by Danny Schechter, NEWS DISSECTOR
September 29, 2008
HOUSE VOTES ON BAILOUT TODAY: A SCHEME BECOMES A DEAL YOU FINANCE
NEW PETITION: BAIL OUT MAIN STREET, NOT WALL STREET
TAKE TWO: THE DEAL MAY BE DONE THIS TIME
IS THE WEST AT RISK?
DEBATING THE DEBATE
One figure before I get into the big $700 billion dollar sellout. They just announced the new defense budget. Any guess at its size? Its less, a mere $612 Billion. How reassuring.
Now the bad news:
The deal seems to done, or at least imposed from the top. As predicted and expected, Congress won some concessions and the rest of us won a major tax hike. There is no guarantee of effective accountability and little evidence that this faith-based initiative can work.
AP Reports:
WASHINGTON - Congressional leaders and the White House agreed Sunday to a $700 billion rescue of the ailing financial industry after lawmakers insisted on sharing spending controls with the Bush administration. The biggest U.S. bailout in history won the tentative support of both presidential candidates and goes to the House for a vote Monday.
The plan, bollixed up for days by election-year politics, would give the administration broad power to use taxpayers' money to purchase billions upon billions of home mortgage-related assets held by cash-starved financial firms.
RGE: THE DETAILS
Sep 28 Tentative deal includes the general but unspecified provision that the financial industry would pay for any outstanding cost for the programme after five years. Main components: 1) $700bn released in installments: $250bn right away, $100bn later if results positive and the option to block the remaining $350bn; 2) equity warrants in return for bad asset purchase to recapitalize institutions and retain upside for taxpayers; 3) The plan also would let the government buy troubled assets from pension plans, local governments and small banks; 4) restrictions on executive compensation; 5) independent oversight board. 6) "the government could use its power as the owner of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities to help more struggling homeowners modify the terms of their home loans" but Democrats jettisoned Bankruptcy reform to lower debt value of purchased mortgages (Reuters). Separately, second stimulus package is also in the making for Main Street next to bailout for Wall Street
INSIDE JOB? OVERSIGHT LACKING:
No member of the public, no labor representative etc…
NEWS TIP: LOOPHOLES GALORE
This part of the legislation:
(e) PREVENTING UNJUST ENRICHMENT.-This subsection does not
apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase
of assets from a financial institution in conservatorship or receivership, or
that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings under title 11, United States
Code.
So 'Unjust Enrichment' doesn't apply to JPMorganChase,BofA,Citi, or Barclay's of England because of what has already occurred. Think Lehman's when thinking Barclays.
G STREET IN HYPER-MODE
We hear alot about Wall Steet and Main Street but very little about G Street where the Lobbyists are based in Washington and who are, as I write, are scheming overtime to make sure their clients profit on this "rescue."
ONLY THE BEGINNING-STEVEN PEARLSTEIN IN THE WASHINGTON POST
Global investors no doubt will cheer the weekend's political breakthrough, focusing less on the details than on the perceived commitment by the United States to do whatever is necessary to prevent a meltdown in global financial markets.
But nobody should view even this effort as sufficient to keep the U.S. economy out of recession, stabilize housing markets or prevent the failure of additional banks, investment houses, insurers and hedge funds. Although more than $600 billion in private-sector credit losses have already been posted, a number of private and public-sector analysts now estimate that won't be even half the final tab from the bursting of the greatest credit bubble the world has seen.
ZACK'S RESEARCH: NOT OUT OF THE WOODS
Even after a form of this proposal gets passed, the US economy still has to contend with pieces other than the magnitude of the current financial crisis: extremely weak consumer, an ailing industrial sector, volatile crude oil prices and slowing global growth. So we will be nowhere near "out of the woods" after the bailout package becomes finalized, but it would be a crucial step to rebuilding a broken system.
GOLDMAN SHOPPING FOR BARGAINS
FT: Goldman Sachs is seeking to acquire up to $50bn in assets from ailing US banks as part of its push into commercial banking, Goldman executives say
NAKED CAPITALISM:There was confusion up until the midnight hour on Saturday:
First sighting from Clusterstock, will add updates as they come in:
Update (12:35 a.m.): Nancy Pelosi speaks first. (She calls it "a buy-in"-not a bailout.) She says we have a deal. Harry Reid is up next. He credits Pelosi with coming up with a new idea in the final hour but doesn't even hint at what that is! Hank Paulson sounds less reassuring, mentioning that there is lots of work left to be done and concluding "so far, so good."
Gregg just sounds glad to be able to go to bed. Roy Blunt admits he hasn't talked to the House Republicans but seems confident. Blather from Dodd about how "unpleasant" having to "go through all this" has been.
Clusterstock again:
Update (12:37 a.m.): It's a secret deal! Until they get it down on paper overnight, we won't know what they agreed to.
Except, except. We imagine that that the staff members and lawmakers will quickly be leaking details to reporters.
WHAT BAILOUT EMERGENCY? THE WHITE HOUSE ADMITS IT DREW UP PLANS FOR IT MONTHS AGO
TO SEND A SIGNAL TO ASIA
WHY DID THEY DO THIS DEAL ON THE WEEKEND? A:
The US Congress is not expected to start voting on the deal until tomorrow.
But politicians in Washington have reached their goal of striking a deal to send a reassuring message before today's opening of the Australian and Asian stockmarkets
But, guess what? Asian Markets did NOT respond as Washington hoped they would. "Asian stock markets fell on Monday as the US Congress prepared to begin voting on the $700 billion financial bailout plan…."
PRESSURE FROM CHINA BEHIND BAILOUT?
The architects of the bailout cannot be pleased by this news. Cam Hui writes more about this aspect which US media has downplayed on Seeking Alpha:
While some have pointed to the breakdown in the credit markets as the compelling reason for a bailout, there is gathering evidence that the US authorities succumbed to Chinese pressure to "make them whole", so to speak, on China's investments in US paper.
The Washington Post recently reported [emphasis, mine]:
As U.S. officials were deciding in August whether to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Treasury Department held informal talks with officials from the People's Bank of China, the country's central bank. At that time, investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in China were dramatically reducing their holdings. The U.S. side told China that a cash infusion was in the works; China said that it expected the U.S. government to "do whatever is necessary" to protect the investments.
As an indication of further pressures, China also signaled that it could shift away from USD assets. Given the size of the US current account deficit, a buyer's strike of USD paper would send long rates soaring and the economy would nose-dive into a serious recession, if not another Depression. In that case, the US authorities may have caved into Chinese pressure and chosen to bail out Agency paper
FT: ASIA ON EDGE: CHINA MOVES TO "DECOUPLE," PREVENT A CRASH
China takes steps to prevent stock markets crashing
Asian stock markets have suffered more than those in Europe and the US as investors have retreated amidst the growing uncertainty, fulfilling general expectations of greater vulnerability.
This time last year the talk was of decoupling, expressing the hope that Asian economies and stock markets would continue to perform well despite the expected slowdown in Europe and the US. Much of this hope was predicated on the continued strength of the Chinese economy and the increasing economic interdependence among Asian countries. Most countries in the region have developed strong economic ties with China since the Asian economic crisis in the 1990s.
NOTE: THERE IS STILL A CHANCE OF A REPUBLICAN REVOLT! THE BILL MAY NOT PASS EVEN NOW.
Alternet offers five reasons why.
FINANCIAL TIMES: WEST AT RISK
Thursday afternoon was the moment America realised its version of capitalism is
not working any more. You could feel the pain of that eureka moment from Wall
Street to Main Street, where the middle class howled at the magnitude of a
mooted $700bn bail-out package.
The most direct expression of this epiphany was on Capitol Hill, where an
apostate faction of House Republicans declared their 11th-hour opposition to
the financial plan being advanced by their own president and secretary of the
Treasury. Part of what was going on was political posturing ahead of the
November 4 election. But at the heart of the rebellion was the fear that, as
Jen Hensarling, the Texas congressman who led the resistance said, the rescue
plan would lead the US down "the road to socialism".
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH" THE NEXT BUBBLE TO BURST-CREDIT SWAPS NOT COVERED BY THIS DEAL
Remember that simpler time before you had ever heard the term "subprime
mortgage"?
Well, there is another financial instrument that could be about to become firmly
fixed in the water-cooler lexicon: credit-default swap.
These are contracts that banks, hedge funds and other institutions purchase to
cover potential losses on corporate debt, municipal bonds or mortgage
securities they have bought. If a company defaults on bond payments or goes
under, the swap issuer must pay a claim.
It's another of Wall Street's financial innovations that's creating fear and
hand-wringing among Washington financial regulators, so much so that U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox called on Congress
on Monday to "immediately" grant authority to regulate them.
REACTIONS: KUCINICH SAYS NO
"The $700 billion bailout for Wall Street, is driven by fear not fact. This is too much money in too a short a time going to too few people while too many questions remain unanswered.
Why aren't we having hearings on the plan we have just received? Why aren't we questioning the underlying premise of the need for a bailout with taxpayers' money? Why have we not considered any alternatives other than to give $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren't we asking Wall Street to clean up its own mess? Why aren't we passing new laws to stop the speculation, which triggered this? Why aren't we putting up new regulatory structures to protect investors? How do we even value the $700 billion in toxic assets?
"Why aren't we helping homeowners directly with their debt burden? Why aren't we helping American families faced with bankruptcy. Why aren't we reducing debt for Main Street instead of Wall Street? Isn't it time for fundamental change in our debt based monetary system, so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks? Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs? Wall Street is a place of bears and bulls. It is not smart to force taxpayers to dance with bears or to follow closely behind the bulls.
THOM HARTMANN: How Wall Street Can Bail Itself Out Without Destroying The Dollar
For Grover "Drown Government In The Bathtub" Norquist, this bailout deal will work out very well. At a proposed cost of $4,780 per taxpayer, it'll further the David Stockman strategy of so indebting us that the next president won't have the luxury of even thinking of new social spending (expanding health care, social security, education, infrastructure, etc.); taxes will even have to be raised just to pay for the bailout. It'll debase our currency, driving up commodity prices and interest rates, which will benefit the Investor Class while further impoverishing the pesky Middle Class, rendering them less prone to protest (because they're so busy working trying to pay off their debt). It'll create stagflation for at least the next half decade, which can be blamed on Democrats who currently control Congress and, should Obama be elected, be blamed on him.
But there's another way: Create an agency to fund the bailout, loan that agency the money from the treasury, and then have that agency tax Wall Street to pay us (the treasury) back.
Mike Whitney: THEY ARE BROKE
The financial system is blowing up. Don't listen to the experts; just look at the numbers. Last week, according to Reuters, "U.S. banks borrowed a record amount from the Federal Reserve nearly $188 billion a day on average, showing the central bank went to extremes to keep the banking system afloat amid the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression." The Fed opened the various "auction facilities" to create the appearance that insolvent banks were thriving businesses, but they are not. They're dead; their liabilities exceed their assets. Now the Fed is desperate because the hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) in the banks vaults have bankrupt the entire system and the Fed's balance sheet is ballooning by the day. The market for MBS will not bounce back in the foreseeable future and the banks are unable to roll-over their short term debt. Game over. The Federal Reserve itself is in danger. So, it's on to Plan B; which is to dump all the toxic sludge on the taxpayer before he realizes that the whole system is cratering and his life is about to change forever. It's called the Paulson Plan, a $700 billion boondoggle which has already been disparaged by every economist of merit in the country.
From Reuters:
"Borrowings by primary dealers via the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, and through another facility created on Sunday for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch, and their London-based subsidiaries, totaled $105.66 billion as of Wednesday, the Fed said."
See what I mean; they're all broke. The Fed's rotating loans are just a way to perpetuate the myth that the banks aren't flat-lining already. Bernanke has tied strings to the various body parts and jerks them every so often to make it look like they're alive. But the Wall Street model is broken and the bailout is pointless.
STEPHEN LENDMAN-GLOBAL RESEARCH:
The crime of the century. The greatest one ever. Author Danny Schechter calls it "Plunder." The title of his important new book on the subprime and overall financial crisis. Economist Michael Hudson and others refer to a kleptocracy. A Ponzi scheme writ large. Maybe an out-of-control Andromeda Strain. An economic one. Deadly. Unrecallable. Science fiction now real life. Potentially catastrophic. World governments trying to contain it. Trying everything but not sure what can work. Maybe only able to paper it over for short-term relief. Buy time but in the end vindicate the maxim that things that can't go on forever, won't.
The world as we know it is changing. Industrial capitalism. The entire global economic system. Interconnected. What affects one nation touches others. If the troubled country is America it reaches everywhere, and if the crisis is great enough, the disease may be fatal and human wreckage catastrophic. Precisely the current dilemma that world leaders and financial experts are scrambling to figure out. Desperate to contain, and not sure what, if anything, can work. How did this happen and why?
The result of unfettered capitalism's fatal flaw - unbridled greed in a rigged system that rewards the few at the expense of most others. First an explanation of how it works. Free-wheeling, "free market" Chicago School fundamentalism the way economist Milton Friedman championed it in his 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom" and taught it to students for decades. He believed that government's sole function is "to protect our freedom both from (outside) enemies….and from our fellow-citizens." Preserve law and order. Enforce private contracts. Protect private property and "foster competitive (unregulated) markets." Everything else in public hands is "socialism….blasphemy." Not to be tolerated.
THE ECONOMIST (LONDON)
No government bail-out of the banking system was ever going to be pretty. This one deserves support SAVING the world is a thankless task. The only thing beyond dispute in the $700 billion plan of Hank Paulson, the treasury secretary, and Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, to stem the financial crisis is that everyone can find something in it to dislike. The left accuses it of ripping off taxpayers to save Wall Street, the right damns it as socialism; economists disparage its technicalities, political scientists its sweeping powers. The administration gave ground to Congress, George Bush delivered a televised appeal and Barack Obama and John McCain suspended the presidential campaign. Even so, as The Economist went to press, the differences remained. There was a chance that Congress would say no.
Spending a sum of money that could buy you a war in Iraq should not come easily; and the notion of any bail-out is deeply troubling to any self-respecting capitalist. Against that stand two overriding arguments. First this is a plan that could work. And, second, the potential costs of producing nothing, or too little too slowly, include a financial collapse and a deep recession spilling across the world: those far outweigh any plausible estimate of the bail-out's cost.
UK: ANOTHER BANK NATIONALIZED
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's government will nationalize troubled mortgage lender Bradford & Bingley and is discussing the sale of its savings book and branches, people in the banking industry familiar with the matter said.
The Treasury is leading talks on the rescue of the bank and said on Sunday discussions were continuing. A full statement will be made by finance minister Alistair Darling before Monday's market opening.
The Treasury would have preferred a private sector rescue for Britain's ninth biggest mortgage provider but rivals appear unwilling to come in as a "white knight" amid a global credit crisis and weakening British housing market.
DEAN BAKER: Ending Welfare as We Know it Now
Like many other economists I have been writing about the conditions under which the taxpayers should be willing to hand over vast sums to the Wall Street wrecking crew. This is inevitably involves a game of chicken to some extent. But a properly designed bailout turns it into a simple question of revealed preference.
