Weapons of Mass Enlightenment

Japan breaks 44 year moratorium and starts whale hunt

BBC News - "...The 239-man mission plans to kill more than 900 minke whales as well as fin whales and humpbacks, in a South Pacific whale hunt that will run until mid-April."  More here

RCMP murder man at airport

An obviously distraught man barracaded himself in a section of the Vancouver airport and started swearing at passers by in Polish who thought he spoke Russian.

Four RCMP officers arrive, and nearly rush the man, one hopping the barrier in one swoop.  As the man puts up his hands they taser and tackle him, then taser some more.  As he is convulsing, an officer weighs down on the victim's throat with his knee, and doesn't let up until the man is dead.

******************************************

These officers were itching for a confrontation, instead of a resolution.

They attacked Mr. Dziekanski without provocation.

As he convulsed on the ground, the officers tried to hold him, making it seem to the man who took the video that the victim was strugging.  The videographer even comments on how Mr. Dziekanski can still be putting up a fight against four men!

The officer kneeling on the man's neck - could he of suffocated him?

YES, this was in Vancouver, not New Orleans.  A sad reality about police brutality came out last night as I was watching a Jay Leno rerun with Seth Rogan who plays a cop in the movie Knocked Up.  Asked if he took a ride with the LAPD to get a "feel" for the part, Seth said something along these lines -

"yeah, we did go on a ride with the LAPD and we asked a policeman why he decided to become a cop.  We thought it was going to be a story about civic pride and all that.  But basically he was like, 'well, you get to tackle people'."

Let's face it - our young men in uniform aren't the pragmatic, intellectual type.  Why do many people want to becom cops?  To have authority, power, and finally see some real action after all those years of just fantasizing about it in Quake and Halo.

Richard Dawkins

Some of the best YouTube stuff I've seen was last night when I watched Dawkins for an hour and a half talk about his anti God diatribe "The God Delusion" in Lynchburg Virginia, of all places, to Liberty University students, of all people.  This stuff was classic.  Unfortunately, by today its been completely removed from the site. (So I put up this BBC report instead).

Its difficult to overstate the salience of Dawkins message at this time in age.  With the three largest terrorist organizations in the world - Zionist Israel, Fundamental Islam, and Christian America being responsible for 95% (in no way a scientific stat) of the badness that radiates nightly from the evening news - the timing couldn't be perfect. 

Dawkins refutes the argument for the existence of God, but more than that criticizes all religion, and the way of thinking that creates unsubstantiated faith.  He basically dismisses anyone who believes something not supported by empirical evidence, and therefore does not  rationally lend itself to belief.

His ideas, natural skepticism, and support for the scientific method as the best form of acquiring knowledge are themselves a great testament to secular humanism, a philosophy I myself have been reading about.  This world view is probably very close to what E.O. Wilson called "scientific humanism" of which he said "Its the only world view compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world".  I would like to add that secular humanism, judging by its tenets (all on Wikipedia) is the only world view compatible with our true identity as human beings, given our biological reality.  We are a product of this earth, and governed by its physical laws.  Sadly, many modern humans have lost their connection to biology, to nature.  We look to God to satisfy our thirst for spirituality and placate our feelings of uneasiness about the deeper questions in life - like why are we here.

It is my idea that this quest for 'wholeness' that leads many to a religious life is the result of our disconnect from nature.  John Livingston may call it our 'domestication'.  As civilization began, humans started seeing themselves as dominant in our relationship with nature, and in turn now we wonder who dominates over us.  The evidence for this comes from Aboriginal people who really still have the spirituality and relationship with nature we all once had but lost.  Where as we speak of 'resources', they speak of land, fish, wildlife with reverence - as extensions of themselves.  They identify.  Not unlike the way some identify with God.

Everything we need to satisfy our curiosity about where we came from, why we are here, questions of morality, philosophy, value..that all can be answered using the material that has been present on this earth since its creation.  Dawkins speaks to this when he emphasizes empirical evidence as the basis of belief.

I don't know if he ever said it, but I get the feeling Dawkins considers blind faith in God a mental disorder, irrational to the point of being psychotic.  It is true that someone proclaiming the flying spaghetti monster is his saviour may be considered a little coo-coo.  In principle this is no different than proclaiming God is your saviour, since there is the same amount of evidence in support of the existence of both - none. 

Now think of the psychotic fervor driving so much of the violence in this world.  Biblical arguments have prevented any sort of reasonable agreement in the Israel - Palestine issue -- the REAL source of middle east unrest.  Dreams of another Caliphate and Americans converting to Islam keep the suicide bombs coming.  And in America, a well meaning, genuine will to do good in the world on the part of many, being challenged by Godly fanaticism that has percolated into the nooks and crannies of the government to bring us terms like "Holy Warrior" reminiscent of the Crusades.  Do I have a point or what??

