos of Iraq has proceeded to suck the American military as well as Bush administration policies and dreams of every sort down with it, creating maneuvering space for countries as disparate as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.
In fact, it's unlikely that the Bush administration -- possibly any American government -- will be able to live comfortably with Iraq as a failed state, its ripples of chaos spreading regionally, even globally. And yet the administration has already demonstrated with definitive thoroughness that it is capable of doing little about the situation -- except continually making it worse.
Someday, withdrawal will come, "permanent" bases or no. Staying is not conceivable and the longer we remain, the worse the situation is likely to be when we depart. But on such subjects and on the matter of taking any responsibility for its actions, this administration is not only shameless, but quite hopeless. It can only create more chaos, foster yet more mad plans for future operations like -- if the latest rumors leaked to ex-CIA official Philip Giraldi of American Conservative magazine are to be believed -- taking out the Iranian nuclear program using... doh!... nuclear weapons. Even Homer Simpson, six beers to the wind, couldn't have come up with that one, but evidently our Vice President has...
Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
Pity Bu$hie can't read without his earpiece, and Big Time Dick is too busy counting the WarBuck$ to feel the pain. Besides, these same plans are coming out as big fluff pieces, distractions planted with the main worry about American troops being used on U.S. soil.
The war plans represent a historic shift for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant to become involved in domestic operations and is legally constrained from engaging in law enforcement. Indeed, defense officials continue to stress that they intend for the troops to play largely a supporting role in homeland emergencies, bolstering police, firefighters and other civilian response groups.
Like it's never happened yet.
Protecting the Homeland was what the National Guard was for. But while they're sweating the heat in Iraq, you might as well bring those DynCorp/ CACI/ Blackwater private contractors home, Big Time. After the next Big Strike run by your Saudi buddies they'll smoke out those terra'ists fighting your plans to drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.
But Englehardt's got it. The Bu$hCo strategeries are all like the demented plans of some stoned Yale fratboys. The harder Big Time hits, the messier it gets.
Fifty years from now they'll seem hilarious to our great-grandchildren.
Assuming, of course, we stop them in time, and there's anyone left in the world to do the laughing. ¶ 9:49 PM 0 comments links to this post
Combine
The farmer comments on letters:
I have been reading pages and pages about the DNC and the DLC and I want to tell you why I am so opposed to the direction the DLC has taken the Party in the last 20 years.
I have been advocating, writing letters, talking locally within the Democratic Party for 25 frickin' years now. To no avail.
My message is simple: talk about workers' rights. Unionizing, outsourcing (especially outsourcing!), management cheating (we have ALL been cheated out of portions of our wages by innumerable statistical tricks). SPEAK OF THEM and blue-collar men go absolutely NUTS with recognition of the problems! Followed 5 minutes later with the most intense hunger to do something about it all that you have ever witnessed.
I speak of them to my blue-collar friends all the time! All. By. Myself.
Millions of white, male blue-collar workers go around in right-wing talk radio induced ignorance. Each and every one of them thinks that the problems they have with their employer is unique, puzzling and sure to get better after a change of management ...or something.
What I do: I simply point up how these "puzzling anomalies" are actually well-known and ancient un-fair labor practices. With NAMES!
Speed-ups. Wage stagnation policies. Two-tiered wage systems. Worker isolation. These are some of the names of the classic Unfair Labor Practices that my friends experience everyday. But they don't even know that there are such things as Unfair Labor Practices!
I'd say what's going on with the blue collar worker ought to be opening the eyes of the DNC.
Howard Dean likely sees it, but the bitter fact is the American worker has been sold down the river by the organized crime syndicates running the Unions.
Digby had a nice piece on the Illinois Combine of corrupt Democrat and Republican government that Patrick Fitzgerald's been taking down in his spare time, but the DINOcrat-Wrepublican Combine may prove a tougher nut to crack, especially now Fitzgerald's new boss is in Bu$hCo's pocket.
The departure this week of Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who has accepted the post of general counsel at Lockheed Martin, leaves a question mark in the probe into who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Comey was the only official overseeing special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation. With Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recused, department officials say they are still trying to resolve whom Fitzgerald will now report to. Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum is "likely" to be named as acting deputy A.G., a DOJ official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter tells NEWSWEEK. But McCallum may be seen as having his own conflicts: he is an old friend of President Bush's and a member of his Skull and Bones class at Yale.
That's supposed to be in press by the 15th. Let's hope it makes it out. Often such news is amended before it hits the presses.
Bu$hCo is an organized criminal syndicate if there ever was one- and it's in organized crime's and Bu$hCo's best interest to keep the American worker ignorant and in harness.
In another story in the same issue, we see more ex-Agency people saying what John Kerry made public in 2004: the DINOcrat-Wrepublican combine extends all the way to Saudi Arabia, and even to Afghanistan, where they let Osama take an airlift out of Tora Bora.
...in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp." Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."
In his book—titled "Jawbreaker"—the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops."...
Now that's a Combine. ¶ 8:46 PM 0 comments links to this post
I have been reading pages and pages about the DNC and the DLC and I want to tell you why I am so opposed to the direction the DLC has taken the Party in the last 20 years.
I have been advocating, writing letters, talking locally within the Democratic Party for 25 frickin' years now. To no avail.
My message is simple: talk about workers' rights. Unionizing, outsourcing (especially outsourcing!), management cheating (we have ALL been cheated out of portions of our wages by innumerable statistical tricks). SPEAK OF THEM and blue-collar men go absolutely NUTS with recognition of the problems! Followed 5 minutes later with the most intense hunger to do something about it all that you have ever witnessed.
I speak of them to my blue-collar friends all the time! All. By. Myself.
Millions of white, male blue-collar workers go around in right-wing talk radio induced ignorance. Each and every one of them thinks that the problems they have with their employer is unique, puzzling and sure to get better after a change of management ...or something.
What I do: I simply point up how these "puzzling anomalies" are actually well-known and ancient un-fair labor practices. With NAMES!
Speed-ups. Wage stagnation policies. Two-tiered wage systems. Worker isolation. These are some of the names of the classic Unfair Labor Practices that my friends experience everyday. But they don't even know that there are such things as Unfair Labor Practices!
I'd say what's going on with the blue collar worker ought to be opening the eyes of the DNC.
Howard Dean likely sees it, but the bitter fact is the American worker has been sold down the river by the organized crime syndicates running the Unions.
Digby had a nice piece on the Illinois Combine of corrupt Democrat and Republican government that Patrick Fitzgerald's been taking down in his spare time, but the DINOcrat-Wrepublican Combine may prove a tougher nut to crack, especially now Fitzgerald's new boss is in Bu$hCo's pocket.
The departure this week of Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who has accepted the post of general counsel at Lockheed Martin, leaves a question mark in the probe into who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Comey was the only official overseeing special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation. With Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recused, department officials say they are still trying to resolve whom Fitzgerald will now report to. Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum is "likely" to be named as acting deputy A.G., a DOJ official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter tells NEWSWEEK. But McCallum may be seen as having his own conflicts: he is an old friend of President Bush's and a member of his Skull and Bones class at Yale.
That's supposed to be in press by the 15th. Let's hope it makes it out. Often such news is amended before it hits the presses.
Bu$hCo is an organized criminal syndicate if there ever was one- and it's in organized crime's and Bu$hCo's best interest to keep the American worker ignorant and in harness.
In another story in the same issue, we see more ex-Agency people saying what John Kerry made public in 2004: the DINOcrat-Wrepublican combine extends all the way to Saudi Arabia, and even to Afghanistan, where they let Osama take an airlift out of Tora Bora.
...in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp." Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."
In his book—titled "Jawbreaker"—the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops."...
Now that's a Combine. ¶ 8:46 PM 0 comments links to this post
Sunday, August 07, 2005
"What Is It Good For?"