We give Wall Street terms that require giving up so much equity that the banks really don't want to take the deal. They will take the deal because they have to take the deal, the alternative is bankruptcy.
There is a very simple way to determine whether the deal is the right deal.
If the deal is the right deal, the stock market should rally; the threat of a financial meltdown will be pushed back, if not eliminated. However, if it's the right deal the financial stocks will not rally, they might even plummet.
The right deal will not give the shareholders anything. It will require the banks to surrender so much equity in exchange for their bailout that the share price could fall when the bailout is announced. After all, the shareholders of AIG were not happy when the Fed stepped in and keep the giant insurer operating. If we get the right deal, the stockholders of the surviving financial companies should be almost as unhappy.
So, there you have it. The right deal means stock market up, financial stocks down. Or to put another way, no deal until we see the "For Sale" signs in the Hamptons.
MEMO TO DEAN: There is a wave of foreclosures already in the Hamptons.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The Second Great Depression
The Creation of the Second Great Depression
By Ron Paul
25/09/08 "Lew Rockwell" -- - Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.
The events of the past week are no exception.
The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress’ throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It’s bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."
That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we’re being told it’s unavoidable.
The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences – predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics – are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!
* The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.
* Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.
* Then there’s this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.
There goes your country.
Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don’t make me laugh.
Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind – another example of the big choice we’re supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they’re not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.
Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we’ll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.
The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?
When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?
Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
By Ron Paul
25/09/08 "Lew Rockwell" -- - Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.
The events of the past week are no exception.
The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress’ throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It’s bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."
That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we’re being told it’s unavoidable.
The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences – predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics – are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!
* The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.
* Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.
* Then there’s this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.
There goes your country.
Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don’t make me laugh.
Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind – another example of the big choice we’re supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they’re not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.
Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we’ll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.
The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?
When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?
Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
CBC (mostly) Watch (actually more of a 'sporadic' CBC watch, as I'm too busy to do much right now and nobody seems to care anyway - but the propaganda is just so obvious I have to say something sometimes - so herein a partial record for when I or someone gets time for some 'academic' style analysis)
by Dave "Siam Dave" Patterson
source
Friday Sept 19 - 6 am PEI national 'news' - still on the 'apology' issue - the intrepid 'reporter' goes and finds three people who think the guy should resign, and nobody from the other POV, as 'background' to their 'story' on how that darn person is not resigning, even though some higher ups at the CBC think he ought to, in their petulant childish way. Right on impartial 'journalism' - I guess I'm the only one in Canada who thinks this is idiotic. And meanwhile, we wait and wait for something on a real issue, such as the SPP/NAU, Banketeering, democracy, etc.
- 6.30 'news' - it's a PEI story that a Lib candidate is 'recycling his old campaign signs'. You bet. Sure beats talking about democracy or banking or the SPP or any real issues etc.
Thursday Sept 18 - PEI news 6:30 am - making a big issue about some guy joking about 'hopes the person who died on PEI from listeriosis was Wayne Easter' - cheap joke, common sort of thing in ANY circle normal people move in, but the CBC is going to take it seriously and make a big issue out of it. Dumbing down in action, by PC people - this sort of thing is nothing more than childish, adults understand that this sort of joke is made, and is nothing more than that, a joke. Perhaps a bit tasteless, but hardly the stuff over which normal adult people get outraged. Big momma in action. (and the 'joking' as reported on the newscast - '...this may be death by a thousand cuts - or should that be cold cuts...' - I should never think this stuff cannot get more pathetic. But on a major CBC provincial news cast? This would get laughed out of a journalism school course ..... dumbing down in action. Nonstop. And if they want to censor the politician for the tasteless joke, why do they make equally tasteless ones themselves? As always, one rule for us, another for you.
- and making a big issue of the NDP candidate who did some drugs 'live' - some people might think this a perfect opportunity to talk about how most Canadians want pot legalised, but no, the PC CBC is all holier than thou about it all. This is a real issue that needs talking about, and real issues is one place we are NOT going during this campaign, insofar as the CBC has anything to do with it all.
- Ottawa news, 8.30, story on Pettawawa, not much interest in the election at Pettawawa, but it's a way to remind people about how both the Cons and Libs have 'agreed' on the 2011 withdrawal, so we don't need to talk about this much, right? Who cares what Canadians think about this all, eh???? But we do manage to get a few comments about how that date - 'may be too soon' - we're very definitely not going to hear from the majority of Canadians who want withdrawal now, as in ASAP, or ask politicians why they don't care what Canadians think about this, but let's get this little 'support the mssion!!! story in .... that's is indoctrination at work, constant small reinforcements sneaking in under the radar, and influencing what people think ....
- lady on the current 'doing the mail', just happens to mention her new book about the very serious situation of women in Afghanistan (you wavering people, we're doing GOOD STUFF THERE!!!!]]]] - blatant, very obvious what is happening from outside the box. Virtually never do we hear anything talking about how most Canadians do not want to be there, or how we got involved very undemocratically, etc.
Wednesday Sept 17 - the current - interview with Dion, Tremonti pretty aggressive, obviously dislikes Dion (all rightwing complaining about 'lefty media' notwithstanding), but he handled himself very impressively - have to wait and see how she deals with Harper - aggressive is ok, as long as it is evenly distributed amongst all candidates ...
- always stories of interest to be told, like the one from Fredericton today about the Down syndrome political activist - again, this would be fine, if we were also getting the story of, for instance, Connie Fogal and CAP, and why they continue to spend so much time fighting when the mainstream media continues to ignore them, even though they seem to speak for so many Canadians ....
Tuesday Sept 16 - the Current - second part - another long segment on May - as somebody said, any PR is good PR, and if the objective is getting May well enough known to get that anti-Harper vote well split up among the Greens, NDP and Libs, they're doing, I would suggest, a very good job. Still haven't heard a word from anyone about SPP, or money supply, even though I have written everyone about Banketeering, it's completely ignored by all the mainstream people who remain firmly in the box comments with 'issues' and commentary etc, same old stuff, nothing important, although they all pretend, of course, to be important and serious
- the whole focus of this show is that Canadian are waaaaaay behind the Americans in using the net for politics - not a word about the role of the media in this, the role of major left wing websites in preventing organising between elections, the role of the mainstream media in marginalising any useful websites, etc. propaganda all the way. Very clever propaganda, but all designed to create the Cdn narrative
- the interviewee jesse brown complains about parties not giving Cdns the info they need - do they not see the 'irony' here???? Isn't it the MEDIA supposed to inform Canadians?!?!? Shouldn't we be talking about the media NOT doing this? Most of my comments to Cdn newspaper 'comment' boards are removed, including the CBC sites - how obvious can it be what you are doing? But that's the Canadian narrative - the media are wonderful people who give Canadians all the information they need - and apparently most Canadians believe this, and will not think about anything the media does not tell them to think about, or have no opinions not sanctioned by the media.
Monday Sept 15 - the Current giving more attention to May and the Greens - a party with no elected MPS, but not a day goes by May is not in the news, or on the radio being interviewed by someone - compare with CAP, who has had not a single word of press, although they speak for things a lot of Canadians care about, that nobody else does .... May getting attention like this would be good if the other minor parties and issues got the same sort of exposure, to let the voters know what was going on in their country. What would happen if the CBC et al gave the same attention to the SPP, or democracy and PR in Canada, or whether or not the Libs and Cons actually care about what Canadians think about the Afghan mission, and etc. Spin spin and spin - they want the vote split, so they give May attention.
Sunday Sept 14 - 09:00 Halifax national news - still at it, this is not even subtle any more, first a story from Quebec about how 'disillusioned' Bloc voters are turning to Harper, and then a quote from Harper about how all other parties have moved to the left, leaving the center for him - complete bullshit, but that is the narrative they are creating for the history books - 'centrist' Harper attracting Canadians and the loser lefties falling behind (actually, obviously, Harper is well to the right, and the NDP pretty centrist, with the Libs kind of center right leaning far right - but we are NOT going to talk about those parties being right wing, or get involved in any discussions about how the NDP actually have policies closer to what most Canadians believe in - the narrative that Canadians are being told to believe is that the Libs and Cons are centrist and represent Canadians, and the NDP are just the lefty fringe. And most Canadians are well enough trained to accept this crap without thinking about it at all, and then voting for the people who are wrecking their country rather than people who want to save it. And they are going to push May more to make sure the anti harper vote is well divided, on cross country checkup today. Apparently I am the only one in the country who has any fucking clue what is going on - how successful the indoctrination has been, and is. God give me a place to get out of this craziness!!!!!!!
Friday Sept 11 - CBC Charlottetown news - 06:30am, still slagging the Libs - the candidate 'tries' to explain the carbon tax (obviously it is 'too difficult' for people to understand, is the CBC narrative of this 'story', and 'trying' indicates that it is too difficult etc) - they get a few interviews with people who say they don't understand it, golly!! poor little simpleton citizen me!! - but none, of course, from people who say it is perfectly clear and no problem - always, always always creating the narrative - this will be in the history books, the carbon tax was too difficult to understand, etc .... then the interview with the candidate, the little CBC reporter saying over and over and over again that he doesn't understand it, cannot find anyone who understands it, 'don't you think this is a hard sell..'? etc and etc - this is way beyond spin, it is outright propaganda .... not a single 'ordinary' person who confirms that it's no big deal, it's easy to understand, etc - just on the message, over and over and over - same game as never talking about any of the few very important things I write letters about (and others, no doubt), and then saying there is nothing important or interesting in Cdn politics or politicians, etc. blatant - and pretty much everyone in the country is so indoctrinated they cannot see it happening ....
- and then in the national news, a long story on Layton and Harper attacking the same Green Plan - so blatant!!!! (one can only figure that the powers that be are determined Dion gets nowhere near being PM, and Layton has been persuaded one way or another to pull a Broadbent, and help Harper get his majority ...) - EVERYTHING they do in relation to the election, or politics, is spin and propaganda - 'reporting' that any journalism school would not allow, the CBC picking a POV, finding a couple of interviews to support it, and no POVs from the other side - utterly amazing, only the most passive citizens could accept this stuff. And apparently most do. Although we will never know how much protest there is in the form of emails etc sent to the CBC or anywhere else, as of course they never print them or acknowledge them. (stuff on message boards is almost irrelevant, as nobody can read them all, and they have a much lower credibility factor than 'real stories by 'real' reporters' etc, but even so, the CBC is not allowing most of my attempts to get people at least aware of Banketeering, and they cut things asking what role the media is playing as well - out of the box stuff, criticizing the media all citizens must trust!!
- right up to the interview with Palin that gets 'reported', as the 'reporter' complains about 'the harsh-faced interviewer' - oh you poor little lady!! big bad man!!! such impartial 'journalism'!!
Thursday Sept 10 - the Current - interviewing Jack Layton, Tremonti on full attack mode, interrupting him, shouting at him, etc, obviously unhappy with what he says, pretty embarrassing .... we shall see later when she does others if she attacks the same way .... (Layton defends himself very well, sounds very good - which evidently upsets Tremonti somewhat, interrupting, aggressive, shouting - reminds me of her getting mad at Barrie Zwicker last year)
- and in the third half hour(!!) they do a profile of a kid they call somebody interested in politics etc - this seems like a good thing, but first, why does one person get this publicity, this endorsement from the official media? It is gatekeeping - this guy is ok is the message, a role model for the listeners, etc. And it is propaganda, in the sense of 'look at ytour great CBC talking about ordinary people that you should know about' - etc. It's good to give this kid some exposure, but he knows little, and this is putting out the idea that he is someone worth listening to on a broader level, when really he is very innocent, and very in the box - so listening to him is to encourage more of the same. Which is what 'they'; want, but which is not good for our future. (also a note on the guy who made the piece - obviously again a 20-something, who thinks he is cutting edge, but would still be in journalism school in a country where we had real journalists) - as always, this is not that offensive in itself, but it's the people they do NOT cover who SHOULD be covered that underlines that this is, in reality, propaganda, and creating the Cdn narrative (this kid will get in the history books as an example of how the media 'reached out' to ordinary Cdns, but there will never be any mention of the issues they do want people thinking about, such as banketeering, or CAP, the SPP, etc., Propaganda, no other way to put it, when you see the full picture from outside the box.)
Kevin O'Connor, Regina, CBC news - a 'prof' talking about how Canadians agree with many things in the American election - obviously a piece as part of 'creating the narrative' - the things they choose to talk about, as opposed to the things they do not ....
- and then in Sounds like Canada - more on how 'boring' the Cdn election is, as opposed to that wonderfully interesting American election - all you folks just go home, sit down at your tv, no point in voting, everything's just boring etc and etc - it gets so frustrating sometimes when I want to be screaming at people about how important this is, but the media that people very mistakenly trust is just putting them to sleep - and how obviously all the politicians are involved in the scam, as May is on talking about cooking, laughing and having a good time - part of the 'nothing here to see folks' game - creating the narrative. We have amazing speakers in Canada, such as Connie Fogal, but they won't let her talk .... the choice of guests on these shows is the same thing - guests who talk about these things, but not the opposite - (and they are sophisticated propagandists - very scripted to make certain points and not talk about others - these people are way ahead of me .....)
Wednesday Sept 10 - hourly news 09:00 Ottawa
derek stofel from Afghan - Teleban has 'ramped up the propaganda' telling Cdns that the new PM better 'withdraw from Kandahar or more troops weill be killed'; - sounds a lot more like CBC proaganda to me, and the dumbed down language the 'reporter' uses - 'ramped up' on the CBC, really, these guys wouldn't even get jobs running messages back and forth when the CBC was real ....
Tuesday Sept 9 - CBC morning news (8:00 Ottawa, Judy Madrin)
slagging China again, Anthony whatever about a prisoner sentenced to death who killed some cops - similar things happen in America all the time, but NEVER does the CBC do anything more than report in a neutral tone of voice, none of this 'look at them damned commies we're just so outraged!!' stuff. The prisoner, he notes '.. says something that must terrify the authorities' - people criticize the US all the time, but NEVER again do we hear anything like this - when people criticize the US government, THEY are in the wrong, when they criticize the Chinese, they are heroes - always so obvious, at least from out here in outside the box land ....
- and on the current, a 'documentary' about Americans moving to Russia during the 30s and winding up in 'Stalin's gulag' - now next week we will wait for a story on the American Japanese that wound up in the American gulag, no doubt, just to be fair, or how the Americans today have the highest prison population in the world, and the most executions, and are violating human rights everywhere by forced labor for corporations, and etc hahaha sure we will, right CBC?? Again, the propaganda is obvious because they always criticize others, but never 'us' or especially the Americans, who are one of the greatest human rights abusers the world has ever known, not that you'd ever figure that out from listening to the CBC or other Canadian media ....