Dawkins is, after all, at the far end of the Atheistic scale.  I do not agree with him on a few points.  One major one is his assertion that the scientific method is the only way of knowing to be used in all instances.  Of course science has its realm.  Scientists frame problems in a technical way and find technical solutions.  But not all phenomena can be tested scientifically. Some questions, such as about the existence of a higher being, are not scientific ones at all.  If God makes himself known to us on a "personal level" and you can feel him "in your heart" -- this is an entirely subjective perception.  You cannot apply science here to know the truth.  It just has to be left alone.  This is the realm of religion - which is far more to blame for encroaching into the realm of science, but Dawkins does the opposite and encroaches on the realm of religion.  Questions about the cosmos, and its limits, beginnings..are also often just too difficult for science.  Here religion has its place, outside our ability to perceive and test.  Here religion should be given some respect, even if its beliefs have only a minutely small probability of being correct.

As a scientist foremost, Dawkins in his talk in Lynchburg, totally left out the influence of culture on people's beliefs.  He said he cringes at young kids 4, 5 years old being referred to as "Christian children" or "Muslim children".  After all they are too young to understand these ideas.  However, he does not see that indeed they are children of religious culture, brought up with values and traditions that blur the line between religion and culture.  This theme is missing from his critique.

Anyway, I'm sad you all cant see him snap when told by a student that Liberty University has dinosaur bones dated 3000 years old.

"Sicko" and Michael Moore

If you haven't seen this movie yet, and you've seen Transformers twice, you probably don't want to go back to the movies again.  But I assure you, its the wisest way to spend another 12 bucks.

Canadians may not be interested in an American documentary about an American health care system - or just a documentary period, but there are a lot of parallels between American HMO's and the pharmaceutical industry in Canada.  Moore makes the best multimedia case possible about the injustices of private health care in the US, just like he made the case about America's gun culture, stolen elections, and the motivations of the auto industry before. 

The movie just runs through people's stories, and the viewer is made to feel like a close friend being confided in by each successive person.  Everyone I saw in the theatre both laughed and cried during the movie.

Moore takes heat from conservatives in the US, completely undeservedly.  Sure, he goes overboard with some criticisms, and presents one side of the story.  But lets remember, this is all a good lawyer does as well, and Moore's documentaries run like a prosecutor's case.  Just because you don't have all sides of the story, it doesn't diminish the credibility of what you do have.  And I think Moore has been getting it mostly right since "Roger and Me".  It takes a brave man and a patriot to be able to criticize his own country in the hopes of changing it for the better.

メイドカフェー - Maid Cafe

Just a few days left in Japan I have, and since I am not doing much, I decided to go to Tokyo's "Electric Town" in Akihabara and check out some gadgets.  Then I met this lady, who made a giant X with her hands when I asked for a picture (took one from afar anyway).  She was selling a service - and it had nothing to do with cleaning, and not what YOU are thinking either.

For the right price, you can be accompanied by a young (likely a student), always smiling girl to show you around the city for an hour, and make no mention of your uncool clothes, awry complexion, geeky backpack, or an array of features that Japan's "Otaku" - or geeks - in this part of the city often share.  All the while wearing a maid's costume, which I take made its first appearance in some comic. This guy didn't buy it.

And neither did I.  But it gave me the idea to check out a Maid Cafe, and after some asking around I found one with frosty windows in the middle of town.  It was a small place with three "maids" serving.  They were pleasant and lively, occasionally joking with customers (unheard of anywhere else), and that seemed to be the only outstanding feature of this place, other than the overpriced menu and positively bland looking food.  There were lots of Polaroids on the wall of staff making the usual cute faces.

No pictures allowed here either, but if I could, I would take one of the first page of the menu.  There were a number of warnings for customers, the English translation of which I would like to jot down here before I forget.

WARNING:  The following thins are not allowed

1.  Coming here to pick up maids.

2.  Touching any of the maids.

3.  Asking a maid for her phone number or e-mail address.

4.  Giving a maid your phone number or e-mail address.

5.  Sexual harassment.

6.  Minimum one order per hour.

I left after an hour.  I wasn't really sure what the excitement is supposed to be about, I read these places are attractive to some guys because they can meet girls they otherwise would not get a chance to talk to, but after reading the warning I don't think that was an option at this particular cafe.

Harper getting intense about climate

"Harper blamed the previous Liberal government for years of foot-dragging and said it is now impossible for Canada to meet Kyoto without destroying its economy."

Here, our Prime Minister's recent remarks in Germany ahead of the G8 Summit.