...So the anniversary of the use of the atomic bomb against human beings is being noted this weekend, and as it inevitably will, the discussion has arisen as to whether it was justified. The usual arguments are made for it: that a million servicemen's lives were saved, that Japan would have never surrendered otherwise, that an example had to be made to ensure their will was broken and they never became a threat again, that Truman warned them and they wouldn't listen. That something good came out of it after all. That like the war itself, it was a moral action justified in the cause of eradicating evil. That it was a lesser evil chosen for a greater good.
My head, much like Hiroshima, wants to explode.
There are plenty of sites on the internet and at the library where you can immerse yourself in the facts and fantasies that surrounded the event, and although I believe the bombings were the greatest atrocities my nation ever committed (and I do not believe they saved my father's life), I'm more interested in the idea of a "moral" war. Chris Hedges, in his wonderful book, Losing Moses on the Freeway, calls on his many years as a war reporter, and interview with a Vietnam vet who went on to become a Bishop in the Episcopal church, to answer those who posit the existence of a moral war. After recounting incidents from the war in which the bishop committed acts he would have never thought himself capable, Hedges says this:
"Bishop Packard discovered in the war the capacity we all have for evil. He discovered the darkness that allows us, when the restraints are cut, to commit acts of brutality against the weak and the defenseless, including children. He discovered the ghoulish delight soldiers can take in killing...
"Wars come wrapped in patriotic slogans, call for self-sacrifice and glory. They come wrapped in the claims of divine providence... It is what is right and just. War is always waged...to make the nation and the world a better place, to cleanse evil...
But up close war is a soulless void. War quickly descends to raw barbarity, perversion, pain and an unchecked orgy of death. It is a state where human decency and tenderness are crushed, where those who make war work overtime to destroy love, where all human beings become objects to use or kill. The noise, the stench, the fear, the eviscerated bodies and bloated corpses, the crying wounded spin us into another universe. In this moral void, blessed by institutions at home, the hypocrisy of our social conventions are laid bare. We call for strict adherence to some commandments and laud the purposeful violation of others. Hypocrisy rules. War, for all its horror, has the power to strip away the trivial and the banal, the empty chatter and foolish obsessions. It lets us see."...
Read all of Riggsveda's excellent post.
It turns out the Secretary of State Byrnes and Harry Truman, as well as Stalin, blocked the early surrender Japan. For different reasons, of course.
At the time, many thought the atomic bombing of Japan unneccessary. Like whom?
~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
Ike also warned us all about the Military-Industrial Complex that so many in his- and every American government since- loved so much.
What Is It Good For?
Absolutely Nothing. ¶ 9:14 PM 0 comments links to this post
My head, much like Hiroshima, wants to explode.
There are plenty of sites on the internet and at the library where you can immerse yourself in the facts and fantasies that surrounded the event, and although I believe the bombings were the greatest atrocities my nation ever committed (and I do not believe they saved my father's life), I'm more interested in the idea of a "moral" war. Chris Hedges, in his wonderful book, Losing Moses on the Freeway, calls on his many years as a war reporter, and interview with a Vietnam vet who went on to become a Bishop in the Episcopal church, to answer those who posit the existence of a moral war. After recounting incidents from the war in which the bishop committed acts he would have never thought himself capable, Hedges says this:
"Bishop Packard discovered in the war the capacity we all have for evil. He discovered the darkness that allows us, when the restraints are cut, to commit acts of brutality against the weak and the defenseless, including children. He discovered the ghoulish delight soldiers can take in killing...
"Wars come wrapped in patriotic slogans, call for self-sacrifice and glory. They come wrapped in the claims of divine providence... It is what is right and just. War is always waged...to make the nation and the world a better place, to cleanse evil...
But up close war is a soulless void. War quickly descends to raw barbarity, perversion, pain and an unchecked orgy of death. It is a state where human decency and tenderness are crushed, where those who make war work overtime to destroy love, where all human beings become objects to use or kill. The noise, the stench, the fear, the eviscerated bodies and bloated corpses, the crying wounded spin us into another universe. In this moral void, blessed by institutions at home, the hypocrisy of our social conventions are laid bare. We call for strict adherence to some commandments and laud the purposeful violation of others. Hypocrisy rules. War, for all its horror, has the power to strip away the trivial and the banal, the empty chatter and foolish obsessions. It lets us see."...
Read all of Riggsveda's excellent post.
It turns out the Secretary of State Byrnes and Harry Truman, as well as Stalin, blocked the early surrender Japan. For different reasons, of course.
At the time, many thought the atomic bombing of Japan unneccessary. Like whom?
~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
Ike also warned us all about the Military-Industrial Complex that so many in his- and every American government since- loved so much.
What Is It Good For?
Absolutely Nothing. ¶ 9:14 PM 0 comments links to this post
Saturday, August 06, 2005
The Age of Resource Wars, and Those Who Want Them
Truthout points to an article by Michael T. Clare nested in excellent commentary by Tom Englehardt:
The Chevron ad began: "It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We'll use the next trillion in 30. Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century. One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over..."
I rubbed my eyes and read on:
"What we all do next will determine how well we meet the energy needs of the entire world in this century and beyond. Demand is soaring like never before. As populations grow and economies take off, millions in the developing world are enjoying the benefits of a lifestyle that requires increasing amounts of energy. In fact, some say that in 20 years the world will consume 40% more oil than it does today. At the same time, many of the world's oil and gas fields are maturing. And new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract, physically, economically and even politically. When growing demand meets tighter supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources.
"We can wait until a crisis forces us to do something. Or we can commit to working together, and start by asking the tough questions: How do we meet the energy needs of the developing world and those of industrialized nations? What role will renewables and alternative energies play? What is the best way to protect our environment? How do we accelerate our conservation efforts?..."
I rubbed my eyes again. Most of this ad, part of a new campaign by an oil major, might easily have been taken more or less word for word from any of the pieces Michael Klare -- author of the indispensable Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum -- has been writing for Tomdispatch over these many months. When Klare writes such passages and they prove accurate somewhere down the line, they can perhaps be called "prescient." When the Chevron ad people do the same, what you have is something like a confession reflecting a seismic shift in mainstream consciousness -- and we have to take our seismic shifts where we find them. After all this time, it seems that "peak oil" may suddenly be on some part of Big Oil's agenda, which tells you something about the cul-de-sac into which we've blithely managed to drive our SUVs.
Just to add a little footnote of my own: During last year's fierce hurricane season, after catching endless TV and newspaper coverage of the destruction, and finding hardly a passing mention of the possibility of a link between the weather of that moment (commonly referred to as "bizarre" or "strange") and global warming, I wondered aloud whether our media (like our President) wasn't living in something of a bubble world ( Xtreme weather meets Xtreme media bubble ). Numerous journalists promptly wrote in angrily to suggest that I was off the wall; that, scientifically speaking, such a linkage was not even worthy of being raised in a respectable newspaper.
This year, with the first hurricanes arriving earlier, fiercer, and in record numbers, and hurricane prediction numbers for the rest of the season soaring, the TV news finds itself more regularly switching from scenes of destruction in the south to unnaturally melting vistas in the north, and its reporters regularly wondering on air about global warming tie-ins. And when, in a study which first appeared in the British science magazine Nature, Kerry Emanuel, an MIT ocean climatologist, suggested that the rise in hurricane intensity might indeed be linked to global warming, the news was not relegated to science journals, anxious insurance company publications, or on-line environmental websites. It could be found in USA Today ("Hurricanes have grown fiercer in recent decades, spurred by global warming, and even tougher storms are likely on the way, a researcher predicts...") and a wide range of other major publications. This too represents at least a modestly seismic shift worth noting...
Tom goes on to reproduce Klare's article, parts of which are posted here:
...The concept of a "twilight" of petroleum derives from what is known about the global supply and demand equation. Energy experts have long acknowledged that the global production of oil will someday reach a moment of maximum (or "peak") daily output, followed by an increasingly sharp drop in supply. But while the basic concept of peak oil has gained substantial worldwide acceptance, there is still much confusion about its actual character. Many people who express familiarity with the concept tend to view peak oil as a sharp pinnacle, with global output rising to the summit one month and dropping sharply the next; and looking back from a hundred years hence, things might actually appear this way. But for those of us embedded in this moment of time, peak oil will be experienced as something more like a rocky plateau -- an extended period of time, perhaps several decades in length, during which global oil production will remain at or near current levels but will fail to achieve the elevated output deemed necessary to satisfy future world demand. The result will be perennially high prices, intense international competition for available supplies, and periodic shortages caused by political and social unrest in the producing countries...