- the guy mentions 'leftists' who went to Russia, gratuitous slagging again .... American 'leftist' press .... lots of talk of Russian / 'leftist' propaganda, never a word about American 'rightist' propaganda, then or now .... talks about reporters of the time not talking about obvious Russian problems - but the CBC or others in Canada never talk about modern American reporters refusing to talk about current problems with the media or anything else to do with 'great America' - the CBC the same - so obviously propaganda by the CBC when you understand the bigger picture - just at a much greater level of sophistication than in earlier times ....
Sunday Sept 6 - the big surprise election announcement! (at least Perry's first question is 'why now?', as if everyone hasn't been talking about this for two weeks. And the 'analyst's' first comment is again to let everybody know that they are supposed to see Dion as a weak leader, as they've been hammering endlessly for the last 18 months. "Is Dion worth the risk??" - interesting that Petty mentions 'the campaign narrative' - which they are already composing - Dion the loser, Layton has no chance to win, Harper is very leader-like. No question which way this one is going - con majority. People of Canada conned bigtime.
Petty's issues - listeria, health care, environment, economy, job losses, energy costs, jobs are safe, Afghanistan,
(note - this was obviously a 'special breaking news!! broadcast' that was long in preparation, with tape clips at the ready etc)
- third hour of Sunday morning - a special on talking about the election, with various guests - isn't it interesting that they could arrange all of this in the 90 minutes or so since the election was actually called!!!! - scripts and all - ...... the narrative is being created, and apparently nobody in the country besides me is aware of it. I suppose there are others, but there's no way we're getting time on the mainstream media.
Sat Sept 5 - the house, election coverage begins, with a look at Dion - hammering hammering as they have been since he was elected - mention 'left of center' crowd in the bit on Dion (let's count the times Harper gets referred to as right wing) -
Friday Sept 4 - Current - leaving Afghanistan Cdn ambassador, on to do his bit to ramp up support for 'the mission', never miss a chance - 'how do you explain what is happening, even though it looks bad?' - blatant 'we're really winning and doing good stuff!!! - and they are really bad, bad guys and we have to keep fighting for truth and justice!!'
Propaganda.
'The goal of the Afghan gov is to build a new free Afghanistan - right. led by corrupt warlords.
and etc. deconstruction of the things this interview does NOT talk about could fill pages.
- some obvious scripting as well, to 'address the concerns of Canadians' - the obvious reason for such 'interviews'
- but interview doing a good job of pretending to 'ask the hard questions!!'. right.
Congress Sells Out on Bailout
Lawmakers Reach Accord on Huge Financial Rescue
Vote on $700B Bailout Plan May Come as Early as Monday
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 28, 2008; 3:05 PM
Congressional leaders and the Bush administration this morning said they had struck an accord to insert the government deeply into the nation's financial markets, agreeing to spend up to $700 billion to relieve Wall Street of troubled assets backed by faltering home mortgages.
House and Senate negotiators from both parties emerged with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. at 12:30 a.m. from a marathon session in the Capitol to announce that they had reached a tentative agreement on a proposal to give Paulson broad authority to organize one of the biggest government interventions in the private sector since the Great Depression.
Congressional aides worked through the night to assemble the package, and hoped to post it to the Internet by midday today. Meanwhile, as preparations were being made for a vote in the House tomorrow morning, the congressional caucuses were preparing their own private huddles to review the proposal. The most critical meeting, among House Republicans, was expected later this afternoon. They have been the most reluctant to support the plan to purchase the securities. House Democrats were likely to meet in mid-afternoon.
"We've made great progress, but we have to commit it to paper before we can formally agree," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has pledged to make the plan available to the public for at least 24 hours before the House votes on it. A vote could come as early as tomorrow in the House, with the Senate expected to follow soon after.
"We've been working on this a long time. We've still got more to do to finalize it, but I think we're there," Paulson said. "So far, so good."
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who represented House Republicans, the group that had raised the most serious objections to the plan, said he was pleased with the progress made but that he had to take the proposal back to his caucus before committing his support for it. "I look forward to what we're going to see on paper and presenting these ideas to my colleagues and getting their reaction," Blunt said.
House Republicans appeared headed for a potentially spirited fight.
The office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, without officially endorsing the legislation, put out a series of talking points in the early afternoon outlining the favorable portions of the bill for conservatives.
However, one leading conservative, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), issued what amounted to a call to arms to fight the bailout.
"The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy. ... Before you vote, ask yourself why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principals. If you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, vote in accordance with those convictions," Pence wrote to House Republicans today.
A senior administration official, who requested anonymity to speak freely about the plan, said both sides had made significant concessions to achieve compromise. The Bush administration has agreed to accept a number of Democratic demands, including:
· The money would be disbursed in segments, with Paulson receiving $250 billion immediately, $100 billion upon White House certification of its necessity and the final $350 billion only after Congress has been given 15 days to object.
· Firms participating in the bailout would be required to grant the government warrants to obtain nonvoting shares of stock, so taxpayers can benefit if the companies return to profitability. Taxpayers also would be first in line to receive repayment if a participating firm fails.
· Firms that receive an infusion of government cash of $300 million or more will be required to limit compensation for senior executives, with especially severe limits on "golden parachutes" at failing firms. For most firms, compensation limits will be enacted primarily through the tax code by reducing tax deductions for firms that pay their top five executives more than $500,000 a year.
The administration also agreed to Democratic demands that the financial services industry should help pay for the program. Under the agreement, the president would be required to propose a fee on the industry if the government has not recovered its money through sales of the assets within five years.
Democrats also made a number of concessions, abandoning demands that bankruptcy judges be empowered to modify home mortgages on primary residences for people in foreclosure. They also agreed not to dedicate a portion of any profits from the bailout program to an affordable housing fund that Republicans claimed would primarily assist social service organizations that support the Democratic Party, the official said.
Meanwhile, House Republicans won a major victory, convincing negotiators to include a provision that would require the Treasury Department to create a a federal insurance program, funded by the banks, that would guarantee banks and other firms against loss from any troubled asset.
According to summaries of the deal released this morning by leaders in both parties, the agreement also calls for strict oversight of the bailout program, including an independent Inspector General and an oversight board appointed by both parties in Congress. The agreement also permits Treasury to purchase bad assets from pension plans, local governments and small banks, as well as major financial firms. And it would permit community banks that hold now worthless stock in mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were seized by the government, to count those losses immedately against ordinary income.
The House was gaveled into session at 1 p.m. today, starting with the usual one-minute speeches before actual legislative business began later in the afternoon. One by one, the most liberal and conservative members took to the well of the House to denounce the bill.
"Hold hearings, let's right this bill well," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee opposed to the legislation.
"I have been thrown out of more meetings than I thought possible," said Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Tex.), who opposes the bill and was ejected around 8 p.m. last night from a meeting with Paulson he tried to enter in the offices of Boehner (R-Ohio).
Leadership in both parties remained confident, however, that a consensus would form that the legislation would pass, likely with a large majority of Democrats and a sizeable portion of Republicans. Both Republicans and Democrats in the House were scheduled to huddle in closed-door meetings this afternoon to review the proposals. Passage in the Senate is considered much easier.
The plan to rescue the U.S. financial markets was first advanced by the Bush administration in a late-night meeting with lawmakers just 10 days ago. Under the proposal, Paulson would be authorized to purchase mortgage-backed assets from struggling firms in hopes of easing a credit crunch that has pushed global markets to the brink of collapse.
With home prices plummeting, many of those assets are now almost worthless, and investors have lost confidence in many of the firms that hold them. That has undermined some of the biggest names on Wall Street and caused banks to stop lending money, sparking a credit crisis that threatens to deliver a devastating blow to businesses, consumers and the broader economy.
Administration officials have stressed that the ultimate cost of the bailout would be much less than $700 billion because the government would eventually sell the assets it purchased and recover most, if not all, of its investment.
Yesterday's talks, conducted mainly in Pelosi's suite of offices on the second floor of the Capitol, were focused heavily on how to cover the cost of the program so taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill.
"We believe that the taxpayer should not be left holding the bag at the end of the day, and we've proposed a way to address that," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of Pelosi's leadership team.
Democrats said there were no outstanding issues remaining, but that negotiators need to see the words on paper before they can sign off on the plan. "It's really a question of seeing what we believe we've agreed to," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Even strong opponents of the plan said they expected it to pass.
Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), the senior Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, who has refused to participate in the talks, said a "critical mass" was forming behind the measure because of fears that Congress's failure to act would cripple financial markets and devastate the economy.
Yesterday's negotiations, which began shortly after 3 p.m., were at times tense and confusing, according to participants. At one point, according to Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one senator sought advice from investor Warren E. Buffett, one of the world's richest men and a director of The Washington Post Co.
From 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Conrad and other lawmakers met with Paulson around a massive table in Pelosi's conference room under an ornate portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Among lawmakers, Democrats outnumbered Republicans nine to two, an imbalance that so irritated Paulson that he called and complained to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), according to three GOP sources familiar with the call.
Reid told Paulson he would not pull any of his colleagues out of the meeting. A Reid spokesman, Jim Manley, said: "If the secretary doesn't like it, that's just too bad, because he is going to need the help of each and every one of them to sell the president's plan to the Democratic caucus and the American people."
After a break for dinner, the sides scattered into at least three separate groupings -- Paulson huddled in House Minority Leader John A. Boehner's office with other GOP leaders, Democrats in Pelosi's conference room and Pelosi in a separate suite talking with other Democrats.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Pelosi's chief of staff spent a couple of hours in shuttle diplomacy, frantically walking from room to room carrying sheets of paper. Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the negotiators were "shopping language" of the bill's draft versions. He and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, also spent time in Boehner's office with Paulson.
By 11 p.m., the three groups had once again converged in Pelosi's office to strike a final deal.
Yesterday's focus on limiting taxpayer exposure may help rally support in Congress, where lawmakers have been reluctant to back the hugely expensive and unpopular bailout measure less than six weeks from the November elections. But it could unnerve Wall Street, where investors are seeking the largest possible program with the fewest strings attached. They also hope lawmakers approve it before tomorrow's opening bell.
In his public testimony and private remarks, Paulson has repeatedly emphasized the need to spend $700 billion to soothe nervous markets. At that price, the government's upfront investment in the rescue package would be more expensive than the current cost of the Iraq war, which stands at about $650 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
But the White House and politicians on Capitol Hill have said the government could earn back much of its money, or even turn a profit.
"Many of these assets still have significant underlying value, because the vast majority of people will eventually pay off their mortgages," President Bush said yesterday in his weekly radio address. "In other words, many of the assets the government would buy are likely to go up in price over time. This means that the government will be able to recoup much, if not all, of the original expenditure."
Bush attempted to address criticisms from the right and left that the plan would bail out irresponsible financiers while doing nothing for regular Americans. Echoing frequent comments by him and his aides, Bush said allowing Wall Street to collapse further would pose greater dangers to the economy, perhaps triggering a "deep and painful recession."
"The rescue effort we're negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street -- it is aimed at your street," Bush said. "And there is now widespread agreement on the major principles. We must free up the flow of credit to consumers and businesses by reducing the risk posed by troubled assets."
Democratic leaders have emphasized to rank-and-file members that Paulson has told them that he could only spend about $50 billion a month on the securities purchase program. Of the $700 billion figure, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said: "Nobody believes that's going to be the final cost."
Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.
Vote on $700B Bailout Plan May Come as Early as Monday
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 28, 2008; 3:05 PM
Congressional leaders and the Bush administration this morning said they had struck an accord to insert the government deeply into the nation's financial markets, agreeing to spend up to $700 billion to relieve Wall Street of troubled assets backed by faltering home mortgages.
House and Senate negotiators from both parties emerged with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. at 12:30 a.m. from a marathon session in the Capitol to announce that they had reached a tentative agreement on a proposal to give Paulson broad authority to organize one of the biggest government interventions in the private sector since the Great Depression.
Congressional aides worked through the night to assemble the package, and hoped to post it to the Internet by midday today. Meanwhile, as preparations were being made for a vote in the House tomorrow morning, the congressional caucuses were preparing their own private huddles to review the proposal. The most critical meeting, among House Republicans, was expected later this afternoon. They have been the most reluctant to support the plan to purchase the securities. House Democrats were likely to meet in mid-afternoon.
"We've made great progress, but we have to commit it to paper before we can formally agree," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has pledged to make the plan available to the public for at least 24 hours before the House votes on it. A vote could come as early as tomorrow in the House, with the Senate expected to follow soon after.
"We've been working on this a long time. We've still got more to do to finalize it, but I think we're there," Paulson said. "So far, so good."
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who represented House Republicans, the group that had raised the most serious objections to the plan, said he was pleased with the progress made but that he had to take the proposal back to his caucus before committing his support for it. "I look forward to what we're going to see on paper and presenting these ideas to my colleagues and getting their reaction," Blunt said.
House Republicans appeared headed for a potentially spirited fight.
The office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, without officially endorsing the legislation, put out a series of talking points in the early afternoon outlining the favorable portions of the bill for conservatives.
However, one leading conservative, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), issued what amounted to a call to arms to fight the bailout.
"The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy. ... Before you vote, ask yourself why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principals. If you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, vote in accordance with those convictions," Pence wrote to House Republicans today.
A senior administration official, who requested anonymity to speak freely about the plan, said both sides had made significant concessions to achieve compromise. The Bush administration has agreed to accept a number of Democratic demands, including:
· The money would be disbursed in segments, with Paulson receiving $250 billion immediately, $100 billion upon White House certification of its necessity and the final $350 billion only after Congress has been given 15 days to object.
· Firms participating in the bailout would be required to grant the government warrants to obtain nonvoting shares of stock, so taxpayers can benefit if the companies return to profitability. Taxpayers also would be first in line to receive repayment if a participating firm fails.
· Firms that receive an infusion of government cash of $300 million or more will be required to limit compensation for senior executives, with especially severe limits on "golden parachutes" at failing firms. For most firms, compensation limits will be enacted primarily through the tax code by reducing tax deductions for firms that pay their top five executives more than $500,000 a year.
The administration also agreed to Democratic demands that the financial services industry should help pay for the program. Under the agreement, the president would be required to propose a fee on the industry if the government has not recovered its money through sales of the assets within five years.
Democrats also made a number of concessions, abandoning demands that bankruptcy judges be empowered to modify home mortgages on primary residences for people in foreclosure. They also agreed not to dedicate a portion of any profits from the bailout program to an affordable housing fund that Republicans claimed would primarily assist social service organizations that support the Democratic Party, the official said.
Meanwhile, House Republicans won a major victory, convincing negotiators to include a provision that would require the Treasury Department to create a a federal insurance program, funded by the banks, that would guarantee banks and other firms against loss from any troubled asset.
According to summaries of the deal released this morning by leaders in both parties, the agreement also calls for strict oversight of the bailout program, including an independent Inspector General and an oversight board appointed by both parties in Congress. The agreement also permits Treasury to purchase bad assets from pension plans, local governments and small banks, as well as major financial firms. And it would permit community banks that hold now worthless stock in mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were seized by the government, to count those losses immedately against ordinary income.
The House was gaveled into session at 1 p.m. today, starting with the usual one-minute speeches before actual legislative business began later in the afternoon. One by one, the most liberal and conservative members took to the well of the House to denounce the bill.