Basically, he along with President Bush and others, is cleverly using the unimplementability (my word) of the Kyoto Protocol, the increase in emissions of GG's around the globe, and the relatively close expiry date (2012) of the protocol to effectively kill it.  "Post Kyoto" is the phrase now used by leaders who either never wanted anything to do with it in the first place, or whose countries failed meet its standards.

It is interesting (or sad) to note that climate change and the environment in general is not really a pressing issue for Harper, who once wrote the Kyoto Protocol is a socialist scheme. Back then he let this fact be known openly, until the environment became such a huge topic for Canadians that it took on massive political significance.  So then, the government pieced together some proposals from the previous Liberal administration that they trashed, and presented them as their own.

But it doesn't take much to reveal the wolf in sheep's clothing, and Harper did just that in his speech when he argued intensity based targets are what can bring the world together on climate change...and here is where I have a problem.  When you talk climate change, you are talking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Intensity based targets (increasing production per unit energy used) are about efficiency.  So a little more efficient use of energy will reduce emissions only if production is somewhat stable.  Since no one expects the Canadian economy to stop growing, I think few people will agree that intensity based targets will bring down emissions.

Having Harper tout this as a possible way to reach even his own government's emission goals, much less to the developed world, is well...silly.  And he knows it...but hey, in Canada's political climate, you have to have something to show your environmentally aware, even if it means dressing up as a sheep.

Prime Minister for a day

What would you do as Canadian Prime Minister for a day... other than take the jet around to visit friends on the coast?  I was asked this question, and I thought about it..

I would like to move our economy closer to the realm of sustainability. Specifically I would break up our system of federal income tax - a system that collects wads of money (especially from the middle class) and allows the federal gov't to pool it all together and give it back to us in the form of gov't services. This way, there are no apparent connections to the taxpayer between the money he pays and the services he receives in return. This system is inefficient. It fails to use economic incentives to charge those who incur a larger share of costs on society more, and vice versa.

For example health care. Why does our society "charge" equally two identical income earners, one of whom is health conscious and another who disregards his health (smokers, heavy drinkers, fast food junkies) and relies on our universal health care system disproportionally?

Another example are external costs of production such as pollution. They are called externalities because they are not factored into a companies financial calculations. Take a paper mill that releases runoff into a river. The river absorbs that company's disposal costs, but it is society in the form of a fisherman, a swimmer, a landowner downriver that has to pay in the form of a loss of enjoyment from the river.

Anyway, to put things into perspective, the giant dent that "income tax" puts into our paychecks needs to be slashed, and instead replaced with "smart taxes", ones that are actually connected to the costs of doing business. So, if you smoke, you pay a premium to cover the extra costs of smoking related diseases that overburden our hospitals. This kind of system provides real incentive for people to stop smoking.

To implement this kind of policy a price needs to be put on reckless and health endangering behaviour, and external costs of production must be internalized again, and passed on to consumers. Although this last one sounds like an unpopular move, consumers need to be exposed to the real costs of goods. Those who can afford the high price, will be paying the costs of pollution. Those who can't will find cheaper alternatives or find companies who provide alternatives by themselves cutting down on pollution.

The plan finances itself, using new taxes to make up for the cuts in income tax.

This rationale is behind the carbon permit trading schemes some countries and states have proposed, which cleverly sets a price on pollution by the number of permits released. Our Prime Minister has ruled out such a system in Canada.

Why doesn't the government create such a system of smart taxes now? Perhaps no one wants to bring up new taxes. Or, such an unpredictable level of tax flow would cause havoc with administration.

I hope this system would set an income tax level that is below the one we have now due to tax savings possible through lifestyle and business choices. Quite possibly the amount of smart taxes paid would redistribute itself in a pattern like that of income tax now. Simply, wealthy citizens who consume more and can afford to live in more luxury will be willing to pay for it, where as those who choose to consume less, will pay less because of the direct financial benefit of doing so.

For the past three years I've lived in a country where I pay 5% fed income tax, and about the same level of taxes on the purchase of goods and services, yet society is not falling apart. As PM, I would explain to Canadians that they deserve to pay lower general income taxes, and be given a chance to benefit if their lifestyle choices ease some burden of society.

Americans

Now I've been to America a bunch of times, and all the Americans I met there were just the nicest people.  So I got very irritated hearing someone I know declaring Americans were generally stupid..and then recently a guy form a European country, while standing with two other Americans, asked me "So, do you hate Americans too?"  Since I am Polish-Canadian, I consider American and Canadian culture to be overlapping, and that comment was offensive to me.

But after I heard what happened in Boston a few days ago, I kind of saw where these people were coming from.  Sometimes -- way too often -- authorities south of the border just go overboard. 