This new era will not begin with a single, clearly defined incident, but rather with a series of events suggesting the transition from a period of relative abundance to a time of persistent scarcity. These events will take both economic and political form: on the one hand, rising energy prices and contracting supplies; on the other, more diplomatic crises and military assertiveness...
"We've entered a new era of oil prices," said energy expert Daniel Yergin in an April interview with Time Magazine. If markets remain as tight as they are at present, "you'll see a lot more volatility, and you could see prices spike up as high as $65 to $80."
Analysts at Goldman Sachs are even more pessimistic, suggesting that oil could reach as high as $105 a barrel in the near future...
...On July 8, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman told reporters from the Christian Science Monitor that the era of cheap and abundant petroleum may now be over. "For the first time in my lifetime," he declared, major oil suppliers like Saudi Arabia "are right at their ragged edge" in their ability to satisfy rising world demand for energy...
...Eventually, of course, global oil production will not merely be stagnant, as during the Twilight Era, but will begin a gradual, irreversible decline, leading to the end of the Petroleum Age altogether. Just how difficult and dangerous the Twilight Era proves to be, and just how quickly it will come to an end, will depend on one key factor: How quickly we move to reduce our reliance on petroleum as a major source of our energy and begin the transition to alternative fuels. This transition cannot be avoided. It will come whether we are prepared for it or not. The only way we can avert its most painful features is by moving swiftly to lay the foundations for a post-petroleum economy.
It's worthwhile reading the whole thing.
On another front, there are those having a Big Time surfing the downside of the oil supply curve:
President Bush might not have turned up personally in Riyadh yesterday but he certainly sent a high-powered delegation to pay his respects to the new leader of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah.
The American turnout, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, former President George H. W. Bush, and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, was the latest signal that relations between the two countries have thawed since the strains of 9/11...
The warmer relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States were on display last April, when Crown Prince Abdullah - who succeeded his half brother, Fahd, on Monday as king - visited President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex. As a sign of public diplomacy, and personal bonds, they kissed on the cheek and held hands.
Yesterday represented a kind of reunion for the Americans who led the first gulf war in 1991. The United States delegation met with King Abdullah at the monarch's farm near Riyadh. In any event, the group remained in the country less than four hours.
"As the world's largest producer and as the world's largest consumer, our two countries have a special relationship," Samuel W. Bodman, the secretary of energy, said earlier this year after meeting in Washington with his Saudi counterpart, Ali al-Naimi. "We are, at least in certain respects, partners."
Even the contentious issue of high oil prices has been smoothly swept under the rug. Over the last two years, crude oil prices have more than doubled, and closed yesterday at a record $62.31, up 1.5 percent on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The administration has acknowledged that Saudi Arabia has been doing all it can to step up production, and the current spike was fed by higher demand, not curbs from suppliers.
"The Saudis aren't feeling any pressure from the high prices," said Thomas W. Lippman, a scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington. "People are waving money at them for something they are going to produce anyway. So why not take it?"
An Ownership Society, indeed.
And now that we've done the dirty work and eliminated Saudi Arabia's main competitor in Iraq- not to mention a nation full of godless seculars- I'm sure King Abdullah, Poppy, and Big Time Dick had some strategery to go over while Junior's sipping whiskey sours in Crawford.
Who to take out next? The godless Syrians, or the Shiite competitors to the Wahhabis for the Mantle of Islamic Righteousness? We all know what Big Time wants: whoever has the most oil to plunder, and that would be Iran. ¶ 5:58 PM 1 comments links to this post
The Chevron ad began: "It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We'll use the next trillion in 30. Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century. One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over..."
I rubbed my eyes and read on:
"What we all do next will determine how well we meet the energy needs of the entire world in this century and beyond. Demand is soaring like never before. As populations grow and economies take off, millions in the developing world are enjoying the benefits of a lifestyle that requires increasing amounts of energy. In fact, some say that in 20 years the world will consume 40% more oil than it does today. At the same time, many of the world's oil and gas fields are maturing. And new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract, physically, economically and even politically. When growing demand meets tighter supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources.
"We can wait until a crisis forces us to do something. Or we can commit to working together, and start by asking the tough questions: How do we meet the energy needs of the developing world and those of industrialized nations? What role will renewables and alternative energies play? What is the best way to protect our environment? How do we accelerate our conservation efforts?..."
I rubbed my eyes again. Most of this ad, part of a new campaign by an oil major, might easily have been taken more or less word for word from any of the pieces Michael Klare -- author of the indispensable Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum -- has been writing for Tomdispatch over these many months. When Klare writes such passages and they prove accurate somewhere down the line, they can perhaps be called "prescient." When the Chevron ad people do the same, what you have is something like a confession reflecting a seismic shift in mainstream consciousness -- and we have to take our seismic shifts where we find them. After all this time, it seems that "peak oil" may suddenly be on some part of Big Oil's agenda, which tells you something about the cul-de-sac into which we've blithely managed to drive our SUVs.
Just to add a little footnote of my own: During last year's fierce hurricane season, after catching endless TV and newspaper coverage of the destruction, and finding hardly a passing mention of the possibility of a link between the weather of that moment (commonly referred to as "bizarre" or "strange") and global warming, I wondered aloud whether our media (like our President) wasn't living in something of a bubble world ( Xtreme weather meets Xtreme media bubble ). Numerous journalists promptly wrote in angrily to suggest that I was off the wall; that, scientifically speaking, such a linkage was not even worthy of being raised in a respectable newspaper.
This year, with the first hurricanes arriving earlier, fiercer, and in record numbers, and hurricane prediction numbers for the rest of the season soaring, the TV news finds itself more regularly switching from scenes of destruction in the south to unnaturally melting vistas in the north, and its reporters regularly wondering on air about global warming tie-ins. And when, in a study which first appeared in the British science magazine Nature, Kerry Emanuel, an MIT ocean climatologist, suggested that the rise in hurricane intensity might indeed be linked to global warming, the news was not relegated to science journals, anxious insurance company publications, or on-line environmental websites. It could be found in USA Today ("Hurricanes have grown fiercer in recent decades, spurred by global warming, and even tougher storms are likely on the way, a researcher predicts...") and a wide range of other major publications. This too represents at least a modestly seismic shift worth noting...
Tom goes on to reproduce Klare's article, parts of which are posted here:
...The concept of a "twilight" of petroleum derives from what is known about the global supply and demand equation. Energy experts have long acknowledged that the global production of oil will someday reach a moment of maximum (or "peak") daily output, followed by an increasingly sharp drop in supply. But while the basic concept of peak oil has gained substantial worldwide acceptance, there is still much confusion about its actual character. Many people who express familiarity with the concept tend to view peak oil as a sharp pinnacle, with global output rising to the summit one month and dropping sharply the next; and looking back from a hundred years hence, things might actually appear this way. But for those of us embedded in this moment of time, peak oil will be experienced as something more like a rocky plateau -- an extended period of time, perhaps several decades in length, during which global oil production will remain at or near current levels but will fail to achieve the elevated output deemed necessary to satisfy future world demand. The result will be perennially high prices, intense international competition for available supplies, and periodic shortages caused by political and social unrest in the producing countries...
This new era will not begin with a single, clearly defined incident, but rather with a series of events suggesting the transition from a period of relative abundance to a time of persistent scarcity. These events will take both economic and political form: on the one hand, rising energy prices and contracting supplies; on the other, more diplomatic crises and military assertiveness...
"We've entered a new era of oil prices," said energy expert Daniel Yergin in an April interview with Time Magazine. If markets remain as tight as they are at present, "you'll see a lot more volatility, and you could see prices spike up as high as $65 to $80."