"Hold hearings, let's right this bill well," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee opposed to the legislation.
"I have been thrown out of more meetings than I thought possible," said Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Tex.), who opposes the bill and was ejected around 8 p.m. last night from a meeting with Paulson he tried to enter in the offices of Boehner (R-Ohio).
Leadership in both parties remained confident, however, that a consensus would form that the legislation would pass, likely with a large majority of Democrats and a sizeable portion of Republicans. Both Republicans and Democrats in the House were scheduled to huddle in closed-door meetings this afternoon to review the proposals. Passage in the Senate is considered much easier.
The plan to rescue the U.S. financial markets was first advanced by the Bush administration in a late-night meeting with lawmakers just 10 days ago. Under the proposal, Paulson would be authorized to purchase mortgage-backed assets from struggling firms in hopes of easing a credit crunch that has pushed global markets to the brink of collapse.
With home prices plummeting, many of those assets are now almost worthless, and investors have lost confidence in many of the firms that hold them. That has undermined some of the biggest names on Wall Street and caused banks to stop lending money, sparking a credit crisis that threatens to deliver a devastating blow to businesses, consumers and the broader economy.
Administration officials have stressed that the ultimate cost of the bailout would be much less than $700 billion because the government would eventually sell the assets it purchased and recover most, if not all, of its investment.
Yesterday's talks, conducted mainly in Pelosi's suite of offices on the second floor of the Capitol, were focused heavily on how to cover the cost of the program so taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill.
"We believe that the taxpayer should not be left holding the bag at the end of the day, and we've proposed a way to address that," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of Pelosi's leadership team.
Democrats said there were no outstanding issues remaining, but that negotiators need to see the words on paper before they can sign off on the plan. "It's really a question of seeing what we believe we've agreed to," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Even strong opponents of the plan said they expected it to pass.
Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), the senior Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, who has refused to participate in the talks, said a "critical mass" was forming behind the measure because of fears that Congress's failure to act would cripple financial markets and devastate the economy.
Yesterday's negotiations, which began shortly after 3 p.m., were at times tense and confusing, according to participants. At one point, according to Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one senator sought advice from investor Warren E. Buffett, one of the world's richest men and a director of The Washington Post Co.
From 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Conrad and other lawmakers met with Paulson around a massive table in Pelosi's conference room under an ornate portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Among lawmakers, Democrats outnumbered Republicans nine to two, an imbalance that so irritated Paulson that he called and complained to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), according to three GOP sources familiar with the call.
Reid told Paulson he would not pull any of his colleagues out of the meeting. A Reid spokesman, Jim Manley, said: "If the secretary doesn't like it, that's just too bad, because he is going to need the help of each and every one of them to sell the president's plan to the Democratic caucus and the American people."
After a break for dinner, the sides scattered into at least three separate groupings -- Paulson huddled in House Minority Leader John A. Boehner's office with other GOP leaders, Democrats in Pelosi's conference room and Pelosi in a separate suite talking with other Democrats.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Pelosi's chief of staff spent a couple of hours in shuttle diplomacy, frantically walking from room to room carrying sheets of paper. Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the negotiators were "shopping language" of the bill's draft versions. He and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, also spent time in Boehner's office with Paulson.
By 11 p.m., the three groups had once again converged in Pelosi's office to strike a final deal.
Yesterday's focus on limiting taxpayer exposure may help rally support in Congress, where lawmakers have been reluctant to back the hugely expensive and unpopular bailout measure less than six weeks from the November elections. But it could unnerve Wall Street, where investors are seeking the largest possible program with the fewest strings attached. They also hope lawmakers approve it before tomorrow's opening bell.
In his public testimony and private remarks, Paulson has repeatedly emphasized the need to spend $700 billion to soothe nervous markets. At that price, the government's upfront investment in the rescue package would be more expensive than the current cost of the Iraq war, which stands at about $650 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
But the White House and politicians on Capitol Hill have said the government could earn back much of its money, or even turn a profit.
"Many of these assets still have significant underlying value, because the vast majority of people will eventually pay off their mortgages," President Bush said yesterday in his weekly radio address. "In other words, many of the assets the government would buy are likely to go up in price over time. This means that the government will be able to recoup much, if not all, of the original expenditure."
Bush attempted to address criticisms from the right and left that the plan would bail out irresponsible financiers while doing nothing for regular Americans. Echoing frequent comments by him and his aides, Bush said allowing Wall Street to collapse further would pose greater dangers to the economy, perhaps triggering a "deep and painful recession."
"The rescue effort we're negotiating is not aimed at Wall Street -- it is aimed at your street," Bush said. "And there is now widespread agreement on the major principles. We must free up the flow of credit to consumers and businesses by reducing the risk posed by troubled assets."
Democratic leaders have emphasized to rank-and-file members that Paulson has told them that he could only spend about $50 billion a month on the securities purchase program. Of the $700 billion figure, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said: "Nobody believes that's going to be the final cost."
Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.
Mysterious Activity Going on in the Marriott Hotel Islamabad
What Was Mysterious Activity Going on in the Marriott Hotel Islamabad by United States Marines
Sunday, 21 September 2008 12:18
www.daily.pk
Marriott Hotel has now become a ghost house which was yesterday the most beautiful and prestigious hotels in the Islamabad. While the condemnation of the blasts and the deaths and the loss of property is going on from all the quarters, some intriguing news is also pouring in.
After the blast, mysteriously fire was started at the fourth and fifth floors. It was said that this fire was the result of gas pipeline burst running through the hotel. The million dollar question is that was the gas pipeline not running through the other floors? Why the fire broke out from the fourth and fifth flours? That is the question which perhaps holds the key to the mystery as why the hotel was targeted yesterday, in which more than 60 people died including many foreigners.
Though it would never get confirmed but the fire on the fifth and fourth floor of the hotel broke out because those flours were housing the mysterious steel boxes under the heavy guard of United States marines and no one including the Pakistani security forces and the security men of the hotel were allowed to go near with the them. These boxes were shifted inside the hotel when the Admiral Mike Mullen met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and others in Islamabad.
It is said that one member of parliament Mumtaz Alam who belongs to the PPP, the ruling party was there eye witnessed the whole scene when the white truck of US embassy came to the gate of Marriot Hotel and US marines themselves unloaded the steel boxes from the trucks and shifted them to the fourth and fifth floors without passing through them the scanners at the entrance of the hotels. When the truck was there, all the entrance and the exit passage way to the hotels were closed.
And now this blast has occurred at the Marriott, while that mysterious activity was going on.
Sunday, 21 September 2008 12:18
www.daily.pk
Marriott Hotel has now become a ghost house which was yesterday the most beautiful and prestigious hotels in the Islamabad. While the condemnation of the blasts and the deaths and the loss of property is going on from all the quarters, some intriguing news is also pouring in.
After the blast, mysteriously fire was started at the fourth and fifth floors. It was said that this fire was the result of gas pipeline burst running through the hotel. The million dollar question is that was the gas pipeline not running through the other floors? Why the fire broke out from the fourth and fifth flours? That is the question which perhaps holds the key to the mystery as why the hotel was targeted yesterday, in which more than 60 people died including many foreigners.
Though it would never get confirmed but the fire on the fifth and fourth floor of the hotel broke out because those flours were housing the mysterious steel boxes under the heavy guard of United States marines and no one including the Pakistani security forces and the security men of the hotel were allowed to go near with the them. These boxes were shifted inside the hotel when the Admiral Mike Mullen met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and others in Islamabad.
It is said that one member of parliament Mumtaz Alam who belongs to the PPP, the ruling party was there eye witnessed the whole scene when the white truck of US embassy came to the gate of Marriot Hotel and US marines themselves unloaded the steel boxes from the trucks and shifted them to the fourth and fifth floors without passing through them the scanners at the entrance of the hotels. When the truck was there, all the entrance and the exit passage way to the hotels were closed.
And now this blast has occurred at the Marriott, while that mysterious activity was going on.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Silence in the Face of Horror: No War of Words
The New World War
The Silence Is A Lie
In an article for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes the 'great silence' over the annual British party conferences as politicians and their club of commentators say nothing about a war provoked and waged across the world the responsibility for which lies close at hand.
By John Pilger
25/09/08 "ICH" -- - Britain's political conference season of 2008 will be remembered as The Great Silence. Politicians have come and gone and their mouths have moved in front of large images of themselves, and they often wave at someone. There has been lots of news about each other. Adam Boulton, the political editor of Sky News, and billed as "the husband of Blair aide Anji Hunter", has published a book of gossip derived from his "unrivalled access to No 10". His revelation is that Tony Blair's mouthpiece told lies. The war criminal himself has been absent, but the former mouthpiece has been signing his own book of gossip, and waving. The club is celebrating itself, including all those, Labour and Tory, who gave the war criminal a standing ovation on his last day in parliament and who have yet to vote on, let alone condemn, Britain's part in the wanton human, social and physical destruction of an entire nation. Instead, there are happy debates such as, "Can hope win?" and, my favourite, "Can foreign policy be a Labour strength?" As Harold Pinter said of unmentionable crimes: "Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening, it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest."
The Guardian's economics editor, Larry Elliott, has written that the Prime Minister "resembles a tragic hero in a Hardy novel: an essentially good man brought down by one error of judgement". What is this one error of judgement? The bank- rolling of two murderous colonial adventures? No. The unprecedented growth of the British arms industry and the sale of weapons to the poorest countries? No. The replacement of manufacturing and public service by an arcane cult serving the ultra-rich? No. The Prime Minister's "folly" is "postponing the election last year". This is the March Hare Factor.
Reality can be detected, however, by applying the Orwell Rule and inverting public pronouncements and headlines, such as "Aggressor Russia facing pariah status, US warns", thereby identifying the correct pariah; or by crossing the invisible boundaries that fix the boundaries of political and media discussion. "When truth is replaced by silence," said the Soviet dissident Yevgeny Yevtushenko, "the silence is a lie."
Understanding this silence is critical in a society in which news has become noise. Silence covers the truth that Britain's political parties have converged and now follow the single-ideology model of the United States. This is different from the political consensus of half a century ago that produced what was known as social democracy. Today's political union has no principled social democratic premises. Debate has become just another weasel word and principle, like the language of Chaucer, is bygone. That the poor and the state fund the rich is a given, along with the theft of public services, known as privatisation. This was spelt out by Margaret Thatcher but, more importantly, by new Labour's engineers. In The Blair Revolution: Can New Labour Deliver? Peter Mandelson and Roger Liddle declared Britain's new "economic strengths" to be its transnational corporations, the "aerospace" industry (weapons) and "the pre-eminence of the City of London". The rest was to be asset-stripped, including the peculiar British pursuit of selfless public service. Overlaying this was a new social authoritarianism guided by a hypocrisy based on "values". Mandelson and Liddle demanded "a tough discipline" and a "hardworking majority" and the "proper bringing-up [sic] of children". And in formally launching his Murdochracy, Blair used "moral" and "morality" 18 times in a speech he gave in Australia as a guest of Rupert Murdoch, who had recently found God.
A "think tank" called Demos exemplified this new order. A founder of Demos, Geoff Mulgan, himself rewarded with a job in one of Blair's "policy units", wrote a book called Connexity. "In much of the world today," he offered, "the most pressing problems on the public agenda are not poverty or material shortage . . . but rather the disorders of freedom: the troubles that result from having too many freedoms that are abused rather than constructively used." As if celebrating life in another solar system, he wrote: "For the first time ever, most of the world's most powerful nations do not want to conquer territory."
That reads, now as it ought to have read then, as dark parody in a world where more than 24,000 children die every day from the effects of poverty and at least a million people lie dead in just one territory conquered by the most powerful nations. However, it serves to remind us of the political "culture" that has so successfully fused traditional liberalism with the lunar branch of western political life and allowed our "too many freedoms" to be taken away as ruthlessly and anonymously as wedding parties in Afghanistan have been obliterated by our bombs.
The product of these organised delusions is rarely acknowledged. The current economic crisis, with its threat to jobs and savings and public services, is the direct consequence of a rampant militarism comparable, in large part, with that of the first half of the last century, when Europe's most advanced and cultured nation committed genocide. Since the 1990s, America's military budget has doubled. Like the national debt, it is currently the largest ever. The true figure is not known, because up to 40 per cent is classified "black" – it is hidden. Britain, with a weapons industry second only to the US, has also been militarised. The Iraq invasion has cost $5trn, at least. The 4,500 British troops in Basra almost never leave their base. They are there because the Americans demand it. On 19 September, Robert Gates, the American defence secretary, was in London demanding $20bn from allies like Britain so that the US invasion force in Afghanistan could be increased to 44,000. He said the British force would be increased. It was an order.
In the meantime, an American invasion of Pakistan is under way, secretly authorised by President Bush. The "change" candidate for president, Barack Obama, had already called for an invasion and more aircraft and bombs. The ironies are searing. A Pakistani religious school attacked by American drone missiles, killing 23 people, was set up in the 1980s with CIA backing. It was part of Operation Cyclone, in which the US armed and funded mujahedin groups that became al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The aim was to bring down the Soviet Union. This was achieved; it also brought down the Twin Towers.
On 20 September the inevitable response to the latest invasion came with the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad. For me, it is reminiscent of President Nixon's invasion of Cambodia in 1970, which was planned as a diversion from the coming defeat in Vietnam. The result was the rise to power of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Today, with Taliban guerrillas closing on Kabul and Nato refusing to conduct serious negotiations, defeat in Afghanistan is also coming.
It is a war of the world. In Latin America, the Bush administration is fomenting incipient military coups in Venezuela, Bolivia, and possibly Paraguay, democracies whose governments have opposed Washington's historic rapacious intervention in its "backyard". Washington's "Plan Colombia" is the model for a mostly unreported assault on Mexico. This is the Merida Initiative, which will allow the United States to fund "the war on drugs and organised crime" in Mexico – a cover, as in Colombia, for militarising its closest neighbour and ensuring its "business stability".
Britain is tied to all these adventures – a British "School of the Americas" is to be built in Wales, where British soldiers will train killers from all corners of the American empire in the name of "global security".
None of this is as potentially dangerous, or more distorted in permitted public discussion, than the war on Russia. Two years ago, Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian Studies at New York University, wrote a landmark essay in the Nation which has now been reprinted in Britain.* He warns of "the gravest threats [posed] by the undeclared Cold War Washington has waged, under both parties, against post-communist Russia during the past 15 years". He describes a catastrophic "relentless winner-take-all of Russia's post-1991 weakness", with two-thirds of the population forced into poverty and life expectancy barely at 59. With most of us in the West unaware, Russia is being encircled by US and Nato bases and missiles in violation of a pledge by the United States not to expand Nato "one inch to the east". The result, writes Cohen, "is a US-built reverse iron curtain [and] a US denial that Russia has any legitimate national interests outside its own territory, even in ethnically akin former republics such as Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia. [There is even] a presumption that Russia does not have fully sovereignty within its own borders, as expressed by constant US interventions in Moscow's internal affairs since 1992 . . . the United States is attempting to acquire the nuclear responsibility it could not achieve during the Soviet era."
