« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »
January 31, 2007
| Parry: US-Israeli Attack On Iran May Be Imminent | Iran Iraq |
Robert Parry is part of a dying breed in the US: a true investigative reporter. Among other things, Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra revelations while working for AP and Newsweek in the 1980s. He's continued writing about covert ops and national security matters to this day. In other words, he's a responsible guy with sources. Here's what he wrote today.
First, an attack on Iran may be imminent:
While congressional Democrats test how far they should go in challenging George W. Bush’s war powers, the time may be running out to stop Bush from ordering a major escalation of the Middle East conflict by attacking Iran.Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that Bush already has decided to attack and simply is waiting for a second aircraft carrier strike force to arrive in the region — and for a propaganda blitz to stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.
One well-informed U.S. military source called me in a fury after consulting with Pentagon associates and discovering how far along the war preparations are. He said the plans call for extensive aerial attacks on Iran, including use of powerful bunker-busting ordnance.
Another source with a pipeline into Israeli thinking said the Iran war plan has expanded over the past several weeks. Earlier thinking had been that Israeli warplanes would hit Iranian nuclear targets with U.S. forces in reserve in case of Iranian retaliation, but now the strategy anticipates a major U.S. military follow-up to an Israeli attack, the source said.
Both sources used the same word "crazy" in describing the plan to expand the war to Iran. The two sources, like others I have interviewed, said that attacking Iran could touch off a regional — and possibly global — conflagration.
"It will be like the TV show '24'," the American military source said, citing the likelihood of Islamic retaliation reaching directly into the United States.
Though Bush insists that no decision has been made on attacking Iran, he offered similar assurances of his commitment to peace in the months before invading Iraq in 2003. Yet leaked documents from London made clear that he had set a course for war nine months to a year before the Iraq invasion.
In other words, Bush's statements that he has no plans to "invade" Iran and that he's still committed to settle differences with Iran over its nuclear program diplomatically should be taken with a grain of salt. [Emphasis added]
As if that weren't bad enough, Parry writes that the situation in Iraq is worse than we know:
The rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq is seen as another factor pressing on Bush to act quickly against Iran.Other sources with first-hand knowledge of conditions in Iraq have told me that the U.S. position is even more precarious than generally understood. Westerners can't even move around Baghdad and many other Iraqi cities except in armed convoys.
"In some countries, if you want to get out of the car and go to the market, they'll tell you that it might be dangerous," one experienced American cameraman told me. "In Iraq, you will be killed. Not that you might be killed, but you will be killed. The first Iraqi with a gun will shoot you, and if no one has a gun, they'll stone you."
While U.S. war correspondents in most countries travel around in taxis with "TV" taped to their windows, Western journalists in Iraq move only in armed convoys to and from specific destinations. They operate from heavily guarded Baghdad hotels sometimes with single families responsible for security since outsiders can't be trusted.
The American cameraman said one European journalist rebelled at the confinement, took off on her own in a cab — and was never seen again.
Depression also is spreading among U.S. intelligence officials who monitor covert operations in Iraq from listening stations sometimes thousands of miles away. The results of these Special Forces operations have been so horrendous that morale in the intelligence community has suffered. [Emphasis added]
Meanwhile, the LA Times reports today the US Air Force and Navy warplanes are stepping up aggressive patrols along the Iraq-Iran border. It's hard not to suspect that the purpose is to create a provocation that can lead to an incident that will be used to justify an attack. Excerpt:
The Air Force is preparing for an expanded role in Iraq that could include aggressive new tactics designed to deter Iranian assistance to Iraqi militants, senior Pentagon officials said.The efforts could include more forceful patrols by Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border to counter the smuggling of bomb supplies from Iran, a senior Pentagon official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing future military plans.
Such missions also could position the Air Force to strike suspected bomb suppliers inside Iraq to deter Iranian agents that U.S. officials say are assisting Iraqi militias, outside military experts said. [Emphasis added]
Maybe this is all a big game of chicken with the Iranians. But given all the White House lies about Iraq, who is going to believe anything they say about Iran? What is not clear is what can be done to stop them — even though the country is overwhelmingly against widening the war. A crazy spot to be in in a democracy.
[Thanks, Miles]
Posted by Jonathan at 02:27 PM
| Comments (10)
| Link to this
| Wednesday Gumpagraph | Gumpagraphs |
 |
| © Kent Tenney |
How I'm feeling. Busy, busy.