Analysts at Goldman Sachs are even more pessimistic, suggesting that oil could reach as high as $105 a barrel in the near future...
...On July 8, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman told reporters from the Christian Science Monitor that the era of cheap and abundant petroleum may now be over. "For the first time in my lifetime," he declared, major oil suppliers like Saudi Arabia "are right at their ragged edge" in their ability to satisfy rising world demand for energy...
...Eventually, of course, global oil production will not merely be stagnant, as during the Twilight Era, but will begin a gradual, irreversible decline, leading to the end of the Petroleum Age altogether. Just how difficult and dangerous the Twilight Era proves to be, and just how quickly it will come to an end, will depend on one key factor: How quickly we move to reduce our reliance on petroleum as a major source of our energy and begin the transition to alternative fuels. This transition cannot be avoided. It will come whether we are prepared for it or not. The only way we can avert its most painful features is by moving swiftly to lay the foundations for a post-petroleum economy.
It's worthwhile reading the whole thing.
On another front, there are those having a Big Time surfing the downside of the oil supply curve:
President Bush might not have turned up personally in Riyadh yesterday but he certainly sent a high-powered delegation to pay his respects to the new leader of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah.
The American turnout, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, former President George H. W. Bush, and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, was the latest signal that relations between the two countries have thawed since the strains of 9/11...
The warmer relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States were on display last April, when Crown Prince Abdullah - who succeeded his half brother, Fahd, on Monday as king - visited President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex. As a sign of public diplomacy, and personal bonds, they kissed on the cheek and held hands.
Yesterday represented a kind of reunion for the Americans who led the first gulf war in 1991. The United States delegation met with King Abdullah at the monarch's farm near Riyadh. In any event, the group remained in the country less than four hours.
"As the world's largest producer and as the world's largest consumer, our two countries have a special relationship," Samuel W. Bodman, the secretary of energy, said earlier this year after meeting in Washington with his Saudi counterpart, Ali al-Naimi. "We are, at least in certain respects, partners."
Even the contentious issue of high oil prices has been smoothly swept under the rug. Over the last two years, crude oil prices have more than doubled, and closed yesterday at a record $62.31, up 1.5 percent on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The administration has acknowledged that Saudi Arabia has been doing all it can to step up production, and the current spike was fed by higher demand, not curbs from suppliers.
"The Saudis aren't feeling any pressure from the high prices," said Thomas W. Lippman, a scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington. "People are waving money at them for something they are going to produce anyway. So why not take it?"
An Ownership Society, indeed.
And now that we've done the dirty work and eliminated Saudi Arabia's main competitor in Iraq- not to mention a nation full of godless seculars- I'm sure King Abdullah, Poppy, and Big Time Dick had some strategery to go over while Junior's sipping whiskey sours in Crawford.
Who to take out next? The godless Syrians, or the Shiite competitors to the Wahhabis for the Mantle of Islamic Righteousness? We all know what Big Time wants: whoever has the most oil to plunder, and that would be Iran. ¶ 5:58 PM 1 comments links to this post
Where Daddy WarBuck$ Spends Your Money
With thanks and a tip o' the tinfoil hat to granny:
In the latest of a string of buyouts of capital markets technology providers and processors, SS&C Technologies is selling itself for $941 million to Sunshine Acquisition Corp., an affiliate of private equity powerhouse Carlyle Group...
SS&C sells its software, which ranges from order management to portfolio accounting, to insurance companies, banks and other commercial lenders, hedge funds, asset managers and pension funds. The company has been especially focused on the fast-growing hedge fund sector.
"Financial Interactive's FundRunner product provides the hedge fund market with a powerful relationship management system and fund-profiling infrastructure," said William Stone, SS&C's CEO, referring to an SS&C subsidiary in a conference call late last week.
"We get to see an awful lot of things as far as the reporting requirements for master feeder funds and incentive fee calculations and different partnership processes," added Stone. "We are one of the only firms that do both aggregation and layering. Most of our competitors state that they only want to do aggregation, but generally it's because it's easier and they don't have the software to process it."
Stone, who started SS&C in 1986, has engineered a series of acquisitions, the largest of which was a $159 million March purchase of Canadian software firm Financial Models Co. Two months later, SS&C announced a deal to buy Financial Interactive for about $13 million. In February of this year, SS&C bought the membership interests in Eisnerfast, which offers back-office accounting and administration services to hedge funds and private equity funds. Financial Models, in turn, brought a complementary client base in traditional equity funds.
SS&C also has built a substantial presence in the derivatives arena with Debt & Derivatives, a product it inherited with the acquisition of the Savid Group in April 1998, and TradeThru, which it acquired in the takeover of OMR Systems last year...
What are the Carlyle Kids doing with the hundreds of billions they're making on Bu$hCo's War on Terra?
Why, betting on the market with it, of course, and trying to develop better software to make their betting better.
What other way to make large sums of money disappear from view? ¶ 10:35 AM 0 comments links to this post
In the latest of a string of buyouts of capital markets technology providers and processors, SS&C Technologies is selling itself for $941 million to Sunshine Acquisition Corp., an affiliate of private equity powerhouse Carlyle Group...
SS&C sells its software, which ranges from order management to portfolio accounting, to insurance companies, banks and other commercial lenders, hedge funds, asset managers and pension funds. The company has been especially focused on the fast-growing hedge fund sector.
"Financial Interactive's FundRunner product provides the hedge fund market with a powerful relationship management system and fund-profiling infrastructure," said William Stone, SS&C's CEO, referring to an SS&C subsidiary in a conference call late last week.
"We get to see an awful lot of things as far as the reporting requirements for master feeder funds and incentive fee calculations and different partnership processes," added Stone. "We are one of the only firms that do both aggregation and layering. Most of our competitors state that they only want to do aggregation, but generally it's because it's easier and they don't have the software to process it."
Stone, who started SS&C in 1986, has engineered a series of acquisitions, the largest of which was a $159 million March purchase of Canadian software firm Financial Models Co. Two months later, SS&C announced a deal to buy Financial Interactive for about $13 million. In February of this year, SS&C bought the membership interests in Eisnerfast, which offers back-office accounting and administration services to hedge funds and private equity funds. Financial Models, in turn, brought a complementary client base in traditional equity funds.
SS&C also has built a substantial presence in the derivatives arena with Debt & Derivatives, a product it inherited with the acquisition of the Savid Group in April 1998, and TradeThru, which it acquired in the takeover of OMR Systems last year...
What are the Carlyle Kids doing with the hundreds of billions they're making on Bu$hCo's War on Terra?
Why, betting on the market with it, of course, and trying to develop better software to make their betting better.
What other way to make large sums of money disappear from view? ¶ 10:35 AM 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Bu$hCo Looks for Another Blank Check
According to Ray McGovern :
Whatever plans Dick Cheney and his neo-conservatives may have had to conjure up a nuclear threat from Iran as "justification" for military action have been sharply undercut by some timely leaks to the Washington Post. In a redux of President George W. Bush's spin on the "grave and growing" danger from Iraq, Cheney protégé and newly appointed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton is on record warning that Iranian "deception" must not be allowed to continue much longer: "It will be too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons."
Not for ten more years, report sources close to the U.S. intelligence community in yesterday's lead story in the Post. Several government officials with access to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran have told journalist Dafna Linzer of its main judgments. By doing so, Linzer's sources seem determined not to sit idly by as our country is misled once again into a war favored only by "neo-conservatives" in Washington and their counterparts in the far-right Likud government in Israel who share a vision of remaking the map of the Middle East.
Linzer has shown commendable tenacity on Iran and the nuclear issue-tenacity highly unusual by today's lax media standards. According to Linzer's sources, the National Intelligence Estimate states that, while there are credible signs that the Iranian military is doing some clandestine work, there is no information to connect that work directly to a nuclear weapons program. Moreover, U.N. inspectors have found no convincing proof that Iran is conducting a nuclear weapons program or that it has a nuclear warhead design.