Paralyzing traffic all over a city and freaking out its citizens about a possible terrorist attack over a cartoon promo...Boston's mayor wants to charge two youths hired to put up electronic devices depicting a cartoon character with intent to incite panic - or something like that.

The best thing Ive seen on TV in a long time is this press conference the two 20-something defendants had with their lawyer at their side not answering any questions except those that had to do with their hair cuts.  Wild.

Granted I know nothing about maintaining security of a city like Boston, this overreaction looks silly. What are people in other countries to think when they read this story?? 

Climate likely man made - IPCC

When I was in university the question was not so much if climate change is happening, but to what extent it's a result of modern human activity.  That question is a step closer to being answered. 

"Very likely" is how 2000 of the worlds best scientists described the probability that climate change is driven by the burning of fossil fuels in a new UN IPPC report.

In the last report those scientists used the word "likely".  In that 2001 report there were a few dozen scientists who wrote in an exclaimer they had reservations about the report's conclusions but they signed anyway.  My skeptical economics professor pointed to that as proof that even scientists were divided on global warming.  As a science major I remember thinking how amazing it was that 1900+ scientists actually got together and agreed on anything.

One of the things I learned that year is that science is one of the arts.  All the way from experimental design to interpretation of the reults lends itself to interpretation, no matter how tight an experiment there is.  But after yesterday, the global warming sceptic's objectivity will be seriously questioned.

The next difficult question people will debate is what to do about global warming.. do I sence an Al Gore comeback?

CBC article here

Green Craze

I've been wondering when people would recognize the economic potential of sustainable technology and sustainable policy.  I hesitate to call it green because that label has an "on the fringe" connotation.  But this wave of enthusiasm over environmental consciousness really is green - green as a leaf, and green as a dollar bill.

Entrepreneurs, investors who fund them, government bodies, traditional industries especially the automobile and energy sectors, and of course the media have been drooling over climate change, hybrid cars, alternative fuels, wind energy.. you name it.  That's why Newsweek and the Economist devoted an entire issue to the topic recently, and why investors are lining up to put their money into alternative energy companies.

I am not an expert but I see many causes for the recent excitement.  One is oil prices, which before coming down recently have gone up for much of 2006.  Two, scientists are presenting more convincing evidence of climate change than ever. Three, the weather this winter is really messed up.  In Japan ducks are mating thinking it is spring.  Four, energy exporting countries are increasingly using their "black gold" to political effect.  Especially Russia has forced higher prices on its neighbours and then cut off the oil supply if they don't comply.  Europe and North America are starting to realize energy independence is a national security issue, and they want to develop domestic sources of energy.  The number five reason - Al Gore and his movie.

Finally, the public has shown interest in it.  In Canada, citizens have flatly rejected the ruling governments proposed Clean Air bill, and criticized Prime Minister Steven Harper for renegading on Kyoto.  They even forced him to sack the federal environment minister.  In America the new Democratic congress is preoccupied with war, but they will be much more open to the green revolution.   England, Japan, some American states, and some other countries are hammering out a system of trade-able carbon permits.  This is a change from traditional regulation, and the business community will be more likely to go along if they can save money by selling unused carbon quotas.

"Yes, Canada will cut mega-tonnes of emissions, but we will also make mega-tonnes of money"

Here is where Canada comes in.  Stephen Dion, the new liberal party leader, also happens to be the former environmental minister under Paul Martin.  He has come out swinging in the last few days with ambitious speeches in Alberta and Ontario about how going "green" will benefit Canada's overall economy.  I think he is right on the mark.

And when people stop hearing gloomy stories from the traditionally strong manufacturing sectors, who will stand to lose the most from something like the Kyoto protocol, they can start listening to the likes of Al Gore and Stephen Dion and ME who say "Yeah, we will lose in this sector, but we will gain in so much in this sector, and that sector, and in areas that don't even have sectors yet.  And overall, these areas offer the largest potential for growth because they are untapped, or not yet understood". 

Take for example wind energy.  It the most developed technology of the new energy bunch, and it has already been around for a while, but now it is really hot.  I hear there is a shortage blades to outfit turbines.  How about ethanol?  Farmers are increasing the amount of land for growing it.  Ford just made a huge investment in that technology (although at the expense of hybrid technology).  Solar?  Al Gore envisions the energy grid decentralizing to the point where individual households will be connected to small, community power grids.  There they will be able to buy from it, or sell into the grid from their own household power production, be that through photovoltaic cells on their roofs, of a wind turbine in their yards.

What Kyoto would do for Canada, I believe is shift the economy away from some areas and into new ones.  But overall (which is what really matters) the economy could expand greatly.  In fact, Newsweek compared this energy boom to the internet bubble of the 90's, except the potential for profit is a lot clearer with energy than it was with the internet.