Posted by Jonathan at 11:48 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Today's Bush Joke | Humor & Fun |
Vice President Cheney lashed out at Hillary Clinton the other day. He said on CNN that he doesn't believe Hillary would be a good president. I can understand that. I mean, his administration has raised the bar so high. — Jay Leno
Posted by Jonathan at 11:47 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
January 30, 2007
| More Double Talk | Politics |
McCain flip-flops again. Does he think no one's listening?
Posted by Jonathan at 12:32 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| The Way Of The Ostrich | Environment Politics |
This is outrageous, crazy, you name it. AP:
Two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report. [Emphasis added]
If we just ignore it, maybe it will go away. As if reality is only what we say it is.
Insanity.
Posted by Jonathan at 11:18 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Cantarell Collapsing Faster Than Expected | Peak Oil |
As we've noted several times over the past year, Mexico's largest oil field (and the world's second largest), Cantarell, has peaked and is in sharp decline. The decline is turning out to be more drastic than even the most pessimistic projections. WSJ (via Rigzone):
Daily output at Mexico's biggest oil field tumbled by half a million barrels last year, according to figures released Friday by the Mexican government. The ongoing decline at the Cantarell field could pressure prices on the global oil market, complicate U.S. efforts to diversify its oil imports away from the Middle East, and threaten Mexico's financial stability.The virtual collapse at Cantarell — the world's second-biggest oil field in terms of output at the start of last year — is unfolding much faster than projections from Mexico's state-run oil giant Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex. Cantarell's daily output fell to 1.5 million barrels in December compared to 1.99 million barrels in January, according to figures from the Mexican Energy Ministry.
Mexico made up for some of the field's decline. Mexico's overall oil output fell to just below three million barrels a day in December, down from almost 3.4 million barrels at the start of the year. It marked Mexico's lowest rate of oil output since 2000.Mexico's troubles at Cantarell mirror the larger problems in the global oil market. Many of the world's biggest fields are old and face decline, which can be sharp and sudden. Like other big producers, Mexico is struggling to make up the difference because new big fields are in harder-to-reach places like the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
The field's decline is expected to continue, if not worsen, this year, according to most estimates. That will subtract valuable oil from the world market, which is under pressure from rising demand by growing economies like China and India. It also means less oil headed to the U.S. from Mexico, which has long relied on Mexico as one of its top-three oil suppliers.
"This is bad news for Mexico. The field is declining faster than even the government's pessimistic scenarios," says David Shields, an oil industry consultant in Mexico City who has been warning about Cantarell's collapse for the past two years. [...]
Mexico's growing economy is demanding more fuel each year, which is expected to translate to even lower oil exports. Last year, Mexico's daily average oil exports fell to 1.79 million barrels a day from 1.82 million the previous year. Pemex says it expects daily exports to fall to an average 1.65 million barrels this year.
But some analysts say that is too optimistic. December's daily exports were a meager 1.53 million barrels. While that figure may have been affected by bad weather that closed some ports, it was already well below Pemex's estimates for this year.
Based on the state company's track record so far at Cantarell, including its current rates of recovering the oil that remains in the field, Mr. Shields expects the field's output to drop another 600,000 barrels a day by the end of this year. He says that Pemex will likely increase output by 200,000 barrels a day at other fields — leaving the country with a net decline of 400,000 barrels a day by year's end and daily exports of less than 1.4 million barrels. [Emphasis added]
Technology is a two-edged sword. Advanced techniques are very good at squeezing the toothpaste out of the tube. Unfortunately, they are so good at it that when the end comes, it comes suddenly. (Remember this picture.) A number of oil fields are showing alarmingly steep decline rates as a result. Cantarell's production has fallen by 25% in a single year. And Cantarell is not alone.
Posted by Jonathan at 11:04 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Feingold: Congress Needs To Break "Taboo" | Iraq |
Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold:
Americans are not looking to Congress to pass symbolic measures, they are looking to us to stop the President's failed Iraq policy. That is why we must finally break this taboo that somehow Congress can't talk about using its power of the purse to end the war in Iraq. The Constitution makes Congress a co-equal branch of government. It's time we start acting like it. We have a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to the brave troops whose lives are on the line, to end the war. We can and must force the President to safely redeploy our troops so that we can get back to focusing on those who attacked us on 9/11. [...]I want everyone to be clear on exactly what my proposal will do. The first and most important thing to know is that my plan does not cut funding for the troops. Our troops will continue to receive the salaries, equipment, training and protection they need. What I am proposing is ending funds for the continued deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after the enactment of the bill. This will require the President to safely redeploy troops from Iraq by that date. My bill does provide exceptions to allow for specific types of military missions within Iraq past the six-month deadline, such as targeted counter-terrorism efforts, the protection of American personnel and infrastructure, and a limited number of troops needed to help train Iraqi security forces. But these will be limited forces used for specific missions.