The NIE concludes that Iran will not be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon until "early to mid-next decade," with general consensus among intelligence analysts that 2015 would actually be the earliest...
The exposure of these intelligence judgments is extremely well timed. It comes amid rumors that Vice President Cheney's office has ordered up contingency plans for a large-scale air assault on Iran using not only conventional weapons but also tactical nuclear weapons to take out hardened underground nuclear facilities. The action would be framed as a response to a terrorist act-whether sponsored by Iran or not-on the United States. According to former CIA operative Philip Giraldi, senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are appalled that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked attack but, sadly, no one wants to jeopardize a career by posing objections... ( Thanks to Truthout for the link. )
It's nice to see despite the best efforts of Goss that not everyone in the Agency belongs to the Company. They're playing Spy vs. Spy in Washington. The problem is we have met the enemy, and he is us.
You might ask what would be the point of risking your career by posing objections. If you did, you'd be out on your ass in a moment. No, I commend the Agency people and the real American soldiers at the D. o'D. who keep their lips buttoned in front of the Company people, but do their best to try to inform the main$tream media who will listen (and the progressive blogsphere) about what treasonous nonsense Cheneyburton and Bu$hCo are planning.
Still, the harder it is for Big Time Dick to sell his shiny new War in Iran, the closer we are to a major terrorist event here at home.
If someone lights a nuke on American soil, look for a mushroom cloud over Tehran, and Company men taking Iranian oilfields.
No matter who actually does it.
But does it matter who does it? We know precisely who profits from it. The real question is how far does the secret war between the Agency and the Company have to go before things get really out of hand. ¶ 9:25 PM 1 comments links to this post
Whatever plans Dick Cheney and his neo-conservatives may have had to conjure up a nuclear threat from Iran as "justification" for military action have been sharply undercut by some timely leaks to the Washington Post. In a redux of President George W. Bush's spin on the "grave and growing" danger from Iraq, Cheney protégé and newly appointed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton is on record warning that Iranian "deception" must not be allowed to continue much longer: "It will be too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons."
Not for ten more years, report sources close to the U.S. intelligence community in yesterday's lead story in the Post. Several government officials with access to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran have told journalist Dafna Linzer of its main judgments. By doing so, Linzer's sources seem determined not to sit idly by as our country is misled once again into a war favored only by "neo-conservatives" in Washington and their counterparts in the far-right Likud government in Israel who share a vision of remaking the map of the Middle East.
Linzer has shown commendable tenacity on Iran and the nuclear issue-tenacity highly unusual by today's lax media standards. According to Linzer's sources, the National Intelligence Estimate states that, while there are credible signs that the Iranian military is doing some clandestine work, there is no information to connect that work directly to a nuclear weapons program. Moreover, U.N. inspectors have found no convincing proof that Iran is conducting a nuclear weapons program or that it has a nuclear warhead design.
The NIE concludes that Iran will not be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon until "early to mid-next decade," with general consensus among intelligence analysts that 2015 would actually be the earliest...
The exposure of these intelligence judgments is extremely well timed. It comes amid rumors that Vice President Cheney's office has ordered up contingency plans for a large-scale air assault on Iran using not only conventional weapons but also tactical nuclear weapons to take out hardened underground nuclear facilities. The action would be framed as a response to a terrorist act-whether sponsored by Iran or not-on the United States. According to former CIA operative Philip Giraldi, senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are appalled that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked attack but, sadly, no one wants to jeopardize a career by posing objections... ( Thanks to Truthout for the link. )
It's nice to see despite the best efforts of Goss that not everyone in the Agency belongs to the Company. They're playing Spy vs. Spy in Washington. The problem is we have met the enemy, and he is us.
You might ask what would be the point of risking your career by posing objections. If you did, you'd be out on your ass in a moment. No, I commend the Agency people and the real American soldiers at the D. o'D. who keep their lips buttoned in front of the Company people, but do their best to try to inform the main$tream media who will listen (and the progressive blogsphere) about what treasonous nonsense Cheneyburton and Bu$hCo are planning.
Still, the harder it is for Big Time Dick to sell his shiny new War in Iran, the closer we are to a major terrorist event here at home.
If someone lights a nuke on American soil, look for a mushroom cloud over Tehran, and Company men taking Iranian oilfields.
No matter who actually does it.
But does it matter who does it? We know precisely who profits from it. The real question is how far does the secret war between the Agency and the Company have to go before things get really out of hand. ¶ 9:25 PM 1 comments links to this post
A Future So Bright, Ya Gotta Wear Pork Barrel Shades
Billmon points to this example of our government making your tax dollars work for them.
And providing future employment for the D.o'D. as well. From the Washington Post:
A provision tucked into the 1,724-page energy bill that Congress is poised to enact today would ease export restrictions on bomb-grade uranium, a lucrative victory for a Canadian medical manufacturer and its well-wired Washington lobbyists.
The Burr Amendment -- named for its sponsor, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) -- would reverse a 13-year-old U.S. policy banning exports of weapons-grade uranium unless the recipients agree to start converting their reactors to use less-dangerous uranium. The Senate rejected the measure last month after critics in both parties warned that it would accelerate the worldwide proliferation of nuclear materials, but a House-Senate conference committee agreed this week to include it in the final bill.
The amendment is just one of dozens of obscure special-interest provisions included in the energy bill, which the House passed yesterday and the Senate is expected to pass today. The amendment's supporters say it will ensure a steady supply of medical isotopes, which are used to diagnose and treat 14 million Americans every year, including patients afflicted with cancer, heart disease and epilepsy. But it will also be a boon to the world's leading producer of those isotopes, an Ottawa-based company called MDS Nordion, which would otherwise have to spend millions of dollars to retrofit its reactor for low-grade uranium.
Critics say the Burr Amendment will not only provide special perks for one foreign company but also encourage the proliferation that politicians in both parties have identified as a dire threat to national security in the post-Sept. 11 world...
Since 2003, the Alpine Group's main energy lobbyists -- James D. Massie, Richard C. White and Rhod Shaw -- have contributed more than $25,000 to members of the energy committees, and nuclear medicine trade groups have donated tens of thousands more. They have also drummed up support from doctors; the computer signature on one letter to a senator, purportedly written by a radiologist, was actually White's...
Billmon goes on to say:
...I learned that weapons-grade uranium is the nuclear feedstock, so to speak, for a number of medical isotopes.
I learned that the companies that make those isotopes operate their own private reactors, using uranium purchased from the U.S. government.
And I learned that those reactors are not, repeat not, subject to the same security restrictions as government-owned megadeath factories:
"By contrast, Nordion already has enough highly enriched uranium to make one or two Hiroshima-size bombs, and its factories do not have to meet the same security standards as Energy Department facilities."
Nordion is the Canadian company that purchased the export loophole in the energy bill -- which, under the circumstances, we might reasonably call the "Arm Osama Amendment."...
I realize unbridled corruption in the U.S. Senate is one of those 19th century values the Republicans are determined to restore to our great nation -- no matter what the cost. But even I'm finding it incredible that they could really go this far: auctioning the right to buy weapons-grade uranium from the U.S. government off to the highest bidder. Instead of trying to get the nuclear genie back in his bottle, they want to give him his own PAC.
This really is getting into the hazy area between corruption and treason. To borrow the apocryphal Lenin quotation, Sen. Barr and his colleagues are practically selling Al Qaeda the rope with which to hang us. Or at least making it easier for someone else to do the selling.
It only reinforces something I've suspected for awhile: If Bin Ladin really wanted to destroy America, he'd forget about the terrorist cells and the hijackings and just hire himself an extremely well-connected Washington lobbying firm. If he was willing to spread enough cash around Capitol Hill, I bet he could have us nuking ourselves, Milo Minderbinder style...