This danger has grown rapidly as the American media again presents US-Russian relations as "a duel to the death – perhaps literally". The liberal Washington Post, says Cohen, "reads like a bygone Pravda on the Potomac". The same is true in Britain, with the regurgitation of propaganda that Russia was wholly responsible for the war in the Caucasus and must therefore be a "pariah". Sarah Palin, who may end up US president, says she is ready to attack Russia. The steady beat of this drum has seen Moscow return to its old nuclear alerts. Remember the 1980s, writes Cohen, "when the world faced exceedingly grave Cold War perils, and Mikhail Gorbachev unexpectedly emerged to offer a heretical way out. Is there an American leader today ready to retrieve that missed opportunity?" It is an urgent question that must be asked all over the world by those of us still unafraid to break the lethal silence.
WWW.JOHNPILGER.COM
The Silence Is A Lie
In an article for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes the 'great silence' over the annual British party conferences as politicians and their club of commentators say nothing about a war provoked and waged across the world the responsibility for which lies close at hand.
By John Pilger
25/09/08 "ICH" -- - Britain's political conference season of 2008 will be remembered as The Great Silence. Politicians have come and gone and their mouths have moved in front of large images of themselves, and they often wave at someone. There has been lots of news about each other. Adam Boulton, the political editor of Sky News, and billed as "the husband of Blair aide Anji Hunter", has published a book of gossip derived from his "unrivalled access to No 10". His revelation is that Tony Blair's mouthpiece told lies. The war criminal himself has been absent, but the former mouthpiece has been signing his own book of gossip, and waving. The club is celebrating itself, including all those, Labour and Tory, who gave the war criminal a standing ovation on his last day in parliament and who have yet to vote on, let alone condemn, Britain's part in the wanton human, social and physical destruction of an entire nation. Instead, there are happy debates such as, "Can hope win?" and, my favourite, "Can foreign policy be a Labour strength?" As Harold Pinter said of unmentionable crimes: "Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening, it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest."
The Guardian's economics editor, Larry Elliott, has written that the Prime Minister "resembles a tragic hero in a Hardy novel: an essentially good man brought down by one error of judgement". What is this one error of judgement? The bank- rolling of two murderous colonial adventures? No. The unprecedented growth of the British arms industry and the sale of weapons to the poorest countries? No. The replacement of manufacturing and public service by an arcane cult serving the ultra-rich? No. The Prime Minister's "folly" is "postponing the election last year". This is the March Hare Factor.
Reality can be detected, however, by applying the Orwell Rule and inverting public pronouncements and headlines, such as "Aggressor Russia facing pariah status, US warns", thereby identifying the correct pariah; or by crossing the invisible boundaries that fix the boundaries of political and media discussion. "When truth is replaced by silence," said the Soviet dissident Yevgeny Yevtushenko, "the silence is a lie."
Understanding this silence is critical in a society in which news has become noise. Silence covers the truth that Britain's political parties have converged and now follow the single-ideology model of the United States. This is different from the political consensus of half a century ago that produced what was known as social democracy. Today's political union has no principled social democratic premises. Debate has become just another weasel word and principle, like the language of Chaucer, is bygone. That the poor and the state fund the rich is a given, along with the theft of public services, known as privatisation. This was spelt out by Margaret Thatcher but, more importantly, by new Labour's engineers. In The Blair Revolution: Can New Labour Deliver? Peter Mandelson and Roger Liddle declared Britain's new "economic strengths" to be its transnational corporations, the "aerospace" industry (weapons) and "the pre-eminence of the City of London". The rest was to be asset-stripped, including the peculiar British pursuit of selfless public service. Overlaying this was a new social authoritarianism guided by a hypocrisy based on "values". Mandelson and Liddle demanded "a tough discipline" and a "hardworking majority" and the "proper bringing-up [sic] of children". And in formally launching his Murdochracy, Blair used "moral" and "morality" 18 times in a speech he gave in Australia as a guest of Rupert Murdoch, who had recently found God.
A "think tank" called Demos exemplified this new order. A founder of Demos, Geoff Mulgan, himself rewarded with a job in one of Blair's "policy units", wrote a book called Connexity. "In much of the world today," he offered, "the most pressing problems on the public agenda are not poverty or material shortage . . . but rather the disorders of freedom: the troubles that result from having too many freedoms that are abused rather than constructively used." As if celebrating life in another solar system, he wrote: "For the first time ever, most of the world's most powerful nations do not want to conquer territory."
That reads, now as it ought to have read then, as dark parody in a world where more than 24,000 children die every day from the effects of poverty and at least a million people lie dead in just one territory conquered by the most powerful nations. However, it serves to remind us of the political "culture" that has so successfully fused traditional liberalism with the lunar branch of western political life and allowed our "too many freedoms" to be taken away as ruthlessly and anonymously as wedding parties in Afghanistan have been obliterated by our bombs.
The product of these organised delusions is rarely acknowledged. The current economic crisis, with its threat to jobs and savings and public services, is the direct consequence of a rampant militarism comparable, in large part, with that of the first half of the last century, when Europe's most advanced and cultured nation committed genocide. Since the 1990s, America's military budget has doubled. Like the national debt, it is currently the largest ever. The true figure is not known, because up to 40 per cent is classified "black" – it is hidden. Britain, with a weapons industry second only to the US, has also been militarised. The Iraq invasion has cost $5trn, at least. The 4,500 British troops in Basra almost never leave their base. They are there because the Americans demand it. On 19 September, Robert Gates, the American defence secretary, was in London demanding $20bn from allies like Britain so that the US invasion force in Afghanistan could be increased to 44,000. He said the British force would be increased. It was an order.
In the meantime, an American invasion of Pakistan is under way, secretly authorised by President Bush. The "change" candidate for president, Barack Obama, had already called for an invasion and more aircraft and bombs. The ironies are searing. A Pakistani religious school attacked by American drone missiles, killing 23 people, was set up in the 1980s with CIA backing. It was part of Operation Cyclone, in which the US armed and funded mujahedin groups that became al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The aim was to bring down the Soviet Union. This was achieved; it also brought down the Twin Towers.
On 20 September the inevitable response to the latest invasion came with the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad. For me, it is reminiscent of President Nixon's invasion of Cambodia in 1970, which was planned as a diversion from the coming defeat in Vietnam. The result was the rise to power of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Today, with Taliban guerrillas closing on Kabul and Nato refusing to conduct serious negotiations, defeat in Afghanistan is also coming.
It is a war of the world. In Latin America, the Bush administration is fomenting incipient military coups in Venezuela, Bolivia, and possibly Paraguay, democracies whose governments have opposed Washington's historic rapacious intervention in its "backyard". Washington's "Plan Colombia" is the model for a mostly unreported assault on Mexico. This is the Merida Initiative, which will allow the United States to fund "the war on drugs and organised crime" in Mexico – a cover, as in Colombia, for militarising its closest neighbour and ensuring its "business stability".
Britain is tied to all these adventures – a British "School of the Americas" is to be built in Wales, where British soldiers will train killers from all corners of the American empire in the name of "global security".
None of this is as potentially dangerous, or more distorted in permitted public discussion, than the war on Russia. Two years ago, Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian Studies at New York University, wrote a landmark essay in the Nation which has now been reprinted in Britain.* He warns of "the gravest threats [posed] by the undeclared Cold War Washington has waged, under both parties, against post-communist Russia during the past 15 years". He describes a catastrophic "relentless winner-take-all of Russia's post-1991 weakness", with two-thirds of the population forced into poverty and life expectancy barely at 59. With most of us in the West unaware, Russia is being encircled by US and Nato bases and missiles in violation of a pledge by the United States not to expand Nato "one inch to the east". The result, writes Cohen, "is a US-built reverse iron curtain [and] a US denial that Russia has any legitimate national interests outside its own territory, even in ethnically akin former republics such as Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia. [There is even] a presumption that Russia does not have fully sovereignty within its own borders, as expressed by constant US interventions in Moscow's internal affairs since 1992 . . . the United States is attempting to acquire the nuclear responsibility it could not achieve during the Soviet era."
This danger has grown rapidly as the American media again presents US-Russian relations as "a duel to the death – perhaps literally". The liberal Washington Post, says Cohen, "reads like a bygone Pravda on the Potomac". The same is true in Britain, with the regurgitation of propaganda that Russia was wholly responsible for the war in the Caucasus and must therefore be a "pariah". Sarah Palin, who may end up US president, says she is ready to attack Russia. The steady beat of this drum has seen Moscow return to its old nuclear alerts. Remember the 1980s, writes Cohen, "when the world faced exceedingly grave Cold War perils, and Mikhail Gorbachev unexpectedly emerged to offer a heretical way out. Is there an American leader today ready to retrieve that missed opportunity?" It is an urgent question that must be asked all over the world by those of us still unafraid to break the lethal silence.
WWW.JOHNPILGER.COM
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Big Talk
The Big Talk
How to tell a six year old where all the birds and bees have gone
by Sandra Steingraber
Published in the September/October 2008 issue of Orion magazine
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/3229
I WAS GOOGLING MYSELF recently (in an attempt, if you must know, to locate an essay that I had published somewhere), and I managed to misspell my own name. So I was directed to the one source that had mangled my name in the same way. And that is how I was confronted, in an obscure blog, with the question, “Why isn’t Sandra Steingraber [with dyslexic spelling] talking about climate change?”
It was unsettling. As the days went by, I began an imaginary argument.
Look, I first wrote about receding glaciers in 1988. I was assigning Al Gore to college students in 1992. Not long ago, I made climate instability the centerpiece of a commencement address I gave at a rural college in coal-is-king Pennsylvania. And if you think all the trustees were pleased with that theme, I invite you to give it a try. So the question is not “Why is S.S. not talking about climate change?” The question is “Why is S.S. not talking about it AT HOME?”
Okay. Why don’t you talk about it at home?
Because I have young children and because I believe that frightening problems need to be solved by adults who should just shut up and get to work.
So, how long are you going to keep hiding the truth from your kids?
That’s as far as I got before three other notable things happened. First, Elijah asked to be a polar bear for Halloween. As I pinned the chenille fabric, it occurred to me that his costume might well outlast the species. I decided not to tell him that.
A month later, Elijah asked his sister for a weather report. Faith walked out onto the porch, spread out her arms in the manner of Saint Francis, and came back in. “It’s global warmingish,” she said and went back to her cereal. No comment from me.
And then I overheard a conversation on the playground. One child said, “I know why it’s hot. Do you?”
Another said, “It’s because the Earth is sick.” They all nodded. I said nothing.
IT’S TIME TO SIT DOWN with my kids and have the Global Warming Talk. I carried off the Sex Talkand its many sequelswith grace and good biology. Surely, I can rise to this new occasion.
On the surface, procreation and climate change seem opposite narratives. Sex knits molecules of air, food, and water into living organisms. Climate change unravels all that. The ending of the sex story is the birth of a family. The climate change story ends with what biologist E. O. Wilson calls the Eremozoic Erathe Era of Loneliness.
But then I realized that the two stories share a common epistemological challenge. Both are counterintuitive. In the former case, you have to accept that your ordinary existence began with an extraordinary, unthinkable act (namely, your parents having intercourse). In the latter case, you have to accept that the collective acts of ordinary objectscars, planes, dishwashers, iPodsare ushering in things extraordinary and unthinkable (dissolving coral reefs, daffodils in January). So, I reasoned, perhaps the same pedagogical lessons apply: during the Big Talk, keep it simple, leave the door open for further conversation, offer reading material as follow-up.
Of which there is no shortage. In fact, a veritable cottage industry of children’s books on climate change has sprung up almost overnight. These range from the primer, Why Are the Ice Caps Melting? (Let’s Read and Find Out!), in which lessons on the ravaging of ecosystems also offer plenty of opportunities to practice silent e, to the ultra-sophisticated How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming, by foremost environmental author Lynne Cherry, in which middle school readers are cast as coprincipal investigators. This new literary subgenre is impressive. Reading its various offerings, I found myself admiring the respectful tones and clear explanations. These books describe global warming as a reality that no longer lingers in the realm of debate. And yet, they are not, for the most part, scary. Indeed, the first sentence in the inside flap of How We Know What We Know is “This is not a scary book.”
And here is where the pediatric versions of the climate change story depart from their adult counterparts. The recent crop of books on global warming intended for grown-ups focuses on the surreal disconnect between the evidence for rapidly approaching, irreversible planetary tipping points (overwhelming) and the political response to that evidence (mostly zilch). The children’s books profile heroic individuals fighting to save the planetin ways that kids can get involved in. To read the children’s literature is to see the world’s people working ardently and in concert with each other to solve a big problem . . . and enjoying a grand adventure while they’re at it.
Is this the fiction we all should be laboring under? I don’t know. I do know that a fatalistic mindset, which afflicts many adults but almost no children, is a big part of what’s preventing us from derailing the global warming train that has now left the station. On this, I wholly agree with sociologist Eileen Crist, who argues that fatalism, masquerading as realism, is a form of capitulation that strengthens the very trends that generate it. I do know that we grown-ups need visions of effective challenges and radical actions that can turn into self-fulfilling prophecies.
I also know that I needed something to say to my six year old when we walked home from the library in Aprilno leaves to offer shade, the bank’s LED sign reading eighty-four degreesand he turned his ingenuous face to mine to ask, “Mama, is it supposed to be so hot?”
So I am working on my talk. For inspiration, I have arranged on my desk three documents. One is an essay that Rachel Carson published in Popular Science in 1951eight years before my birth. It’s entitled “Why Our Winters Are Getting Warmer,” and it includes a drawing of Manhattan deluged by seawater. Another is Carson’s essay “Help Your Child to Wonder,” published five years later. The third is a book by poet Audre Lorde that includes the sentence: Your silence will not protect you.
My talk features a story about a boat in which we all livepeople, butterflies, polar bears. A storm starts to rock the boat. The waves are chemical pollution, habitat destruction, industrial fishing, and warfare. Now along comes a really big wave. Global warming. The already-rocking boat is in danger of flipping over.
Then what happens? I don’t know. For the first time in my life, I have writer’s block. Somebody help me out here.
Start a Conversation about this article.
Sandra Steingraber is a scholar in residence at Ithaca College.
How to tell a six year old where all the birds and bees have gone
by Sandra Steingraber
Published in the September/October 2008 issue of Orion magazine
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/3229
I WAS GOOGLING MYSELF recently (in an attempt, if you must know, to locate an essay that I had published somewhere), and I managed to misspell my own name. So I was directed to the one source that had mangled my name in the same way. And that is how I was confronted, in an obscure blog, with the question, “Why isn’t Sandra Steingraber [with dyslexic spelling] talking about climate change?”
It was unsettling. As the days went by, I began an imaginary argument.
Look, I first wrote about receding glaciers in 1988. I was assigning Al Gore to college students in 1992. Not long ago, I made climate instability the centerpiece of a commencement address I gave at a rural college in coal-is-king Pennsylvania. And if you think all the trustees were pleased with that theme, I invite you to give it a try. So the question is not “Why is S.S. not talking about climate change?” The question is “Why is S.S. not talking about it AT HOME?”