Suggestions that our troops will be left in the lurch couldn't be further from the truth. My proposal would bring the troops out of harm's way.
Congress has used this power several times before, most recently in Somalia and in Bosnia in the 1990s. Nevertheless, I'm sure the White House and others will resort to their usual intimidation tactics to try to paint this proposal as not supporting the troops. I'd like to hear from the President exactly how sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into a civil war supports them. We must not let this administration continue to intimidate like it did in the lead-up to war. [Emphasis added]
Attaboy Russ. Makes me proud that I live in Wisconsin.
Posted by Jonathan at 09:54 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Tuesday Gumpagraph | Gumpagraphs |
 |
| © Kent Tenney |
Posted by Jonathan at 09:47 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Today's Bush Joke | Humor & Fun |
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is now in Iraq. She made a surprise visit to Iraq. Well, you thought Bush wanted to bomb the place before. ... She didn't say how long she'd be staying in Iraq. President Bush said he was against setting any timetables for Pelosi to return. He said to bring her back prematurely would send the wrong message. — Jay Leno
Posted by Jonathan at 09:45 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
January 29, 2007
| Politics Trumps Science — Again | Politics Rights, Law |
The NYT reports that the White House has issued a directive giving its political commissars more direct control of regulatory policy at the various agencies of the executive branch, taking control away from civil servants and scientists. Excerpts:
President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.
This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.
The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
In an interview on Monday, Jeffrey A. Rosen, general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, "This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable." [Satire?] [...]
The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify "the specific market failure" or problem that justifies government intervention.
Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review "any significant guidance documents" before they are issued. [...]
Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order "achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government." [...]
Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said: "The executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government's own impartial experts disagree. This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests." [...]
Wesley P. Warren, program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who worked at the White House for seven years under President Bill Clinton, said, "The executive order is a backdoor attempt to prevent E.P.A. from being able to enforce environmental safeguards that keep cancer-causing chemicals and other pollutants out of the air and water." [Emphasis added]
Many, if not most, regulatory matters are highly technical applications of specialized expertise. The White House couldn't care less about such technical matters. It wants control of the regulatory carrot and stick. Instead of scientists and civil servants, people like Karl Rove will get the final say on regulatory policy. Which means it will be about politics, period. And which gives the White House enormous leverage to reward corporations friendly to it and punish those that aren't. A gigantic protection racket. Everything's for sale. Science is for liberal suckers. The thing is, though, if you ignore what science tells you about reality long enough, reality has a way of getting the last word.
Posted by Jonathan at 10:24 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Double Talk | Politics |
John McCain's popularity has always been a triumph of style over substance. People seem to think he's some kind of moderate and non-ideological "maverick", but he's got one of the two or three most conservative voting records in the entire US Senate.
And while he styles himself a "straight talker," he's anything but. Check out this short video, all in McCain's own words. Excellent.
Lots more here. An excellent resource.
Posted by Jonathan at 05:46 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Monday Gumpagraph | Gumpagraphs |
 |
| © Kent Tenney |
Posted by Jonathan at 09:53 AM
| Comments (2)
| Link to this
| Today's Bush Joke | Humor & Fun |
I'll give President Bush credit though. He addressed the problems troubling Americans — the war in Iraq, the economy, the need to develop alternative fuels. He seemed to know what we were thinking. It's almost as if he was reading our mail or listening to our phone calls. — Jay Leno
Posted by Jonathan at 09:48 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
January 28, 2007
| Clinton: US Should Withdraw Before End Of Bush Term | Iraq Politics |
Hillary Clinton has finally taken a position on Iraq that seems like a step in the right direction. AP:
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that President Bush should withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq before he leaves office, asserting it would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief."This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," the Democratic senator from New York said her in initial presidential campaign swing through Iowa.
"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.
A clever move, politically. Creates a timetable without seeming to pick an arbitrary date out of the air. Defines the war as Bush's war and, by extension, the GOP's war. Gives Hillary a way to hammer Bush and the eventual Republican candidate from now through election day.