Good point, that. But the Saudi Royals know that as much as they detest us, they love the money they can make off of us even more. Besides, they've had lobbyists and continue to lobby.
if the Saudi and Carlyle connections to father and son Bush don’t raise alarms, then the whole history of the Bush Administration’s dealings with the Taliban should. The primary focus of these dealings was the renewal of a planned pipeline from the natural gas rich fields of Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to other Asian markets. Behind this whole operation was the Unocal company. Among the advisors to Unocal was Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-American academic, who in addition to being an advisor to Unocal in the 1990’s was also part of the foreign policy think-tanks that included Frank Carlucci. Khalilzad joined the Taliban’s lobbyist, Laila Helms (a relative of former CIA director, Richard Helms) in direct talks between representatives of the Taliban and the Bush Administration right up through July of 2001. When the Taliban broke off the talks, refusing the pipeline offers, the Bush Administration made known its efforts to strike back at the Taliban as early as August of 2001.
Ostensibly attacking the Taliban for its refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden, the Bush Administration refused any alternatives to the military option. During the whole military operation, the Pentagon has tried to establish security points that reflect the route of the proposed pipeline. Moreover, Harmid Karzai, the hand-picked US leader of Afghanistan, was, at one time, also a consultant for Unocal. Along with Khalilzad, who now is the US representative to Afghanistan’s interim government, Karzai is effectuating plans for the pipeline...
...In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 a number of news stories appeared concerning investments in “put” options in United and American Airlines. Put options are shares that are bets on falling market prices for specific stocks. In the week before September 11 put options in United and American Airlines went through a furious and unprecedented spasm of investment. In addition put options for Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, two of the biggest occupants of the World Trade Center, also saw abnormal activity. Most of the investments in these put options originated in Germany through the Deutsche Bank. Deutshce Bank had earlier acquired Banker’s Trust, a investment banking firm whose Vice Chairman in charge of “private client relations” in the late 1990’s was A. B. “Buzzy” Krongard. In March of 2001, Krongard was appointed Executive Director of the CIA.
Certainly, the CIA has a history of laundering money and dealings with shady investment characters. What becomes particularly relevant in the lead-up to 9/11 is the August CIA briefing of Bush concerning the potential threat of attacks by bin Laden using hijacked planes on certain sites, such as the Pentagon and World Trade Center, and the fact that the CIA had bugging equipment on bin Laden messages and international banking operations. Although no one has apparently claimed the money from the put options, questions remain about Krongard and the CIA’s involvement...
Now that's free enterprise. ¶ 7:29 AM 0 comments links to this post
And providing future employment for the D.o'D. as well. From the Washington Post:
A provision tucked into the 1,724-page energy bill that Congress is poised to enact today would ease export restrictions on bomb-grade uranium, a lucrative victory for a Canadian medical manufacturer and its well-wired Washington lobbyists.
The Burr Amendment -- named for its sponsor, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) -- would reverse a 13-year-old U.S. policy banning exports of weapons-grade uranium unless the recipients agree to start converting their reactors to use less-dangerous uranium. The Senate rejected the measure last month after critics in both parties warned that it would accelerate the worldwide proliferation of nuclear materials, but a House-Senate conference committee agreed this week to include it in the final bill.
The amendment is just one of dozens of obscure special-interest provisions included in the energy bill, which the House passed yesterday and the Senate is expected to pass today. The amendment's supporters say it will ensure a steady supply of medical isotopes, which are used to diagnose and treat 14 million Americans every year, including patients afflicted with cancer, heart disease and epilepsy. But it will also be a boon to the world's leading producer of those isotopes, an Ottawa-based company called MDS Nordion, which would otherwise have to spend millions of dollars to retrofit its reactor for low-grade uranium.
Critics say the Burr Amendment will not only provide special perks for one foreign company but also encourage the proliferation that politicians in both parties have identified as a dire threat to national security in the post-Sept. 11 world...
Since 2003, the Alpine Group's main energy lobbyists -- James D. Massie, Richard C. White and Rhod Shaw -- have contributed more than $25,000 to members of the energy committees, and nuclear medicine trade groups have donated tens of thousands more. They have also drummed up support from doctors; the computer signature on one letter to a senator, purportedly written by a radiologist, was actually White's...
Billmon goes on to say:
...I learned that weapons-grade uranium is the nuclear feedstock, so to speak, for a number of medical isotopes.
I learned that the companies that make those isotopes operate their own private reactors, using uranium purchased from the U.S. government.
And I learned that those reactors are not, repeat not, subject to the same security restrictions as government-owned megadeath factories:
"By contrast, Nordion already has enough highly enriched uranium to make one or two Hiroshima-size bombs, and its factories do not have to meet the same security standards as Energy Department facilities."
Nordion is the Canadian company that purchased the export loophole in the energy bill -- which, under the circumstances, we might reasonably call the "Arm Osama Amendment."...
I realize unbridled corruption in the U.S. Senate is one of those 19th century values the Republicans are determined to restore to our great nation -- no matter what the cost. But even I'm finding it incredible that they could really go this far: auctioning the right to buy weapons-grade uranium from the U.S. government off to the highest bidder. Instead of trying to get the nuclear genie back in his bottle, they want to give him his own PAC.
This really is getting into the hazy area between corruption and treason. To borrow the apocryphal Lenin quotation, Sen. Barr and his colleagues are practically selling Al Qaeda the rope with which to hang us. Or at least making it easier for someone else to do the selling.
It only reinforces something I've suspected for awhile: If Bin Ladin really wanted to destroy America, he'd forget about the terrorist cells and the hijackings and just hire himself an extremely well-connected Washington lobbying firm. If he was willing to spread enough cash around Capitol Hill, I bet he could have us nuking ourselves, Milo Minderbinder style...
Good point, that. But the Saudi Royals know that as much as they detest us, they love the money they can make off of us even more. Besides, they've had lobbyists and continue to lobby.
if the Saudi and Carlyle connections to father and son Bush don’t raise alarms, then the whole history of the Bush Administration’s dealings with the Taliban should. The primary focus of these dealings was the renewal of a planned pipeline from the natural gas rich fields of Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to other Asian markets. Behind this whole operation was the Unocal company. Among the advisors to Unocal was Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-American academic, who in addition to being an advisor to Unocal in the 1990’s was also part of the foreign policy think-tanks that included Frank Carlucci. Khalilzad joined the Taliban’s lobbyist, Laila Helms (a relative of former CIA director, Richard Helms) in direct talks between representatives of the Taliban and the Bush Administration right up through July of 2001. When the Taliban broke off the talks, refusing the pipeline offers, the Bush Administration made known its efforts to strike back at the Taliban as early as August of 2001.
Ostensibly attacking the Taliban for its refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden, the Bush Administration refused any alternatives to the military option. During the whole military operation, the Pentagon has tried to establish security points that reflect the route of the proposed pipeline. Moreover, Harmid Karzai, the hand-picked US leader of Afghanistan, was, at one time, also a consultant for Unocal. Along with Khalilzad, who now is the US representative to Afghanistan’s interim government, Karzai is effectuating plans for the pipeline...
...In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 a number of news stories appeared concerning investments in “put” options in United and American Airlines. Put options are shares that are bets on falling market prices for specific stocks. In the week before September 11 put options in United and American Airlines went through a furious and unprecedented spasm of investment. In addition put options for Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, two of the biggest occupants of the World Trade Center, also saw abnormal activity. Most of the investments in these put options originated in Germany through the Deutsche Bank. Deutshce Bank had earlier acquired Banker’s Trust, a investment banking firm whose Vice Chairman in charge of “private client relations” in the late 1990’s was A. B. “Buzzy” Krongard. In March of 2001, Krongard was appointed Executive Director of the CIA.
Certainly, the CIA has a history of laundering money and dealings with shady investment characters. What becomes particularly relevant in the lead-up to 9/11 is the August CIA briefing of Bush concerning the potential threat of attacks by bin Laden using hijacked planes on certain sites, such as the Pentagon and World Trade Center, and the fact that the CIA had bugging equipment on bin Laden messages and international banking operations. Although no one has apparently claimed the money from the put options, questions remain about Krongard and the CIA’s involvement...