Okay. Why don’t you talk about it at home?
Because I have young children and because I believe that frightening problems need to be solved by adults who should just shut up and get to work.
So, how long are you going to keep hiding the truth from your kids?
That’s as far as I got before three other notable things happened. First, Elijah asked to be a polar bear for Halloween. As I pinned the chenille fabric, it occurred to me that his costume might well outlast the species. I decided not to tell him that.
A month later, Elijah asked his sister for a weather report. Faith walked out onto the porch, spread out her arms in the manner of Saint Francis, and came back in. “It’s global warmingish,” she said and went back to her cereal. No comment from me.
And then I overheard a conversation on the playground. One child said, “I know why it’s hot. Do you?”
Another said, “It’s because the Earth is sick.” They all nodded. I said nothing.
IT’S TIME TO SIT DOWN with my kids and have the Global Warming Talk. I carried off the Sex Talkand its many sequelswith grace and good biology. Surely, I can rise to this new occasion.
On the surface, procreation and climate change seem opposite narratives. Sex knits molecules of air, food, and water into living organisms. Climate change unravels all that. The ending of the sex story is the birth of a family. The climate change story ends with what biologist E. O. Wilson calls the Eremozoic Erathe Era of Loneliness.
But then I realized that the two stories share a common epistemological challenge. Both are counterintuitive. In the former case, you have to accept that your ordinary existence began with an extraordinary, unthinkable act (namely, your parents having intercourse). In the latter case, you have to accept that the collective acts of ordinary objectscars, planes, dishwashers, iPodsare ushering in things extraordinary and unthinkable (dissolving coral reefs, daffodils in January). So, I reasoned, perhaps the same pedagogical lessons apply: during the Big Talk, keep it simple, leave the door open for further conversation, offer reading material as follow-up.
Of which there is no shortage. In fact, a veritable cottage industry of children’s books on climate change has sprung up almost overnight. These range from the primer, Why Are the Ice Caps Melting? (Let’s Read and Find Out!), in which lessons on the ravaging of ecosystems also offer plenty of opportunities to practice silent e, to the ultra-sophisticated How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming, by foremost environmental author Lynne Cherry, in which middle school readers are cast as coprincipal investigators. This new literary subgenre is impressive. Reading its various offerings, I found myself admiring the respectful tones and clear explanations. These books describe global warming as a reality that no longer lingers in the realm of debate. And yet, they are not, for the most part, scary. Indeed, the first sentence in the inside flap of How We Know What We Know is “This is not a scary book.”
And here is where the pediatric versions of the climate change story depart from their adult counterparts. The recent crop of books on global warming intended for grown-ups focuses on the surreal disconnect between the evidence for rapidly approaching, irreversible planetary tipping points (overwhelming) and the political response to that evidence (mostly zilch). The children’s books profile heroic individuals fighting to save the planetin ways that kids can get involved in. To read the children’s literature is to see the world’s people working ardently and in concert with each other to solve a big problem . . . and enjoying a grand adventure while they’re at it.
Is this the fiction we all should be laboring under? I don’t know. I do know that a fatalistic mindset, which afflicts many adults but almost no children, is a big part of what’s preventing us from derailing the global warming train that has now left the station. On this, I wholly agree with sociologist Eileen Crist, who argues that fatalism, masquerading as realism, is a form of capitulation that strengthens the very trends that generate it. I do know that we grown-ups need visions of effective challenges and radical actions that can turn into self-fulfilling prophecies.
I also know that I needed something to say to my six year old when we walked home from the library in Aprilno leaves to offer shade, the bank’s LED sign reading eighty-four degreesand he turned his ingenuous face to mine to ask, “Mama, is it supposed to be so hot?”
So I am working on my talk. For inspiration, I have arranged on my desk three documents. One is an essay that Rachel Carson published in Popular Science in 1951eight years before my birth. It’s entitled “Why Our Winters Are Getting Warmer,” and it includes a drawing of Manhattan deluged by seawater. Another is Carson’s essay “Help Your Child to Wonder,” published five years later. The third is a book by poet Audre Lorde that includes the sentence: Your silence will not protect you.
My talk features a story about a boat in which we all livepeople, butterflies, polar bears. A storm starts to rock the boat. The waves are chemical pollution, habitat destruction, industrial fishing, and warfare. Now along comes a really big wave. Global warming. The already-rocking boat is in danger of flipping over.
Then what happens? I don’t know. For the first time in my life, I have writer’s block. Somebody help me out here.
Start a Conversation about this article.
Sandra Steingraber is a scholar in residence at Ithaca College.
Olympic 'Spirit Train' Protests
Departure of Olympic 'Spirit Train' met with protesters in B.C.
1 hour, 9 minutes ago
By The Canadian Press
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080921/national/oly2010_spirit_train
PORT MOODY, B.C. - The departure of a cross-country rail trip designed
to boost enthusiasm for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics is being
overshadowed by noisy protesters.
About three dozen protesters attempted to drown out a ceremony in Port
Moody, B.C., held to mark the departure of the Canadian Pacific (TSX:CP)
Spirit Train.
There were scuffles with police as officers tried to hold the protesters
back, and one man was arrested and carried away by his arms and legs.
With several hundred people attending the event, the group - a mix of
First Nations and non-First Nations protesters - yelled slogans about
stolen native land and housing.
The train is staging a 10-city tour, and anti-Olympic activists have
pledged to meet the train at every stop.
A group calling itself the Olympic Resistance Network says the Olympics
will displace Vancouver's homeless population, hurt the environment and
perpetuate the "theft of indigenous land."
The federal government has worked hard to counter such criticism,
signing agreements worth billions of dollars with the four bands whose
traditional territories are home to the Games.
The Spirit Train is scheduled to stop in Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon,
Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Mississauga and Smith Falls, Ont.,
before ending its journey in Montreal on Oct. 18.
The train will make a repeat journey in the fall of next year and
potentially after the Games as a tour for medallists.
CP Rail paid somewhere between $3 million and $15 million to be the
official rail freight services supplier to the 2010 Olympics.
1 hour, 9 minutes ago
By The Canadian Press
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080921/national/oly2010_spirit_train
PORT MOODY, B.C. - The departure of a cross-country rail trip designed
to boost enthusiasm for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics is being
overshadowed by noisy protesters.
About three dozen protesters attempted to drown out a ceremony in Port
Moody, B.C., held to mark the departure of the Canadian Pacific (TSX:CP)
Spirit Train.
There were scuffles with police as officers tried to hold the protesters
back, and one man was arrested and carried away by his arms and legs.
With several hundred people attending the event, the group - a mix of
First Nations and non-First Nations protesters - yelled slogans about
stolen native land and housing.
The train is staging a 10-city tour, and anti-Olympic activists have
pledged to meet the train at every stop.
A group calling itself the Olympic Resistance Network says the Olympics
will displace Vancouver's homeless population, hurt the environment and
perpetuate the "theft of indigenous land."
The federal government has worked hard to counter such criticism,
signing agreements worth billions of dollars with the four bands whose
traditional territories are home to the Games.
The Spirit Train is scheduled to stop in Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon,
Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Mississauga and Smith Falls, Ont.,
before ending its journey in Montreal on Oct. 18.
The train will make a repeat journey in the fall of next year and
potentially after the Games as a tour for medallists.
CP Rail paid somewhere between $3 million and $15 million to be the
official rail freight services supplier to the 2010 Olympics.
Methane Time Bomb
The Methane Time Bomb
Tuesday 23 September 2008
» http://www.truthout.org/article/the-methane-time-bomb
by: Steve Conner, The Independent UK
In the past few days, researchers believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age. (Photo: Getty Images)
Arctic scientists discover new global warming threat as melting permafrost releases millions of tons of a gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide.
The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists.
The Independent has been passed details of preliminary findings suggesting that massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats.
Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species. Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane - sometimes at up to 100 times background levels - over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.
In the past few days, the researchers have seen areas of sea foaming with gas bubbling up through "methane chimneys" rising from the sea floor. They believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost, which has acted like a "lid" to prevent the gas from escaping, has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age.
They have warned that this is likely to be linked with the rapid warming that the region has experienced in recent years.
Methane is about 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and many scientists fear that its release could accelerate global warming in a giant positive feedback where more atmospheric methane causes higher temperatures, leading to further permafrost melting and the release of yet more methane.
The amount of methane stored beneath the Arctic is calculated to be greater than the total amount of carbon locked up in global coal reserves so there is intense interest in the stability of these deposits as the region warms at a faster rate than other places on earth.
Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University in Sweden, one of the leaders of the expedition, described the scale of the methane emissions in an email exchange sent from the Russian research ship Jacob Smirnitskyi.
"We had a hectic finishing of the sampling programme yesterday and this past night," said Dr Gustafsson. "An extensive area of intense methane release was found. At earlier sites we had found elevated levels of dissolved methane. Yesterday, for the first time, we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface. These 'methane chimneys' were documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instruments]."
At some locations, methane concentrations reached 100 times background levels. These anomalies have been seen in the East Siberian Sea and the Laptev Sea, covering several tens of thousands of square kilometres, amounting to millions of tons of methane, said Dr Gustafsson. "This may be of the same magnitude as presently estimated from the global ocean," he said. "Nobody knows how many more such areas exist on the extensive East Siberian continental shelves.
"The conventional thought has been that the permafrost 'lid' on the sub-sea sediments on the Siberian shelf should cap and hold the massive reservoirs of shallow methane deposits in place. The growing evidence for release of methane in this inaccessible region may suggest that the permafrost lid is starting to get perforated and thus leak methane... The permafrost now has small holes. We have found elevated levels of methane above the water surface and even more in the water just below. It is obvious that the source is the seabed."
The preliminary findings of the International Siberian Shelf Study 2008, being prepared for publication by the American Geophysical Union, are being overseen by Igor Semiletov of the Far-Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 1994, he has led about 10 expeditions in the Laptev Sea but during the 1990s he did not detect any elevated levels of methane. However, since 2003 he reported a rising number of methane "hotspots", which have now been confirmed using more sensitive instruments on board the Jacob Smirnitskyi.
Dr Semiletov has suggested several possible reasons why methane is now being released from the Arctic, including the rising volume of relatively warmer water being discharged from Siberia's rivers due to the melting of the permafrost on the land.
The Arctic region as a whole has seen a 4C rise in average temperatures over recent decades and a dramatic decline in the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by summer sea ice. Many scientists fear that the loss of sea ice could accelerate the warming trend because open ocean soaks up more heat from the sun than the reflective surface of an ice-covered sea.
Tuesday 23 September 2008
» http://www.truthout.org/article/the-methane-time-bomb
by: Steve Conner, The Independent UK
In the past few days, researchers believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age. (Photo: Getty Images)
Arctic scientists discover new global warming threat as melting permafrost releases millions of tons of a gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide.
The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists.
The Independent has been passed details of preliminary findings suggesting that massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats.
Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species. Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane - sometimes at up to 100 times background levels - over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.
In the past few days, the researchers have seen areas of sea foaming with gas bubbling up through "methane chimneys" rising from the sea floor. They believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost, which has acted like a "lid" to prevent the gas from escaping, has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age.
They have warned that this is likely to be linked with the rapid warming that the region has experienced in recent years.
Methane is about 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and many scientists fear that its release could accelerate global warming in a giant positive feedback where more atmospheric methane causes higher temperatures, leading to further permafrost melting and the release of yet more methane.
The amount of methane stored beneath the Arctic is calculated to be greater than the total amount of carbon locked up in global coal reserves so there is intense interest in the stability of these deposits as the region warms at a faster rate than other places on earth.
Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University in Sweden, one of the leaders of the expedition, described the scale of the methane emissions in an email exchange sent from the Russian research ship Jacob Smirnitskyi.
"We had a hectic finishing of the sampling programme yesterday and this past night," said Dr Gustafsson. "An extensive area of intense methane release was found. At earlier sites we had found elevated levels of dissolved methane. Yesterday, for the first time, we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface. These 'methane chimneys' were documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instruments]."
At some locations, methane concentrations reached 100 times background levels. These anomalies have been seen in the East Siberian Sea and the Laptev Sea, covering several tens of thousands of square kilometres, amounting to millions of tons of methane, said Dr Gustafsson. "This may be of the same magnitude as presently estimated from the global ocean," he said. "Nobody knows how many more such areas exist on the extensive East Siberian continental shelves.
"The conventional thought has been that the permafrost 'lid' on the sub-sea sediments on the Siberian shelf should cap and hold the massive reservoirs of shallow methane deposits in place. The growing evidence for release of methane in this inaccessible region may suggest that the permafrost lid is starting to get perforated and thus leak methane... The permafrost now has small holes. We have found elevated levels of methane above the water surface and even more in the water just below. It is obvious that the source is the seabed."
The preliminary findings of the International Siberian Shelf Study 2008, being prepared for publication by the American Geophysical Union, are being overseen by Igor Semiletov of the Far-Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 1994, he has led about 10 expeditions in the Laptev Sea but during the 1990s he did not detect any elevated levels of methane. However, since 2003 he reported a rising number of methane "hotspots", which have now been confirmed using more sensitive instruments on board the Jacob Smirnitskyi.
Dr Semiletov has suggested several possible reasons why methane is now being released from the Arctic, including the rising volume of relatively warmer water being discharged from Siberia's rivers due to the melting of the permafrost on the land.
The Arctic region as a whole has seen a 4C rise in average temperatures over recent decades and a dramatic decline in the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by summer sea ice. Many scientists fear that the loss of sea ice could accelerate the warming trend because open ocean soaks up more heat from the sun than the reflective surface of an ice-covered sea.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Gorilla Radio for Sept. 22, 2008
This week, It's said, "Truth is stranger than fiction;" but when fiction is more strangely true than truth, you know you're in Mickey Z.'s world.Astoria-based author Mickey Z. and CPR for Dummies; Jon Elmer and Israel changing the guard. Yesterday, Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister resigned his office. Olmert's Kadima party primary delivered a clear leadership vote for Foreign minister Tzipi Livni.
Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Monday, 5-6pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, 104.3 cable, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca. He also serves as a contributing editor to the web news site, www.pacificfreepress.com. Check out the GR blog at: http://GorillaRadioBlog.blogspot.com.
It's said, "Truth is stranger than fiction;" but when fiction is more strangely true than truth, you know you're in Mickey Z.'s world. Long-time friend of GR and author of, among other books, '50 American Revolutions You're Not Supposed to Know,' 'The Seven Deadly Spins,' 'The Murdering of My Years,' and 'Saving Private Power,' Mickey Z.'s cross-genre writing is available at his website, mickeyz.net and now, his first novel, 'CPR for Dummies' is out. The Zed back in the house with the view from Astoria in the first segment.