Bush is determined to foist the war onto his successor. Even if he succeeds in that, the war must be seen as Bush's failure, since that's what it is. The danger in Clinton's position, however, is that it could be taken as giving Bush two more years to try to "win".
Posted by Jonathan at 06:30 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Bush Approval: 30% | Politics |
President George W. Bush concluded his annual State of the Union address this week with the words "the State of our Union is strong … our cause in the world is right...and tonight that cause goes on." Maybe so, but the state of the Bush administration is at its worst yet, according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. The president's approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll's history — 30 percent — and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and even one in five (21 percent) Republicans. Half (49 percent) of all registered voters would rather see a Democrat elected president in 2008, compared to just 28 percent who'd prefer the GOP to remain in the White House. [Emphasis added]
Next stop, ratings in the 20s. And yet The Decider flouts the will of the country and single-handedly escalates the war.
Meanwhile, those of us who said from the outset that Bush/Cheney would be a disaster, that the Iraq attack was based on fabricated justifications and would end in catastrophe — will the day ever come when the "serious" journalists of the capitalist media recognize and admit that maybe we ought to be listened to? Not holding my breath, but it really is an astonishing state of affairs, when one's status as a "credible" voice bears no relation whatever to whether one has ever actually been right about anything.
Posted by Jonathan at 06:15 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Sunday Gumpagraph | Gumpagraphs |
 |
| © Kent Tenney |
Posted by Jonathan at 06:02 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Today's Bush Joke | Humor & Fun |
President Bush now has the lowest presidential approval rating since Richard Nixon. Now, here's another coincidence. Nixon had a dog named "Checkers." Bush plays checkers with his dog. — David Letterman
Posted by Jonathan at 05:58 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
January 27, 2007
| Saturday Gumpagraph | Gumpagraphs |
 |
| © Kent Tenney |
Posted by Jonathan at 11:01 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Today's Bush Joke | Humor & Fun |
The president proposes a drastic measure [on screen: Bush proposing a special advisory council on the war on terror comprised of "leaders in Congress from both political parties"]. What? Both parties in an advisory role? I think they already have something like that. I think it's called Congress. — Jon Stewart
Posted by Jonathan at 10:58 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
January 26, 2007
| "Like A Business In Liquidation" | Environment Musings |
Just came across a great phrase from Al Gore: we're "operating the planet like a business in liquidation". Liquidating everything, using it up as fast as we can, last one out lock the door. Except there is no "out".
The bottom line on sustainability: unsustainable = stupid. Fatally stupid. Suicidally stupid. Pretty much by definition, when you stop and think about it. Sustainability is the fundamental requirement for long-term survival. Anything else is sawing off the limb we're sitting on — and there ain't no net.
Posted by Jonathan at 03:49 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Friday Gumpagraph | Gumpagraphs |
 |
| © Kent Tenney |
Posted by Jonathan at 09:56 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Today's Bush Joke | Humor & Fun |
31 million people watched the president — many, I suspect, in hopes that he would get voted off. One of the big topics, of course, was the war. The president said he understands that Americans are losing patience, but he would like us to give his new plan a chance to work. In other words, all he is saying is give war a chance. — Jimmy Kimmel
Seriously, the stakes are very high. And in this high stakes game, the president of the United States made one simple request [on screen: Bush asking Americans to give the new Iraq strategy a chance]. He's right. Everyone deserves a seventh chance. — Jon Stewart
Posted by Jonathan at 09:53 AM
| Comments (4)
| Link to this
January 25, 2007
| "Hitler Is Back — This Time He's Iranian" | Iran |
Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, on an Israeli conference devoted to beating the drum for war with Iran. War with Iran is madness, but these people are serious. Excerpts:
It sounds like the stuff that conspiracy theories are made of. In a coastal resort near Tel Aviv, senior Israeli politicians and generals confer with top officials and politicians from Washington to discuss the threat of a nuclear Iran. [...]The Israel participation is, as one would expect, high level. The conference is scheduled to close with a speech from Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. The lunch-time speaker yesterday was Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, and maybe the next prime minister. We're hearing from the foreign minister, the defence minister and a string of present and former generals.