Now that's free enterprise. ¶ 7:29 AM 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
$ecurity Risks: Ya Gotta Spend Money to Make Money
Federal authorities arrested 582 alleged gang members over a two-week period, officials said Monday, targeting an estimated 80 violent groups they say have spawned street crimes across the country.
Investigators picked up most of the offenders between July 16 and July 28 on immigration violations for being in the United States illegally. Seventy-six face criminal charges, ranging from illegal possession of a firearm to holding fraudulent documents.
"For too long, these gangs have gone unchecked _ flouting all laws and demonstrating a blatant disregard for public safety," Chertoff said in announcing the arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. ICE is an arm of the Homeland Security Department.
Investigators targeted members in 27 states of what they considered to be the most violent street gangs, including Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13; Sure Inos; the 18th Street Gang; Latin Kings; the Mexican Mafia; Border Brothers; Brown Pride and numerous others.
Many of the arrests came in large urban areas, including 61 in Boston, 28 in Denver, and 23 each in Los Angeles and Detroit. But even smaller cities have been infiltrated by the gangs, the arrests showed, including 42 in Birmingham, Ala., and one each in Grand Rapids, Mich.; Sioux Falls, S.D.; and North Platte, Neb...
More than half of them have been members of MS-13, a street gang rooted in Central America where members have been known to behead enemies and attack with grenades and machetes. Federal officials estimate between 8,000 and 10,000 MS-13 members live in 31 states _ the majority of them in the country illegally.
"We're just getting started," said ICE investigations chief Marcy Forman.
I'm sure.
There's a history here (in the multiverse everything has a history).
MS-13 members are the sons of immigrants from El Salvador and other Central American countries that were forced to flee because of the CIA instigated war during the Reagan Administration that completely destroyed the physical, economic, social, religious and cultural infrastructure of the region. MS-13 was founded in Los Angeles by the offspring of the immigrants for protection.
You can find items like this out there: Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.
Terrorists, bombs smuggled across Mexico border by MS-13 gangsters.
The wingnuts are all a-twitter about suitcase nukes being smuggled across the border by MS-13. No links, because I have this thing about promoting hate and ignorance. You know how to find that if you want it.
There might be suitcase nukes in this country, but to my knowledge the smallest nukes Pakistan or North Korea can make are about the size of an SUV. If there are suitcase nukes- and according to the D.o'D. and international treaties we don't even have them- they've been produced by a massively funded black budget somewhere. Of course I can't imagine what country would be paranoid enough to produce such an evil thing.
Much less hand them to a terrorist organization that they, themselves, created as an excuse to have somebody to play their Game with. ¶ 7:27 AM 0 comments links to this post
Investigators picked up most of the offenders between July 16 and July 28 on immigration violations for being in the United States illegally. Seventy-six face criminal charges, ranging from illegal possession of a firearm to holding fraudulent documents.
"For too long, these gangs have gone unchecked _ flouting all laws and demonstrating a blatant disregard for public safety," Chertoff said in announcing the arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. ICE is an arm of the Homeland Security Department.
Investigators targeted members in 27 states of what they considered to be the most violent street gangs, including Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13; Sure Inos; the 18th Street Gang; Latin Kings; the Mexican Mafia; Border Brothers; Brown Pride and numerous others.
Many of the arrests came in large urban areas, including 61 in Boston, 28 in Denver, and 23 each in Los Angeles and Detroit. But even smaller cities have been infiltrated by the gangs, the arrests showed, including 42 in Birmingham, Ala., and one each in Grand Rapids, Mich.; Sioux Falls, S.D.; and North Platte, Neb...
More than half of them have been members of MS-13, a street gang rooted in Central America where members have been known to behead enemies and attack with grenades and machetes. Federal officials estimate between 8,000 and 10,000 MS-13 members live in 31 states _ the majority of them in the country illegally.
"We're just getting started," said ICE investigations chief Marcy Forman.
I'm sure.
There's a history here (in the multiverse everything has a history).
MS-13 members are the sons of immigrants from El Salvador and other Central American countries that were forced to flee because of the CIA instigated war during the Reagan Administration that completely destroyed the physical, economic, social, religious and cultural infrastructure of the region. MS-13 was founded in Los Angeles by the offspring of the immigrants for protection.
You can find items like this out there: Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.
Terrorists, bombs smuggled across Mexico border by MS-13 gangsters.
The wingnuts are all a-twitter about suitcase nukes being smuggled across the border by MS-13. No links, because I have this thing about promoting hate and ignorance. You know how to find that if you want it.
There might be suitcase nukes in this country, but to my knowledge the smallest nukes Pakistan or North Korea can make are about the size of an SUV. If there are suitcase nukes- and according to the D.o'D. and international treaties we don't even have them- they've been produced by a massively funded black budget somewhere. Of course I can't imagine what country would be paranoid enough to produce such an evil thing.
Much less hand them to a terrorist organization that they, themselves, created as an excuse to have somebody to play their Game with. ¶ 7:27 AM 0 comments links to this post
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Unintelligent Designs on Minds
Preznit Bu$h stated today that evolution should be taught on an equal footing with the mythology his backers support.
Why only his backers? Because the man has a sociopathic regard for human life and is willing to manipulate the lives and welfare of the rest of the human race to achieve his own desires. With an attitude like that, he's no real Christian, although his willingness to pretend to be a Christian leader is a well-learned role.
Pharyngula has it right:
Scientists have established the fact of evolution with thousands of lines of evidence and the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers. This idea is based on material evidence and repeated experiment, extensively documented in the scientific literature.
This evidence flatly contradicts literal religious accounts. Religious conservatives have mounted a long running social and political campaign to get their falsified dogma treated as the truth, despite the absence of any material or logical support for their position.
This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting faith-based bullshit taught as science.
And that is what should be taught: teachers, we need to get in front of our students and expose them to both sides. We need to stand up and plainly state that creationism is a lie and any attempt to incorporate faith and the supernatural into science is as destructive to the enterprise as would be requiring religion to provide concrete, repeatable tests of their beliefs.
That's the only rational version of "equal time" that will work.
Oh, yeah, and we also have to work to make sure that every goddamned Republican in our capitols is out on their ear in the next couple of election cycles. The root of our problem is that the know-nothings and lunatics are in power, and are trying to wreck anything that does not pander to their ideology—and science opposes the Republican agenda.
Want to understand why intelligent design isn't science? Or even basically what science is? Check out what the National Academy of Science says on Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science. Take your time and enjoy the browse- it's a free on-line textbook. ¶ 9:53 PM 0 comments links to this post
Why only his backers? Because the man has a sociopathic regard for human life and is willing to manipulate the lives and welfare of the rest of the human race to achieve his own desires. With an attitude like that, he's no real Christian, although his willingness to pretend to be a Christian leader is a well-learned role.
Pharyngula has it right:
Scientists have established the fact of evolution with thousands of lines of evidence and the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers. This idea is based on material evidence and repeated experiment, extensively documented in the scientific literature.
This evidence flatly contradicts literal religious accounts. Religious conservatives have mounted a long running social and political campaign to get their falsified dogma treated as the truth, despite the absence of any material or logical support for their position.
This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting faith-based bullshit taught as science.
And that is what should be taught: teachers, we need to get in front of our students and expose them to both sides. We need to stand up and plainly state that creationism is a lie and any attempt to incorporate faith and the supernatural into science is as destructive to the enterprise as would be requiring religion to provide concrete, repeatable tests of their beliefs.
That's the only rational version of "equal time" that will work.
Oh, yeah, and we also have to work to make sure that every goddamned Republican in our capitols is out on their ear in the next couple of election cycles. The root of our problem is that the know-nothings and lunatics are in power, and are trying to wreck anything that does not pander to their ideology—and science opposes the Republican agenda.
Want to understand why intelligent design isn't science? Or even basically what science is? Check out what the National Academy of Science says on Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science. Take your time and enjoy the browse- it's a free on-line textbook. ¶ 9:53 PM 0 comments links to this post
Once Upon a Time, On a Morning in America
Read Juan Cole's story.