That's energy, but is there a market in the idea of sustainability, of eco-consciousness?  For years already companies have been going googoo to place themselves under the umbrella of sustainability.  The term has been hoared around by oil companies for a long time (kind of like hunters calling themselves conservationists). I don't know of any actual credible association that certifies companies as sustainable, but there are a bunch of products that carry green stickers to show they are efficient. I think this idea can be expanded to make it marketable in the way brand names are marketable.  Public acceptance of sustainability will mean consumers will be willing to pay a higher price for goods which have been certified as environmentally friendly, or produced in a sustainable way.  This is already happening with organic goods.  Businesses invest a lot to be able to affix the 'organic' label to their products.  Why not the same with 'climate friendly' or 'no carbon was burned in the production of this product'.  We may just see a label like that in the future.

The only people who need to come on board now are the politicians.  They always seem to be last.  Stephen Dion, welcome on board. 

Psychotic Japanese Crimes

Japanese crimes often fall into 2 categories.  The first are the "victimless" crimes.  These crimes don't have an identifiable victim right away and include corporate fraud, abuse of power, organized crime, extortion, bid-rigging, unfair business practices and the like.

Then there is the second category.  These go along the lines of teen suicides, kids killing classmates for not being their friends, or for bullying, or kids killing their parents after an argument and then perhaps cutting up the body, barbecuing it, and burying the pieces somewhere (as happened once before). 

So what makes these people commit these horrid crimes?  Seemingly normal (usually young) people crumble under society's pressure to live up to unrealistic expectations. Some kids lives are so consumed by living their parents dream that sometimes they just snap, like Yuki Muto: after three years of trying to get into dentist college like his dad, sister, and brother, he couldn't take his sister's hurtful comments.  So he killed her, cut her up, put her in a closet and told his parents it was a pet shark that died.  Then he went to cram school.

A 21-year-old cram school student suspected of murdering his sister and mutilating her body in their Tokyo house has told police he had been under strong pressure to pass a college entrance exam, according to police sources...more

Bush to ask for 20 000 more troops, $

Market watch this morning has the first story I've seen about Bush's decisions on Iraq strategy...

The requests are expected to be part of Bush's "The New Way Forward," which the president will describe in a speech that likely will come Wednesday, according to the reports.

The administration's strategy shift also includes diplomatic, national security and military changes, according reports in online editions of The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post. See Wall Street Journal story (subscription required).

Story here

Is it just me, or is the biggest problem in Iraq NOT terrorism any more?  It seems to be sectarian violence ever since that Sunni shrine was blown up (that one with the gold dome).  If that is the case, who is the "enemy"?  Neo-cons use this word to fire people up about the war.  But use of this word now just makes people look ideological, unrealistic, and dangerously simplistic. America is not the good guy fighting the bad guys anymore.  America is part of the problem, involved in a deeper conflict the solution to which involves the Sunnis or Shiites having control over the other.

Iraq will need policing for a long time it seems, to keep sects from killing each other. The question for me is whether the central government can be strong enough to keep security on its own.  The "enemy" now is the region's own history.

Membership programs

A discount barber shop point card. 

Translation: "1 haircut, 1 stamp.  Collect 20 stamps and your next haircut is half price ($5)".

Let's see, I get my haircut about 4 times a year..that means in five years I get to save $5!!  Woohoo!  What a deal!

We have lots of membership programs in Canada for sure, but it doesn't get this silly.  The whole point of it is that the customer has a reason to return to one place of business when there are many other similar choices, offering the same value.  You are rewarded for your loyalty.

In Japan, most of these programs offer little or nothing in terms of savings, and in fact bind customers to paying for services far in advance, or sell services in blocks of time.  For example, a beauty salon selling a monthly membership where you can go for beauty treatment as often as you wish.  The best (and bordering on criminal) example is the English teaching service NOVA.  This company sold, and possibly still does sell English lessons in blocks of HUNDREDS.  Students were paying thousands of dollars for once or twice a week English lessons.  If they missed a session..too bad.  The company got all that money up front.

North Americans would usually not buy into these schemes because we want to feel in control of our purchases.  We feel this kind of commitment infringes on our individual rights.  In Japan however, people like to feel a sense of loyalty to one company, and people have wallets bulging with these membership cards.

This particular card is just a point card, but its pointless unless someone has a big family.  They can all use the same card. I accepted this one with a big chuckle.

Candy shrimp

Shrimp candy left on my desk by a generous co-worker...

When it comes to food, I've heard it every which way from North Americans and Japanese.

The Japanese (and many others) say Japanese food is healthier.  When they go to America, they gain weight.  American food is too sweet.  Too salty.  Too BIG.

Some Americans say Japanese food is not healthy.  No vegetables.  Rice and noodles means too many carbs.