But what has really struck me is the number of top Americans who have bothered to come over for the conference. The speaker at dinner last night was Gordon England, America's deputy defence secretary; earlier in the day we heard from Nick Burns, the number three at the State Department. Several contenders for the presidency in 2008 have also felt obliged to tip their hat to Herzliya. Mitt Romney, who is probably second favourite for the Republican nomination, is turning up in person. John McCain, the GOP front-runner is appearing by satellite, so is Rudy Giuliani. For the Democrats, John Edwards is also scheduled to make a satellite address. I cannot think of any other country in the world that could summon up this level of American participation for a conference like this. Certainly not Britain.
Also well represented among the participants are well-known hawks like Richard Perle, Jim Woolsey (the former CIA director), Newt Gingrich and Jose Maria Aznar, the former Spanish prime minister. A lot of these chaps were very prominent in the drive to go to war in Iraq. Now, flushed by their undoubted success there, they are turning their attention to Iran.
There is no doubt that the war drums are beating pretty loudly here in Herzliya. The main topics of conversation that keep coming back and back – in the corridors and also in the conference hall – is how close is Iran to the bomb. Can anything short of military action stop the Iranians? If it comes to bombing, could the Israelis do it alone – or would they have to rely on the United States? Would President Bush give the order? [...]
Netanyahu claimed that Iran is 1,000 days away from having nukes. But the Israelis tend to argue that military action would have to come much sooner than that, before the Iranians learn how to enrich enough uranium to make a bomb. Shaul Mofaz, Israel's deputy prime minister, argued that Iran is bent on building a "hegemonic empire in the Middle East" and presents an "existential threat to Israel".
The official American speakers have tended to be a little more circumspect. Nick Burns talked a lot about diplomacy and the UN. But he earned a big round of applause, when he declared – "It is the policy of the United States that we cannot afford to let Iran become a nuclear-weapons state."
The unofficial Americans are much less careful. Jim Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, castigated Burns for his caution and his emphasis on diplomacy. He also likened Iran to Nazi Germany. Funny thing is I distinctly remember hearing a similar speech from Woolsey at an international conference in 2002, when he likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Now Hitler is back – except that this time he's Iranian.
It doesn't do to criticize Israel in public in the US — witness the attacks on Jimmy Carter — but there's no denying Israel's clout in US politics. Not for nothing do all those American presidential candidates show up at an Israeli conference far from the eyes of US media and voters.
Israeli hardliners are adamant that Israel must remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Where is the US politician of any importance who will stand up and tell them no?
Posted by Jonathan at 04:12 PM
| Comments (2)
| Link to this
| Rent-A-Panel | Energy |
If you'd like to get solar PV panels for your house, but you're daunted by the upfront cost, how about renting them, with a monthly bill like your electric bill. Check it out.
Posted by Jonathan at 01:59 PM
| Comments (2)
| Link to this
| Thursday Gumpagraph | Gumpagraphs |
 |
| © Kent Tenney |
Posted by Jonathan at 09:44 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Today's Bush Joke | Humor & Fun |
President Bush addressed the nation the other night. He talked about how we can save energy, how we can still win the war in Iraq, and then gave a beautiful rendition of "Wind Beneath My Wings." Randy and Paula were in tears. — Jimmy Kimmel
Posted by Jonathan at 09:43 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
January 24, 2007
| Phaeton's Reins | Environment Science/Technology |
MIT meteorologist Kerry Emanuel, one of Time's 100 most influential people in 2006, has published a superb overview of the science of global warming in the Boston Review [link via RealClimate].
Long, but lucid, and well worth the effort of working your way through. Excellent discussions of how the greenhouse effect actually works, how a variety of factors interact as climate changes, how climate scientists separate the effects of human activity from other sources of climate variability, and the most elegant description I've seen of how chaotic systems are sensitive to small changes in initial conditions.
Very highly recommended.
Posted by Jonathan at 04:07 PM
| Comments (1)
| Link to this
| Facing Reality | Politics |
Kerry won't run.
Good.
Posted by Jonathan at 12:52 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Alternatives | Humor & Fun Politics |
Shorter SOTU: cartoon version.