And; Yesterday, Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister resigned his office. Olmert's Kadima party primary delivered a clear leadership vote for Foreign minister Tzipi Livni. Livni comes from a storied Israeli family, one that fought the British and sits still at the centre of Israel's warrior culture. Jon Elmer is a freelance Canadian writer and photo-journalist who has lived in and reported from some of the world's hottest hot spots. He's the author the news websites JonElmer.com and fromoccupiedpalestine.org.
Jon has followed the unfolding catastrophe that is daily visited upon Palestine from the beginnings of the on-going, so-called al-Aqsa intifada, more than five years old now, and he's served as Gorilla Radio's authority on Palestine. Jon Elmer and the changing of the guard in Israel in the second segment.
And; in solidarity with the Student University Building workers, members of the striking steel workers union, on action due to a labour dispute with the UVSS, Janine Bandcroft, formerly of the aforesaid organized labour collective, is standing figurative picket, and thus will have a nice day off... she urges your check out her relaitvenewz.ca website for the good going-ons in and around Victoria in the coming week.
But first Mickey Z. and CPR for Dummies.
G-Radio is dedicated to social justice, the environment, community, and providing a forum for people and issues not covered in the corporate media.
Some past guests include: M. Junaid Alam, M. Shahid Alam, Joel Bakan, Maude Barlow, David Barsamian, Rhoda Berenson, William Blum, Luciana Bohne, William Bowles, Mordecai Briemberg, Vincent Bugliosi, Helen Caldicott, Noam Chomsky, Michel Chossudovsky, Diane Christian, Juan Cole, David Cromwell, Murray Dobbin, Jon Elmer, Reese Erlich, Anthony Fenton, Jim Fetzer, Laura Flanders, Chris Floyd, Connie Fogal, Glen Ford, Susan George, Stan Goff, Amy Goodman, Robert Greenwald, Denis Halliday, Chris Hedges, Sander Hicks, Julia Butterfly Hill, Scott Horton, Robert Jensen, Dahr Jamail, Chalmers Johnson, Diana Johnstone, Kathy Kelly, Naomi Klein, Brewster Kneen, Anthony Lappe, Frances Moore Lappe, Jason Leopold, Jeff Leys, Dave Lindorff, Jim Lobe, Jennifer Loewenstein, Wayne Madsen, Stephen Marshall, Linda McQuaig, George Monbiot, Loretta Napoleoni, John Nichols, Kurt Nimmo, David Orchard, Greg Palast, Mike Palecek, Michael Parenti, Robert Parry, John Pilger, Kevin Pina, William Rivers Pitt, Justin Podur, Lila Rajiva, Jack Random, Sheldon Rampton, Paul Craig Roberts, David Robb, Paul de Rooij, John Ross, David Rovics, Danny Schechter, Vandana Shiva, Norman Solomon, Starhawk, Grant Wakefield, Paul Watson, Bernard Weiner, Mickey Z., Howard Zinn and many others.
Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Monday, 5-6pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, 104.3 cable, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca. He also serves as a contributing editor to the web news site, www.pacificfreepress.com. Check out the GR blog at: http://GorillaRadioBlog.blogspot.com.
It's said, "Truth is stranger than fiction;" but when fiction is more strangely true than truth, you know you're in Mickey Z.'s world. Long-time friend of GR and author of, among other books, '50 American Revolutions You're Not Supposed to Know,' 'The Seven Deadly Spins,' 'The Murdering of My Years,' and 'Saving Private Power,' Mickey Z.'s cross-genre writing is available at his website, mickeyz.net and now, his first novel, 'CPR for Dummies' is out. The Zed back in the house with the view from Astoria in the first segment.
And; Yesterday, Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister resigned his office. Olmert's Kadima party primary delivered a clear leadership vote for Foreign minister Tzipi Livni. Livni comes from a storied Israeli family, one that fought the British and sits still at the centre of Israel's warrior culture. Jon Elmer is a freelance Canadian writer and photo-journalist who has lived in and reported from some of the world's hottest hot spots. He's the author the news websites JonElmer.com and fromoccupiedpalestine.org.
Jon has followed the unfolding catastrophe that is daily visited upon Palestine from the beginnings of the on-going, so-called al-Aqsa intifada, more than five years old now, and he's served as Gorilla Radio's authority on Palestine. Jon Elmer and the changing of the guard in Israel in the second segment.
And; in solidarity with the Student University Building workers, members of the striking steel workers union, on action due to a labour dispute with the UVSS, Janine Bandcroft, formerly of the aforesaid organized labour collective, is standing figurative picket, and thus will have a nice day off... she urges your check out her relaitvenewz.ca website for the good going-ons in and around Victoria in the coming week.
But first Mickey Z. and CPR for Dummies.
G-Radio is dedicated to social justice, the environment, community, and providing a forum for people and issues not covered in the corporate media.
Some past guests include: M. Junaid Alam, M. Shahid Alam, Joel Bakan, Maude Barlow, David Barsamian, Rhoda Berenson, William Blum, Luciana Bohne, William Bowles, Mordecai Briemberg, Vincent Bugliosi, Helen Caldicott, Noam Chomsky, Michel Chossudovsky, Diane Christian, Juan Cole, David Cromwell, Murray Dobbin, Jon Elmer, Reese Erlich, Anthony Fenton, Jim Fetzer, Laura Flanders, Chris Floyd, Connie Fogal, Glen Ford, Susan George, Stan Goff, Amy Goodman, Robert Greenwald, Denis Halliday, Chris Hedges, Sander Hicks, Julia Butterfly Hill, Scott Horton, Robert Jensen, Dahr Jamail, Chalmers Johnson, Diana Johnstone, Kathy Kelly, Naomi Klein, Brewster Kneen, Anthony Lappe, Frances Moore Lappe, Jason Leopold, Jeff Leys, Dave Lindorff, Jim Lobe, Jennifer Loewenstein, Wayne Madsen, Stephen Marshall, Linda McQuaig, George Monbiot, Loretta Napoleoni, John Nichols, Kurt Nimmo, David Orchard, Greg Palast, Mike Palecek, Michael Parenti, Robert Parry, John Pilger, Kevin Pina, William Rivers Pitt, Justin Podur, Lila Rajiva, Jack Random, Sheldon Rampton, Paul Craig Roberts, David Robb, Paul de Rooij, John Ross, David Rovics, Danny Schechter, Vandana Shiva, Norman Solomon, Starhawk, Grant Wakefield, Paul Watson, Bernard Weiner, Mickey Z., Howard Zinn and many others.
Tar: Canada's Death Throes
Dirty business
The tar sands of Alberta and toxic waste
September, 21 2008
By Andrew Nikiforuk
Andrew Nikiforuk's ZSpace Page
Fred McDonald, a Métis trapper and storyteller extraordinaire, often questioned the reasoning and science behind the proliferation of toxic ponds and end-pit lakes. Before he died in 2007 of kidney failure, McDonald lived in Fort McKay, an Aboriginal community 72 kilometres north of Fort Saskatchewan. The stench of hydrocarbons from the surrounding mines often hangs heavily in the air there, and in 2006, an ammonia release from a Syncrude facility hospitalized more than 20 children.
On a fall day in 2006, McDonald sat in his kitchen, sipping a glass of rat root juice ("It's good for everything," he told me) and breathing through an oxygen tube. The day before, he had spent several hours on a dialysis machine. McDonald's kidneys were failing but not his mind. He recalled the days when Tar Island was a good place to fish and hunt. (Tar Island was so named by local Cree and Métis after the bitumen that often oozed down its banks. In the late 1960s, Suncor transformed the island into a tailings pond, the first in the tar sands.) "It always had moose on it. We loved that island. We are slowly losing everything."
McDonald was born on the river, and he had trapped, fished, farmed and worked for the oil companies. He fondly remembered the 1930 and 1940s, when Syrian fur traders exchanged pots and pans for muskrat and beaver furs along the Athabasca River. Families lived off the land then and had feasts of rabbit. They netted jackfish, pickerel and whitefish all winter long. "Everyone walked or paddled, and the people were healthy," McDonald said. "No one travels that river anymore. There is nothing in that river. It's polluted. Once you could dip your cup and have a nice cold drink from that river, and now you can't."
McDonald said that tar-sands pollution is killing berries. The mines are also draining the surrounding muskeg of water: "It's our future source of water, and it's drying." Climate warming has changed the clear blue ice of the Athabasca River in the winter to a dangerous slush. McDonald had recently told his son not to have any more children: "They are going to suffer. They are going to have a tough time to breathe and will have nothing to drink." He dismissed the talk of reclaiming waste ponds and open-pit mines as a white-skinned fairy tale. "There is no way in this world that you can put Mother Earth back like it was."
Because of "the bad behaviour of clays," Natural Resources Canada researcher Randy Mikula suspects that tar-sands waste won't settle to solid form for 1,000 years, so "something has to be done." Right now the best solution might be a "brute force" centrifugal approach, says Mikula. Waste is spun (much like lettuce in a spinner) in order to create material that is dry and stackable, while recovering water at the same time. Both Syncrude and Suncor have started pilot projects. "We could reduce water usage by a barrel, which means less water withdrawn from the Athabasca River," Mikula says.
The volume of sand and toxic waste produced by the tar sands to date is as great as the agricultural drainage and sewage water the water-short nation of Egypt, with a population of 80 million, reuses every year. By 2015, the tar sands could be creating ponds of wastewater three times that size.
The growing waste problem is nowhere more evident than downstream in Fort Chipewyan, where the Athabasca and Peace rivers spill into Lake Athabasca. About 10 years ago, Raymond Ladouceur, a 65-year-old commercial Métis fishermen, started to find something new in his pickerel nets: damned ugly fish. The deformities included crooked tails, humpbacks, bulging eyes and skin tumours. "Jesus, I was pulling them out all the time," says Ladouceur. "But we threw the deformed fish away. They weren't fit for human consumption."
In 2002, Ladouceur and other fishermen packed up 90 kilos of the deformed fish and flew them off to Fort McMurray for study by Alberta Environment. Nobody from the government department picked up the fish over the weekend, though, and they rotted.
Like most residents of Fort Chipewyan, Ladouceur believes there is something definitely wrong with the water. He has a list of suspects. Abandoned uranium mines on the east end of the lake, for example, have been leaking for years. "God knows how much radium is in this lake," he says. Then there are the pulp mills and, of course, the tar sands and tar ponds. Ladouceur says his cousin collected yellow scum from the river downstream from the mines and dried it, and "it caught on fire." Almost everyone in Fort Chip has witnessed oil spills or leaks on the Athabasca River.
The governments of Alberta and Canada, along with the multinational companies, insist not only that they'll clean up the whole mess but that rapid tar-sands development is sustainable. "Alberta is proving that environmental protection and economic development can happen at the same time," promises a 2008 provincial propaganda sheet entitled "Opportunity and Balance." The Canadian Parliament, an institution less inclined to hubris, talks about groping "towards sustainable development" in its 2007 tar sands report.
Alberta's bitumen apologists swear that "work is progressing to return the disturbed land to a natural state after development, and it will be done right." The province's former ambassador to the United States, Murray Smith, even assured our number-one oil market that the industry will achieve "100 percent long-term restoration of the lands it makes use of." Why, major tar-sand companies have even planted 7.5 million tree seedlings. The Mining Association of Canada says reclaiming open-pit mines can be done with a "vision worthy of a Group of Seven artist."
According to the Alberta government, open-pit mines will eventually obliterate 3,500 square kilometres of forest. The government likes to minimize the scale of the destruction by saying that it's "less than one percent of boreal forest area" in Canada. (In other words, it's perfectly okay to destroy small places.) Whatever the Orwellian rhetoric, the forest-top removal will cover an area four times larger than that of New York City. Outdoor enthusiasts can imagine half of Banff National Park flattened and excavated.
Even at that, the mines make up only a small part of the wreckage created by the megaproject. The Alberta government has leased an additional 50,000 square kilometres of land (and another 100,000 square kilometres await global investors) for in-situ projects including steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). Canada's four famed mountain parks - Jasper, Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay - could easily fit into this industrial zone with approximately 20,000 square kilometres left over. SAGD development will slice and dice the land with thousands of industrial well sites, seismic lines, pipelines and roads. This fragmentation will transform the forest into a bitumen park, exterminating the population of woodland caribou and decimating song-birds home from their winter in the tropics. Seismic lines, which make a forest look like an engineered spider web, typically nee! d more than 100 years to fill in with trees again. Yet the government has no tight guidelines for reclaiming forest ruined by SAGD.
Government definitions of reclamation exhibit a genuine vagueness as well as a preference for mechanics over biology. According to Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, reclamation is mostly about "stabilization, contouring, maintenance, conditioning or reconstruction of the surface of the land." Operators of the open-pit mines must "conserve and reclaim disturbed land to an equivalent land capability." Doing so will earn them a certificate proving the deed done. Industry-friendly scientists talk about creating "a self-sustaining ecosystem with no long-term toxicity." Those reassured by such academic language might want to consider the actual pace of reclamation: after nearly 50 years of mining, the provincial government has certified only 104 hectares of forest, or 0.2 percent of the land dug up since 1963. Even industry admits that reclamation has moved more slowly than cold bitumen in a pipeline! .
The uncomfortable truth remains simply this: the rapid mining of the boreal forest has outpaced the science on the reclamation of wetlands, soil, and forest uplands by decades. No one has a handle on the real costs of reclamation. Security deposits remain laughably inadequate. And both Alberta and Canada have an appalling record of environmental negligence and disregard for taxpayers.
Reclamation in the tar sands now amounts to little more than putting lipstick on a corpse. Unless Alberta and Canada soon address the pace, effectiveness and transparency of reclamation, a rich forest will become an impoverished industrial park littered with salts, grass, polluted water and spindly trees. It might, with a bit of luck and some regular rainfall, eventually resemble a third-rate golf course in the Sudan.
Excerpted from Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, to be published October 15 by Greystone Books / Douglas & McIntyre.
The tar sands of Alberta and toxic waste
September, 21 2008
By Andrew Nikiforuk
Andrew Nikiforuk's ZSpace Page
Fred McDonald, a Métis trapper and storyteller extraordinaire, often questioned the reasoning and science behind the proliferation of toxic ponds and end-pit lakes. Before he died in 2007 of kidney failure, McDonald lived in Fort McKay, an Aboriginal community 72 kilometres north of Fort Saskatchewan. The stench of hydrocarbons from the surrounding mines often hangs heavily in the air there, and in 2006, an ammonia release from a Syncrude facility hospitalized more than 20 children.
On a fall day in 2006, McDonald sat in his kitchen, sipping a glass of rat root juice ("It's good for everything," he told me) and breathing through an oxygen tube. The day before, he had spent several hours on a dialysis machine. McDonald's kidneys were failing but not his mind. He recalled the days when Tar Island was a good place to fish and hunt. (Tar Island was so named by local Cree and Métis after the bitumen that often oozed down its banks. In the late 1960s, Suncor transformed the island into a tailings pond, the first in the tar sands.) "It always had moose on it. We loved that island. We are slowly losing everything."