Well, its pretty much agreed that Japanese food is generally healthy, but one thing I consistently notice is that what I expect to be sweet is salty, and what I think will be salty is sweet.  Dried sea food (like my shrimp slice) is often drowned in sugar.  But cookies are salty.

The sweetest Japanese snack is called anko - made from beans but tastes like jam.

 

Lessons from a kid

Apparently the elementary school curriculum has changed since my time.  It now includes classes such as "Modern Political Commentary" and "Role of Religion in Historical Violence".

She's cute when she says she would get "medieval on someone's ass". 

Ehud Olmert rejects Mideast stability, Palestinian issue link

Thursday the Israeli Prime Minister differed with some of the ISG conclusions. 

Objection #1:  On the Israeli / Palestinian conflict as a key issue in Mideast

"The attempt to create linkage between the Iraqi issue and the Mideast issue — we have a different view."

Objection #2:  On diplomacy with Syria

"I don't think there is a Syrian desire for war with us. We certainly don't have a desire to fight with them. That doesn't mean conditions are ripe for us to negotiate with them."

The article is here

Iraq Study Group report

Baker and Hamilton and their associates have now presented their findings to the President. Although the report is on sale in book form, you can download the text of it free from the James Baker Institute.

Here is the executive summary of the Iraq Study Group Report.  In bold is a statement recommending a two state solution to the Palestinian / Israeli conflict:

Executive Summary
The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no
path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved.
In this report, we make a number of recommendations
for actions to be taken in Iraq, the United States, and the region.
Our most important recommendations call for new and
enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region,
and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq
that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat
forces out of Iraq responsibly. We believe that these two recommendations
are equally important and reinforce one another.
If they are effectively implemented, and if the Iraqi government
moves forward with national reconciliation, Iraqis will have an
opportunity for a better future, terrorism will be dealt a blow,
stability will be enhanced in an important part of the world, and
America’s credibility, interests, and values will be protected.
The challenges in Iraq are complex. Violence is increasing
in scope and lethality. It is fed by a Sunni Arab insurgency, Shiite
militias and death squads, al Qaeda, and widespread criminality.
Sectarian conflict is the principal challenge to stability.

The Iraqi people have a democratically elected government, yet
it is not adequately advancing national reconciliation, providing
basic security, or delivering essential services. Pessimism is pervasive.
If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences
could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse
of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring
countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could
spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand
its base of operations. The global standing of the United States
could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.
During the past nine months we have considered a full
range of approaches for moving forward. All have flaws. Our
recommended course has shortcomings, but we firmly believe
that it includes the best strategies and tactics to positively influence
the outcome in Iraq and the region.

External Approach
The policies and actions of Iraq’s neighbors greatly affect its
stability and prosperity. No country in the region will benefit in
the long term from a chaotic Iraq. Yet Iraq’s neighbors are not
doing enough to help Iraq achieve stability. Some are undercutting
stability.
The United States should immediately launch a new
diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability
in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include
every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic
Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors. Iraq’s neighbors and key
states in and outside the region should form a support group to
reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither
of which Iraq can achieve on its own.

Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events
within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the
United States should try to engage them constructively. In
seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United
States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should
stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty
and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi
Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of
Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the
five permanent members of the United Nations Security
Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with
Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in
and out of Iraq.

The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle
East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and
regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained
commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-
Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s
June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and
Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by,
and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept
Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.
As the United States develops its approach toward Iraq
and the Middle East, the United States should provide additional
political, economic, and military support for Afghanistan,
including resources that might become available as combat
forces are moved out of Iraq.

Internal Approach
The most important questions about Iraq’s future are now the
responsibility of Iraqis. The United States must adjust its role
in Iraq to encourage the Iraqi people to take control of their
own destiny.
The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility
for Iraqi security by increasing the number and
quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this process is under way,
and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase
the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat
troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As
these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move
out of Iraq.
The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve
to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary
responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter
of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security
situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for
force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat
forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with
Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams,
and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and
search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue.
A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations
forces would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in
Iraq.

It is clear that the Iraqi government will need assistance
from the United States for some time to come, especially in
carrying out security responsibilities. Yet the United States
must make it clear to the Iraqi government that the United
States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments,
even if the Iraqi government did not implement their
planned changes. The United States must not make an openended
commitment to keep large numbers of American troops
deployed in Iraq.

As redeployment proceeds, military leaders should emphasize
training and education of forces that have returned to
the United States in order to restore the force to full combat
capability. As equipment returns to the United States, Congress
should appropriate sufficient funds to restore the equipment
over the next five years.