Posted by Jonathan at 12:40 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Wednesday Gumpagraph | Gumpagraphs |
 |
| © Kent Tenney |
Posted by Jonathan at 09:46 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Today's Bush Joke | Humor & Fun |
How will the president describe the state of our union? Well, over the past six tumultuous years, he has always managed to find just the right word to encapsulate the complexities of our times [on screen: Bush using varieties of 'strong']. Strongly, we will use strength to bestrongen our strongness, for strongaliciousness is strongtastic...That's what you get for relying exclusively on Roget's Monosaurus. — Jon Stewart
Posted by Jonathan at 09:44 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
January 23, 2007
| Doctor Knows Best? | Science/Technology |
Do you think the US has the greatest health care system in the world? Do you drink diet sodas? If so (even if not), you'll want to read this. Very interesting.
[Via Cryptogon]
Posted by Jonathan at 12:10 PM
| Comments (4)
| Link to this
| IPCC: Global Warming Will Be Worse Than Previously Thought | Environment |
The Guardian says that the forthcoming IPCC report on climate change says global warming will be worse than previously thought. Excerpts:
Global warming is destined to have a far more destructive and earlier impact than previously estimated, the most authoritative report yet produced on climate change will warn next week.A draft copy of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained by The Observer, shows the frequency of devastating storms — like the ones that battered Britain last week — will increase dramatically. Sea levels will rise over the century by around half a metre; snow will disappear from all but the highest mountains; deserts will spread; oceans become acidic, leading to the destruction of coral reefs and atolls; and deadly heatwaves will become more prevalent.
The impact will be catastrophic, forcing hundreds of millions of people to flee their devastated homelands, particularly in tropical, low-lying areas, while creating waves of immigrants whose movements will strain the economies of even the most affluent countries.
"The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary," said one senior UK climate expert. [...]
[The report] points out that:
12 of the past 13 years were the warmest since records began; ocean temperatures have risen at least three kilometres beneath the surface; glaciers, snow cover and permafrost have decreased in both hemispheres; sea levels are rising at the rate of almost 2mm a year; cold days, nights and frost have become rarer while hot days, hot nights and heatwaves have become more frequent. And the cause is clear, say the authors: "It is very likely that [man-made] greenhouse gas increases caused most of the average temperature increases since the mid-20th century," says the report.
To date, these changes have caused global temperatures to rise by 0.6C. The most likely outcome of continuing rises in greenhouses gases will be to make the planet a further 3C hotter by 2100, although the report acknowledges that rises of 4.5C to 5C could be experienced. Ice-cap melting, rises in sea levels, flooding, cyclones and storms will be an inevitable consequence.
Past assessments by the IPCC have suggested such scenarios are "likely" to occur this century. Its latest report, based on sophisticated computer models and more detailed observations of snow cover loss, sea level rises and the spread of deserts, is far more robust and confident. Now the panel writes of changes as "extremely likely" and "almost certain".
And in a specific rebuff to sceptics who still argue natural variation in the Sun's output is the real cause of climate change, the panel says mankind's industrial emissions have had five times more effect on the climate than any fluctuations in solar radiation. [...]
The report reflects climate scientists' growing fears that Earth is nearing the stage when carbon dioxide rises will bring irreversible change to the planet. "We are seeing vast sections of Antarctic ice disappearing at an alarming rate," said climate expert Chris Rapley, in a phone call to The Observer from the Antarctic Peninsula last week. "That means we can expect to see sea levels rise at about a metre a century from now on — and that will have devastating consequences."
However, there is still hope, said Peter Cox of Exeter University. "We are like alcoholics who have got as far as admitting there is a problem. It is a start. Now we have got to start drying out — which means reducing our carbon output." [Emphasis added]
Humans, like other organisms, are designed to react to threats that appear suddenly. A loud noise, a sudden movement, and we feel the adrenaline hit our bloodstreams, mobilizing us for fight or flight. Slow motion threats have a hard time getting our attention. They require us to mobilize ourselves via rational thought, rather than reflex. Are we rational enough to save ourselves?
Posted by Jonathan at 10:12 AM
| Comments (7)
| Link to this
| Tuesday Gumpagraph | Gumpagraphs |
 |
| © Kent Tenney |
Posted by Jonathan at 09:49 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Today's Bush Joke | Humor & Fun |
During an interview with "60 Minutes" last week, President Bush defended the invasion of Iraq, saying, "We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude." Said the Iraqi people, "We've been meaning to send a card, but our Hallmark store keeps blowing up." — Amy Poehler
Posted by Jonathan at 09:45 AM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
January 22, 2007
| Al-Sadr Interview | Iraq |
When we hear someone praised or vilified, it's a good idea to stop and consider the source. Ask: what axe is being ground. It's not foolproof, but it's helpful. So, for example, when wealthy Wall Streeters never tire of telling us what a genius Alan Greenspan was, the rest of us might want to look to our wallets.