McDonald was born on the river, and he had trapped, fished, farmed and worked for the oil companies. He fondly remembered the 1930 and 1940s, when Syrian fur traders exchanged pots and pans for muskrat and beaver furs along the Athabasca River. Families lived off the land then and had feasts of rabbit. They netted jackfish, pickerel and whitefish all winter long. "Everyone walked or paddled, and the people were healthy," McDonald said. "No one travels that river anymore. There is nothing in that river. It's polluted. Once you could dip your cup and have a nice cold drink from that river, and now you can't."
McDonald said that tar-sands pollution is killing berries. The mines are also draining the surrounding muskeg of water: "It's our future source of water, and it's drying." Climate warming has changed the clear blue ice of the Athabasca River in the winter to a dangerous slush. McDonald had recently told his son not to have any more children: "They are going to suffer. They are going to have a tough time to breathe and will have nothing to drink." He dismissed the talk of reclaiming waste ponds and open-pit mines as a white-skinned fairy tale. "There is no way in this world that you can put Mother Earth back like it was."
Because of "the bad behaviour of clays," Natural Resources Canada researcher Randy Mikula suspects that tar-sands waste won't settle to solid form for 1,000 years, so "something has to be done." Right now the best solution might be a "brute force" centrifugal approach, says Mikula. Waste is spun (much like lettuce in a spinner) in order to create material that is dry and stackable, while recovering water at the same time. Both Syncrude and Suncor have started pilot projects. "We could reduce water usage by a barrel, which means less water withdrawn from the Athabasca River," Mikula says.
The volume of sand and toxic waste produced by the tar sands to date is as great as the agricultural drainage and sewage water the water-short nation of Egypt, with a population of 80 million, reuses every year. By 2015, the tar sands could be creating ponds of wastewater three times that size.
The growing waste problem is nowhere more evident than downstream in Fort Chipewyan, where the Athabasca and Peace rivers spill into Lake Athabasca. About 10 years ago, Raymond Ladouceur, a 65-year-old commercial Métis fishermen, started to find something new in his pickerel nets: damned ugly fish. The deformities included crooked tails, humpbacks, bulging eyes and skin tumours. "Jesus, I was pulling them out all the time," says Ladouceur. "But we threw the deformed fish away. They weren't fit for human consumption."
In 2002, Ladouceur and other fishermen packed up 90 kilos of the deformed fish and flew them off to Fort McMurray for study by Alberta Environment. Nobody from the government department picked up the fish over the weekend, though, and they rotted.
Like most residents of Fort Chipewyan, Ladouceur believes there is something definitely wrong with the water. He has a list of suspects. Abandoned uranium mines on the east end of the lake, for example, have been leaking for years. "God knows how much radium is in this lake," he says. Then there are the pulp mills and, of course, the tar sands and tar ponds. Ladouceur says his cousin collected yellow scum from the river downstream from the mines and dried it, and "it caught on fire." Almost everyone in Fort Chip has witnessed oil spills or leaks on the Athabasca River.
The governments of Alberta and Canada, along with the multinational companies, insist not only that they'll clean up the whole mess but that rapid tar-sands development is sustainable. "Alberta is proving that environmental protection and economic development can happen at the same time," promises a 2008 provincial propaganda sheet entitled "Opportunity and Balance." The Canadian Parliament, an institution less inclined to hubris, talks about groping "towards sustainable development" in its 2007 tar sands report.
Alberta's bitumen apologists swear that "work is progressing to return the disturbed land to a natural state after development, and it will be done right." The province's former ambassador to the United States, Murray Smith, even assured our number-one oil market that the industry will achieve "100 percent long-term restoration of the lands it makes use of." Why, major tar-sand companies have even planted 7.5 million tree seedlings. The Mining Association of Canada says reclaiming open-pit mines can be done with a "vision worthy of a Group of Seven artist."
According to the Alberta government, open-pit mines will eventually obliterate 3,500 square kilometres of forest. The government likes to minimize the scale of the destruction by saying that it's "less than one percent of boreal forest area" in Canada. (In other words, it's perfectly okay to destroy small places.) Whatever the Orwellian rhetoric, the forest-top removal will cover an area four times larger than that of New York City. Outdoor enthusiasts can imagine half of Banff National Park flattened and excavated.
Even at that, the mines make up only a small part of the wreckage created by the megaproject. The Alberta government has leased an additional 50,000 square kilometres of land (and another 100,000 square kilometres await global investors) for in-situ projects including steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). Canada's four famed mountain parks - Jasper, Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay - could easily fit into this industrial zone with approximately 20,000 square kilometres left over. SAGD development will slice and dice the land with thousands of industrial well sites, seismic lines, pipelines and roads. This fragmentation will transform the forest into a bitumen park, exterminating the population of woodland caribou and decimating song-birds home from their winter in the tropics. Seismic lines, which make a forest look like an engineered spider web, typically nee! d more than 100 years to fill in with trees again. Yet the government has no tight guidelines for reclaiming forest ruined by SAGD.
Government definitions of reclamation exhibit a genuine vagueness as well as a preference for mechanics over biology. According to Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, reclamation is mostly about "stabilization, contouring, maintenance, conditioning or reconstruction of the surface of the land." Operators of the open-pit mines must "conserve and reclaim disturbed land to an equivalent land capability." Doing so will earn them a certificate proving the deed done. Industry-friendly scientists talk about creating "a self-sustaining ecosystem with no long-term toxicity." Those reassured by such academic language might want to consider the actual pace of reclamation: after nearly 50 years of mining, the provincial government has certified only 104 hectares of forest, or 0.2 percent of the land dug up since 1963. Even industry admits that reclamation has moved more slowly than cold bitumen in a pipeline! .
The uncomfortable truth remains simply this: the rapid mining of the boreal forest has outpaced the science on the reclamation of wetlands, soil, and forest uplands by decades. No one has a handle on the real costs of reclamation. Security deposits remain laughably inadequate. And both Alberta and Canada have an appalling record of environmental negligence and disregard for taxpayers.
Reclamation in the tar sands now amounts to little more than putting lipstick on a corpse. Unless Alberta and Canada soon address the pace, effectiveness and transparency of reclamation, a rich forest will become an impoverished industrial park littered with salts, grass, polluted water and spindly trees. It might, with a bit of luck and some regular rainfall, eventually resemble a third-rate golf course in the Sudan.
Excerpted from Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, to be published October 15 by Greystone Books / Douglas & McIntyre.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking
Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking
the law
By Michael McCarthy,
Environment Editor
The Independent
11 September 2008
The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.
Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.
The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.
Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost £35,000 to remove.
The plan to build a successor to the power station is likely to be the first of a new generation of coal-fired plants. As coal produces more of the carbon emissions causing climate change than any other fuel, campaigners claim that a new station would be a disastrous setback in the battle against global warming, and send out a negative signal to the rest of the world about how serious Britain really is about tackling the climate threat.
But the proposals, from the energy giant E.ON, are firmly backed by the Business Secretary, John Hutton, and the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks. Some members of the Cabinet are thought to be unhappy about them, including the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn. Mr Brown is likely to have the final say on the matter later this year.
During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa, who had flown from American to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to "take a leadership role" in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.
Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.
He was one of several leading public figures who gave evidence for the defence, including Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park and director of the Ecologist magazine, who similarly told the jury that in his opinion, direct action could be justified in the minds of many people if it was intended to prevent larger crimes being committed.
The acquittal was the second time in a decade that the "lawful excuse" defence has been successfully used by Greenpeace activists. In 1999, 28 Greenpeace campaigners led Lord Melchett, who was director at the time, were cleared of criminal damage after trashing an experimental field of GM crops in Norfolk. In each case the damage was not disputed – the point at issue was the motive.
The defendants who scaled the 630ft chimney at Kingsnorth, near Hoo, last year were Huw Williams, 41, from Nottingham; Ben Stewart, 34, from Lyminge, Kent; Kevin Drake, 44, from Westbury, Wiltshire; Will Rose, 29, from London; and Emily Hall, 34, from New Zealand. Tim Hewke, 48, from Ulcombe, Kent, helped organise the protest.
The court heard how, dressed in orange boiler suits and white hard hats bearing the Greenpeace logo, the six-strong group arrived at the site at 6.30am on 8 October. Armed with bags containing abseiling gear, five of them scaled the chimney while Mr Hewke waited below to liaise between the climbers and police.
The climbers had planned to paint "Gordon, bin it" in huge letters on the side of the chimney, but although they succeeded in temporarily shutting the station, they only got as far as painting the word "Gordon" on the chimney before they descended, having been threatened with a High Court injunction. Removing the graffiti cost E.ON £35,000, the court heard.
During the trial the defendants said they had acted lawfully, owing to an honestly held belief that their attempt to stop emissions from Kingsnorth would prevent further damage to properties worldwide caused by global warming. Their aim, they said, was to rein back CO2 emissions and bring urgent pressure to bear on the Government and E.ON to changes policies. They insisted their action had caused the minimum amount of damage necessary to close the plant down and constituted a
"proportionate response" to the increasing environmental threat.
Speaking outside court after being cleared yesterday, Mr Stewart said: "This is a huge blow for ministers and their plans for new coal-fired power stations. It wasn't only us in the dock, it was the coal-fired generation as well. After this verdict, the only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are John Hutton and Malcolm Wicks. It's time the Prime Minister stepped in, showed some leadership and
embraced the clean energy future for Britain."
He added: "This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement. When a jury of normal people say it is legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave Government energy policy? We have the clean technologies at hand to power our economy. It's time we turned to them instead of coal."
Ms Hall said: "The jury heard from the most distinguished climate scientist in the world. How could they ignore his warnings and reject his leading scientific arguments?"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/
cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies
-breaking-the-law-925561.html
the law
By Michael McCarthy,
Environment Editor
The Independent
11 September 2008
The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.
Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.
The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.
Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost £35,000 to remove.
The plan to build a successor to the power station is likely to be the first of a new generation of coal-fired plants. As coal produces more of the carbon emissions causing climate change than any other fuel, campaigners claim that a new station would be a disastrous setback in the battle against global warming, and send out a negative signal to the rest of the world about how serious Britain really is about tackling the climate threat.
But the proposals, from the energy giant E.ON, are firmly backed by the Business Secretary, John Hutton, and the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks. Some members of the Cabinet are thought to be unhappy about them, including the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn. Mr Brown is likely to have the final say on the matter later this year.
During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa, who had flown from American to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to "take a leadership role" in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.
Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.
He was one of several leading public figures who gave evidence for the defence, including Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park and director of the Ecologist magazine, who similarly told the jury that in his opinion, direct action could be justified in the minds of many people if it was intended to prevent larger crimes being committed.
The acquittal was the second time in a decade that the "lawful excuse" defence has been successfully used by Greenpeace activists. In 1999, 28 Greenpeace campaigners led Lord Melchett, who was director at the time, were cleared of criminal damage after trashing an experimental field of GM crops in Norfolk. In each case the damage was not disputed – the point at issue was the motive.
The defendants who scaled the 630ft chimney at Kingsnorth, near Hoo, last year were Huw Williams, 41, from Nottingham; Ben Stewart, 34, from Lyminge, Kent; Kevin Drake, 44, from Westbury, Wiltshire; Will Rose, 29, from London; and Emily Hall, 34, from New Zealand. Tim Hewke, 48, from Ulcombe, Kent, helped organise the protest.
The court heard how, dressed in orange boiler suits and white hard hats bearing the Greenpeace logo, the six-strong group arrived at the site at 6.30am on 8 October. Armed with bags containing abseiling gear, five of them scaled the chimney while Mr Hewke waited below to liaise between the climbers and police.
The climbers had planned to paint "Gordon, bin it" in huge letters on the side of the chimney, but although they succeeded in temporarily shutting the station, they only got as far as painting the word "Gordon" on the chimney before they descended, having been threatened with a High Court injunction. Removing the graffiti cost E.ON £35,000, the court heard.
During the trial the defendants said they had acted lawfully, owing to an honestly held belief that their attempt to stop emissions from Kingsnorth would prevent further damage to properties worldwide caused by global warming. Their aim, they said, was to rein back CO2 emissions and bring urgent pressure to bear on the Government and E.ON to changes policies. They insisted their action had caused the minimum amount of damage necessary to close the plant down and constituted a
"proportionate response" to the increasing environmental threat.
Speaking outside court after being cleared yesterday, Mr Stewart said: "This is a huge blow for ministers and their plans for new coal-fired power stations. It wasn't only us in the dock, it was the coal-fired generation as well. After this verdict, the only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are John Hutton and Malcolm Wicks. It's time the Prime Minister stepped in, showed some leadership and
embraced the clean energy future for Britain."
He added: "This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement. When a jury of normal people say it is legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave Government energy policy? We have the clean technologies at hand to power our economy. It's time we turned to them instead of coal."
Ms Hall said: "The jury heard from the most distinguished climate scientist in the world. How could they ignore his warnings and reject his leading scientific arguments?"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/
cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies
-breaking-the-law-925561.html
Monday, September 15, 2008
positively AFRICA invites you to “Africa at the Movies”
PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release
positively AFRICA invites you to “Africa at the Movies” This Saturday September 20th, 7:30-9:30 pm, at Camosun College (Landsdowne), the Young Auditorium, rm. 216.
A spiritually uplifting evening of film – a window into the lives of remarkable Africans. The films:
· "Time to Deliver" by Gary McNutt
· "Kapaseni" by Ben Fox
· "Children of Light" by Linda Weech
Admission by donation
We often think of situations in Africa as hopeless and imagine poor, sad and starving children – this is far from true. These films show us how simple it is to help.
positively AFRICA invites you to “Jazz in the Vineyard”. This Sunday, September 21, at Godfrey Brownell Vineyards in the Cowichan Valley. Sunday afternoon you can hear the unique trio of Wayne Kozac on baritone sax, Paul Sparrow on bass trumpet and the inimitable John Wade on string bass. This is a free day-long event where you can taste wonderful wine, listen to great jazz, relax in their outdoor oyster-shell patio - and support positively AFRICA! Directions to the vineyard on their website, http://www.gbvineyards.com.
Visit our website for more information www.positivelyafrica.org
For immediate release
positively AFRICA invites you to “Africa at the Movies” This Saturday September 20th, 7:30-9:30 pm, at Camosun College (Landsdowne), the Young Auditorium, rm. 216.
A spiritually uplifting evening of film – a window into the lives of remarkable Africans. The films:
· "Time to Deliver" by Gary McNutt
· "Kapaseni" by Ben Fox
· "Children of Light" by Linda Weech
Admission by donation
We often think of situations in Africa as hopeless and imagine poor, sad and starving children – this is far from true. These films show us how simple it is to help.
positively AFRICA invites you to “Jazz in the Vineyard”. This Sunday, September 21, at Godfrey Brownell Vineyards in the Cowichan Valley. Sunday afternoon you can hear the unique trio of Wayne Kozac on baritone sax, Paul Sparrow on bass trumpet and the inimitable John Wade on string bass. This is a free day-long event where you can taste wonderful wine, listen to great jazz, relax in their outdoor oyster-shell patio - and support positively AFRICA! Directions to the vineyard on their website, http://www.gbvineyards.com.
Visit our website for more information www.positivelyafrica.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)