The United States should work closely with Iraq’s leaders
to support the achievement of specific objectives—or milestones—
on national reconciliation, security, and governance.
Miracles cannot be expected, but the people of Iraq have the
right to expect action and progress. The Iraqi government
needs to show its own citizens—and the citizens of the United
States and other countries—that it deserves continued support.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in consultation with the
United States, has put forward a set of milestones critical for
Iraq. His list is a good start, but it must be expanded to include
milestones that can strengthen the government and benefit the
Iraqi people. President Bush and his national security team
should remain in close and frequent contact with the Iraqi
leadership to convey a clear message: there must be prompt action
by the Iraqi government to make substantial progress toward
the achievement of these milestones.

If the Iraqi government demonstrates political will and
makes substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones
on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the
United States should make clear its willingness to continue
training, assistance, and support for Iraq’s security forces and to
continue political, military, and economic support. If the Iraqi
government does not make substantial progress toward the
achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security,
and governance, the United States should reduce its political,
military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.

Our report makes recommendations in several other areas.
They include improvements to the Iraqi criminal justice system,
the Iraqi oil sector, the U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq,
the U.S. budget process, the training of U.S. government personnel,
and U.S. intelligence capabilities.

Conclusion
It is the unanimous view of the Iraq Study Group that these
recommendations offer a new way forward for the United
States in Iraq and the region. They are comprehensive and
need to be implemented in a coordinated fashion. They should
not be separated or carried out in isolation. The dynamics of
the region are as important to Iraq as events within Iraq.
The challenges are daunting. There will be difficult days
ahead. But by pursuing this new way forward, Iraq, the region,
and the United States of America can emerge stronger.

FINALLY!! Somebody found the core problem to middle east peace

Video (WMP)

I can't believe it.  After so many decades of Israeli - Palestinian conflict, all out wars, illegal settlements, UN resolutions, suicide bombings, failed peace agreements, protests, intifadas, assasinations, the years of Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and the whole middle east screaming for justice on behalf of the Palestinians and Israelis --- on December 3rd, 2006 an American politician has noticed peace here is necessary for middle east stability.

This is the first time I've heard this blunt admission, and it comes as America is perhaps finally being humbled by the realization it cannot itself solve Iraq.  I think politicians, particularily after this Iraq Study Group releases its findings, will succumb to reality and begin to look at non military options for the region.  First and foremest would be taking a closer look at America's divisive and unequal support of Israel.  Next, they should re-examine the hypocrytical, unpopular, self serving American policy in the region.

Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel on Face The Nation.

Chuck Hagel:  There will be no peace in the middle east without - and we haven't even talked about this - and that is the core problem, the Israeli / Palestinian issue.

At that point Hagel gets cut off by the host. 

Resident to be fined for peace X-mas wreath

This is the kind of story that sends my blood pressure up and really makes me forget about my work.

The lead of this AP article is brilliant:

DENVER - A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan...

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said...more

Here is my suggested response to Mr. Kearns:

Dear Mr. Kearns,

Thank you for your quick response to some of our resident's concerns.  It shows your commitment to serving this community of neighbors. 

Actually, my wreath is an international symbol of peace.  Traditional symbols of Satan usually have to do with evil looking faces with large protruding horns.  Often this figure has a tail and is holding some sort of pitch fork.  The color red is omnipresent.  My wreath, if you look closely is made of green twigs.

As for the wreath being an anti war symbol, in fact it is not.  If you notice, 'war' or 'Iraq' do not appear on the wreath.  Of course the wreath as a peace symbol, can be just as easily interpreted as a sign of support for our troops.  Aren't they fighting for peace?  Yes, I think so.

If you believe that the wreath is anything other than a wreath, this seems to be a perception problem on your part.  That's OK, I understand.  Lots of people have trouble with reality these days, its just so confusing when you really, really believe one thing, but something else is true.  This is called an ideology, and if you have one about America's place in the world and the war in Iraq, please don't interpret my Christmas decoration as an attack on those beliefs.

If this letter doesn't help, I suggest a psychiatrist, I think one may really help you.

Peace be with you,

LLHA resident

Climate Crusade

As much as I hate the word crusade, it is a good adjective to describe Gore's drive to make people aware of climate change and its consequences.

He spoke at the Guardian Hay Festival in Britain in the Spring, and its the longest interview I've seen him give.   I think the timing of Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is significant.  In fact, I think he is brilliant.

All over the place people are talking about the climate..its a hot issue right now.  The International Panel on Climate Change is coming out with a report, scientific debate on the issue, according to Gore is over, California has taken huge steps, regulatory and legal (actually suing care makers over climate related damages...look a few posts down) to address the issue.  On top of that, governments in Europe and reportedly Japan are developing markets for trading carbon emission permits, Canada's conservative government has brought the issue to the forefront of political debate, and climate conference has just wrapped up in Nairobi.