Which brings us to the much vilified Moqtada al-Sadr, the target of the US escalation in Iraq. US authorities tells us what a bad man he is, but they're hardly a credible source. What does al-Sadr himself say? Here's an interview with al-Sadr conducted by Renato Cabrile for the Italy's La Repubblica. From the translation at Dark Mirror:
Caprile: So how did it come about that al Maliki, whose government until recently included no less than six ministers from your movement, suddenly came to the conclusion that the religious militias, and yours most of all, are the real problem that must be solved?Al Sadr: "Between [al Maliki] and myself there have never been very warm relations. I always suspected he was manipulated and I never trusted him. We have only met on a couple of occasions. On the most recent of which he said to me "you are the backbone of the country," and then he confessed that he was "obliged" to fight us. Obliged, you understand.
Caprile: The fact remains that your people are about to be struck with an iron fist.
Al Sadr: The operation has already started. Last night they already arrested over four hundred of my men. It is not us they want to destroy, but Islam — we are only an obstacle. For the time being, we shall not put up any resistance against them.
Caprile: Do you mean that you will hand in your weapons?
Al Sadr: During [the holy month of] Muharram the Quran forbids us to kill. So let them kill us if they want to, for a true believer there is no better time to die: Paradise is assured. But God is generous, not all of us shall die. After Muharram the tide will turn.
Caprile: Some say that the army and police are heavily infiltrated by your men and that the marines would never be able to disarm you on their own.
Al Sadr: The truth is exactly the opposite: it's our militia that's swarming with spies. And in any case, it's not a hard task to infiltrate a people's army. And these are the very same people who have been committing unworthy deeds to discredit the Mahdi Army. There are at least four armies ready to strike us. One is a "shadow force" which no-one ever talks about, trained under the most secret conditions in the Jordanian desert by the Americans. And then there's the private army of Allawi himself, that infidel who will soon take Maliki's place, which is readying itself for the fray in the former military airport of Muthanna. Then there are the Kurdish peshmergas, and lastly there are the American regular troops.
Caprile: If what you say is true, you have no hope of standing up to them.
Al Sadr: We too are very many. We represent the majority of the country, who do not want Iraq to become what Allawi is dreaming of: a secular state, a slave to the western powers.
Caprile: For the last week you have been officially in the crosshairs. The government maintains that without their leader the religious militias [would be] militarily weakened.
Al Sadr: I am aware of this. This is why I moved my family to a safe place. I even made my will, and I keep constantly on the move, making sure that only a few people know exactly where I am. But even if I should die, the Mahdi Army would still continue to exist. Men can be killed, faith and ideas cannot.
Caprile: It has been said that amongst the crowd watching Saddam's execution you too were present. Is this true?
Al Sadr: This is absolute rubbish. If I'd been there they'd have killed me too. As for Saddam, I certainly shed no tears for the man who massacred my family and tens of thousands of my people. But if it had been up to me, I'd have had him executed in a public square so all the world could see.
Caprile: Even if you weren't there, can you deny that the execution room was full of your men?
Al Sadr: No, those were not my men. They were people paid to discredit me. To make it seem I was the person really responsible for that hanging. The proof lies in the fact — just listen to the audio — that when they recited my prayer they left out some essential parts. A mistake that not even a single child in Sadr City would ever have made. The aim was to make it seem Moqtada was the real enemy of the Sunnis. And they succeeded. Some time back, I was received with full honours in Saudi Arabia. But straight after that charade under the gallows my spokesman al Zarqani, who was making the pilgrimage to Mecca, was arrested. An all too explicit way to make me understand that I was no longer listed amongst their friends.
Caprile: In any case, the war between you and the Sunnis goes on.
Al Sadr: It is true that we are all Muslims and we are all sons of the same land, but they must first distance themselves from the Saddamists, from the radical groups, from Bin Laden's men, as well as repeating their "No" to the Americans. All we're asking is for the ulemas to accept these conditions of ours. They haven't yet done so.
Caprile: Can it really be true that there is nothing but blood in Iraq' future?
Al Sadr: If the future is a country split in three, I cannot see any alternative. That is what Bush wants so he can control us more easily, but it's certainly not what the Iraqis want. In my opinion, there is only one possible way a solution can be reached: immediate withdrawal by the Americans. [Emphasis added]
Sounds like a nationalist who wants the foreign occupiers out. No wonder he's the boogeyman. Of course he has his own axe to grind. Still, why can't we hear more of al-Sadr's side of the story?