Thanks to Xan for the link. ¶ 9:28 PM 0 comments links to this post
Thanks to Xan for the link. ¶ 9:28 PM 0 comments links to this post
Monday, August 01, 2005
A Future So Bright, Ya Gotta Wear Bollywood Shades
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A recent U.S.-India nuclear agreement was so hastily concluded the Bush administration is only now beginning to figure out how to implement it in the face of tough questions from the U.S. Congress and nonproliferation experts.
The agreement, announced July 18 after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met President Bush at the White House, upends decades-old nonproliferation rules and will require changes in U.S. law and international policy.
U.S. officials are optimistic the Republican-controlled Congress will approve steps to fulfill Bush's promise to sell civilian nuclear technology to India.
Such sales are now prohibited under U.S. law because India refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, and is producing nuclear weapons banned by the pact and other agreements.
With the new deal, the United States in effect accepts India as a nuclear-weapon state.
U.S. and Indian officials had aimed to conclude an agreement before Bush makes an expected trip to India in early 2006. But the atmosphere seemed ripe while Singh was in Washington, so U.S. and Indian negotiators worked around-the-clock to seal a deal.
Early grumblings among lawmakers and experts who believe the accord weakens nuclear-weapons controls suggest Bush could face a battle to amend or waive U.S. law. Congressional sources say a growing Indian-American community will be a factor in supporting the accord.
So far, ``the administration has no clear plan'' to implement the agreement, said a Republican participant in a recent briefing for congressional staff. The participant said officials had ``no good answers'' on how the deal would affect international security...
The Plan: Bechtel and General Electric and the whole Carlyle Crew make a big pile of money. Then, there's the money to be made on Pakistan trying to play catch-up. Not to mention futures in fighter airplanes and missiles and all the other goodies the Company's subsidiaries all sell to either side.
But there's another reason, of course. With Bu$hCo there's always another reason, because there are so many weasels in this crew. It's not just the Pakistani push and pull.
Let's look at what Hong Kong's Asia Times has to say about the deal:
...American investments in India, especially in new technology areas, will help US companies to reduce costs and become more competitive globally. US firms are already leading the foreign investment drive in India. I believe 400 of the Fortune 500 are already in India."
Among the significant initiatives that were unveiled at the meeting between Singh and US President George W Bush has been the launch of a high-level bilateral CEO forum. The forum is intended to provide effective private sector participation in the economic dialogues between India and the US. The CEO forum brings together 10 top businessmen each from India and the US to promote Indo-US economic cooperation in the coming years. Not conceived as a pressure group on the two governments, the forum has been designed to provide a practical and hands-on body influencing economic policymaking in both countries.
Hell, no pressure. These boys own the governments:
...The Indian CEOs in the forum are Ratan Tata (Tata group), Mukhesh Ambani (Reliance), Nandan Nilekani (Infosys), Yogesh Deveshwar (ITC), Dr Pratap Reddy (Apollo Hospitals), Baba N Kalyani (Bharat Forge), Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw (Biocon India), Deepak Parekh (HDFC), Ashok Ganguly (ICICI) and Analjit Singh (Max India). Those in the American team are Charles Prince (Citigroup), Warren Stanley (Cargill), Steven Reinemund (Pepsi), David Cote (Honeywell), Paul Hanrahan (AES Corporation), William Harrison Jr (JP MorganChase), Harold McGraw III (McGraw-Hill Companies), Thomas J O'Neill (Parsons Brinckerhoff), Christopher Rodrigues (Visa International) and Anne M Mulcahy (Xerox).
The US is India's biggest trading partner and its largest investor. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) totaled over US$4 billion in 2004, more than double the figure in 1998. Trade in merchandise stood at $21.7 billion last year. But these figures are still puny compared to the trade and investment figures between China and the US. "Our focus remains on instituting policies of high growth aimed at encouraging investment flows and expanding trade. We are currently receiving about $6 billion annually as foreign investment. We need several times this amount," Singh said.
There you have it. They're trying to make a competitor for Team Xinhua. You play Tigers against Tigers in the world of Bu$hCo-style poker. The real humor is in their failure to understand when you run out of meat for the growing Tiger, he's much more likely to eat you than another Tiger. ¶ 9:56 PM 0 comments links to this post
The agreement, announced July 18 after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met President Bush at the White House, upends decades-old nonproliferation rules and will require changes in U.S. law and international policy.
U.S. officials are optimistic the Republican-controlled Congress will approve steps to fulfill Bush's promise to sell civilian nuclear technology to India.
Such sales are now prohibited under U.S. law because India refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, and is producing nuclear weapons banned by the pact and other agreements.
With the new deal, the United States in effect accepts India as a nuclear-weapon state.
U.S. and Indian officials had aimed to conclude an agreement before Bush makes an expected trip to India in early 2006. But the atmosphere seemed ripe while Singh was in Washington, so U.S. and Indian negotiators worked around-the-clock to seal a deal.
Early grumblings among lawmakers and experts who believe the accord weakens nuclear-weapons controls suggest Bush could face a battle to amend or waive U.S. law. Congressional sources say a growing Indian-American community will be a factor in supporting the accord.
So far, ``the administration has no clear plan'' to implement the agreement, said a Republican participant in a recent briefing for congressional staff. The participant said officials had ``no good answers'' on how the deal would affect international security...
The Plan: Bechtel and General Electric and the whole Carlyle Crew make a big pile of money. Then, there's the money to be made on Pakistan trying to play catch-up. Not to mention futures in fighter airplanes and missiles and all the other goodies the Company's subsidiaries all sell to either side.
But there's another reason, of course. With Bu$hCo there's always another reason, because there are so many weasels in this crew. It's not just the Pakistani push and pull.
Let's look at what Hong Kong's Asia Times has to say about the deal:
...American investments in India, especially in new technology areas, will help US companies to reduce costs and become more competitive globally. US firms are already leading the foreign investment drive in India. I believe 400 of the Fortune 500 are already in India."
Among the significant initiatives that were unveiled at the meeting between Singh and US President George W Bush has been the launch of a high-level bilateral CEO forum. The forum is intended to provide effective private sector participation in the economic dialogues between India and the US. The CEO forum brings together 10 top businessmen each from India and the US to promote Indo-US economic cooperation in the coming years. Not conceived as a pressure group on the two governments, the forum has been designed to provide a practical and hands-on body influencing economic policymaking in both countries.
Hell, no pressure. These boys own the governments:
...The Indian CEOs in the forum are Ratan Tata (Tata group), Mukhesh Ambani (Reliance), Nandan Nilekani (Infosys), Yogesh Deveshwar (ITC), Dr Pratap Reddy (Apollo Hospitals), Baba N Kalyani (Bharat Forge), Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw (Biocon India), Deepak Parekh (HDFC), Ashok Ganguly (ICICI) and Analjit Singh (Max India). Those in the American team are Charles Prince (Citigroup), Warren Stanley (Cargill), Steven Reinemund (Pepsi), David Cote (Honeywell), Paul Hanrahan (AES Corporation), William Harrison Jr (JP MorganChase), Harold McGraw III (McGraw-Hill Companies), Thomas J O'Neill (Parsons Brinckerhoff), Christopher Rodrigues (Visa International) and Anne M Mulcahy (Xerox).
The US is India's biggest trading partner and its largest investor. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) totaled over US$4 billion in 2004, more than double the figure in 1998. Trade in merchandise stood at $21.7 billion last year. But these figures are still puny compared to the trade and investment figures between China and the US. "Our focus remains on instituting policies of high growth aimed at encouraging investment flows and expanding trade. We are currently receiving about $6 billion annually as foreign investment. We need several times this amount," Singh said.
There you have it. They're trying to make a competitor for Team Xinhua. You play Tigers against Tigers in the world of Bu$hCo-style poker. The real humor is in their failure to understand when you run out of meat for the growing Tiger, he's much more likely to eat you than another Tiger. ¶ 9:56 PM 0 comments links to this post