[Thanks, Miles]
Posted by Jonathan at 05:58 PM
| Comments (5)
| Link to this
| Monday Gumpagraph | Gumpagraphs |
 |
| © Kent Tenney |
Posted by Jonathan at 03:54 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Today's Bush Joke | Humor & Fun |
President Bush is calling for sending 21,000 more troops to Iraq. How does he come up with that number? I don't even think there are 21,000 people in the country who think it's a good idea. — Jay Leno
Posted by Jonathan at 03:48 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
January 21, 2007
| Newsweek Poll | Iraq Politics |
The latest Newsweek poll is a doozy.
Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq:
Approve: 24%
Disapprove: 70%
Trust more to make decisions about Iraq:
Bush: 32%
Democratic leaders in Congress: 55%
US making progress in Iraq:
Making progress: 24%
Losing ground: 67%
US troop levels in Iraq:
Increase: 23%
Decrease: 50%
Same: 18%
Bush's "surge" plan:
Favor: 26%
Oppose: 68%
Democrats in Congress block funding for Bush's "surge" plan:
Should: 46%
Should not: 46%
The level of support for blocking funding for the troop "surge" is remarkable, considering that it's a question of withholding funding in the middle of a war.
Posted by Jonathan at 06:32 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Sunday Gumpagraph | Gumpagraphs |
 |
| © Kent Tenney |
Posted by Jonathan at 02:32 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
| Today's Bush Joke | Humor & Fun |
In his "60 Minutes" interview, Bush said popularity is not his goal. Well, I thought, mission accomplished. — David Letterman
Posted by Jonathan at 02:29 PM
| Comments (0)
| Link to this
January 20, 2007
| Poverty Is A Security Issue | Development War and Peace |
Economist Jeffrey Sachs, leading light of the UN's Millenium Development Goals project, points out that eradicating poverty is in the security interest of the world's rich nations. Poverty creates instability, conflict, and war. Reuters:
Curbing poverty in Third World countries will not only satisfy life and death needs for the poor but also provide security for rich nations, one of the world's best-known economists said on Wednesday.Jeffrey Sachs, special adviser to the United Nations on the Millennium Development Goals, said extreme poverty was fuelling conflicts in places such as Somalia and Sudan's Darfur region.
"Instability will grow where poverty festers in an extreme form, that's what we're seeing in the Horn of Africa. This isn't a crisis about Islam, this isn't a crisis about geopolitics, this is essentially a crisis of extreme poverty," Sachs said.
"Whether it's Darfur or Somalia or other conflict regions, people are in conflict because they're so poor they cannot stay alive — that's what needs to be addressed for security for rich countries," he told a news conference in Nairobi.
Sachs said it was targeted investments in tools like mosquito nets, medicines and fertilisers that would help in the fight against poverty.
"Africa's small-holder farmers could double or triple their crop yield within even a single season if they have access to improved inputs," he said. [Emphasis added]
Unfortunately, rich nations make an enormous amount of money supplying arms to the world — which makes for a conflict of interest, to put it mildly. The US is the biggest arms dealer by far, but all five permanent members of the UN Security Council are heavily involved. And nearly half of weapons exports go to the developing world. While instability may not be in the interest of the US population as a whole, it is very much in the interest of enormously powerful sectors of US society. Ditto for the world's other rich nations. War is big business; poverty reduction, not so much.
One more example of capitalism's fatal flaw — profitability is a poor, in fact a potentially suicidal, organizing principle for human activity: it may well be more profitable to destroy the world than to save it, and it may well be more profitable to kill people than to make them prosper. The free market can be very good at working out how to make something, but it's often not good at all at determining what to make. Actually, it's often not so good at the how either, since it fails to take account of environmental destruction and other so-called "externalities" that are left out of profitability calculations. So people can devote enormous energy and resources to making weapons, creating all sorts of toxic waste in the process, and, from the perspective of mainstream economics, their activity is entirely rational — more rational, in fact, than working for peanuts to help poor people lift themselves up. A crazy notion of "rationality," that.
Posted by Jonathan at 06:35 PM
| Comments (3)
| Link to this
| Making Their Point | Activism |
Posted by Jonathan at 05:20 PM |