As if that isn't enough, investment in green technology is reportedly high as investors hope to earn money with start up companies looking to market scores of products.  According to The Economist Magazine, the conditions are ripe for an alternative energy boom.  Apparently there are six parts to the sector:

1. wind   2. solar   3. bio-fuel   4. carbon trading   5. developing technology   6. energy efficiency

Wind generation is the biggest section of the sector - 28 countries are increasing wind capacity.

What does this mean for Al Gore and the environmental movement?  It means that the climate issue is finally getting political clout.  No longer can governments (except maybe in America where it is so heavily influenced by oil companies) just ignore the problem or try to side step it by pretending there is some great uncertainty about it that requires time to assess.  Al Gore has positioned himself as the leader in bringing the issue into the spotlight.  No matter what you say about his politics, Gore is an ultimate visionary.  He saw the opportunity in the internet before it was the internet, he realized television was moving in the direction of user generated content, and now he's grabbed the spotlight with global warming. He is a little bit ahead of his time.

The most interesting part of the interview is when he talks about the relationship between political action and the citizenry.  He knows we have the technology to start turning around carbon emission totals but the political leaders need to be forced into action by an aware, caring, united public.

America has finally gone blue - now what?

Prominent democrats like Murtha and Carl Levin are calling for some sort of withdrawal of troops from Iraq, either gradually, or all at once.  Carl Levin particularly seems to feel the American people have vehemently decided that they want troops out, as he's been telling the talk shows.  He is a respected politician but he must be overstepping his ground.  People voted for a change of course in Iraq, but that doesn't mean they necessarily want a pull out.  By saying things like "the people have spoken" Levin recalls memories of Bush's 2004 election win when he talked as if the vote of "the people" was the equivalent of a permission slip to implement his entire conservative agenda.

Here is the thing with a pull out.  It has to be a strategy for the future not the reversal of a mistake made three and a half years ago.  That mistake to invade Iraq should be held against politicians to political effect, not to try to undue the original mistake.  America can't uninvade Iraq. A pull out now brings a lot of uncertainty.  I think staying to train Iraqi military and working closer on the impression of American soldiers as aides to Iraq rather than occupiers needs to happen.

The Huffington Post has a good post about Iraq policy here.

This of course will not solve the deeper problem in the area which lies with Israel.   Israel is where the answer to the "war on terror" lies.  Of course there is no such thing as a war on terror.  There is only a war on "mostly displaced and humiliated Muslims who have no other way of dealing with an Israel that lies on their land without giving compensation and an America that arms and supports it."  Yeah, and some fundamentalist criminals who can only live with a destroyed America.  But let's distinguish the two and deal with them differently.  Lesson not yet learned.

Don's Tricks

The Chris Ferguson Show did a fantastic skit of Rumsfeld doing a press conference.  Not to be missed.

President Introduces Rumsfeld's replacement

Too busy watching the mid term election to really wrtite anything about it.  Just go to crooksandliars.com for the latest news, video.

This is interesting though, introduction of Bob Gates and relieving Rumsfeld..watch here

Only in California

I really wanted to post this sooner but I got carried away with the image search for this lady.  Actress Mary Carey,  specializing in a genre which needs no mentioning, is running for governor of California again.  She would have my vote if one of her campaign promises was to wear this outfit to press conferences.

She recently joined Democratic gubernatorial challenger Phil Angelides in demanding equal time on Jay Leno after the talk show host had his friend on for a chat recently....more

State of Denial 2

In one excerpt from the book, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar, gave George Bush early warning of America's future problems in the Middle East in the summer iof 2001.  His point was that America's unequal support of Israel was turning popular opinion against America, strengthening fundamentalists, and making it hard for moderate governments to work with the United States. 

It was an urgent plea from one of the most connected men to Washington, and gave an indication where the war on terrorism should have been centered - on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

"Mr. President, this is the most difficult message I have had to convey to you....The Crown Prince has tried to find many excuses for this administration and we couldn't." The president had allowed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to "determine everything in the Middle East." The Israeli policy of occupation and killing was like Britain with the American colonies in the 18th century, France with Algeria, America with Vietnam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan.  All failures.

"What pained the Crown Prince more is the continuance of American ignorance of Israel upholding policies as if a drop of Jewish blood is equal to thousands of Palestinian lives."

Then came the action line: "Therefore the Crown Prince will not communicate in any form, type or shape with you, and Saudi Arabia will take all its political, economic and security decisions based on how it sees its own interest in the region witout taking into account American interests anymore because it is obvious that the U.S. has taken a strategic decision adopting Sharon's policy."

Bush seemed shocked. "I want to assure you that the U.S. did not take any strategic decision," he said.  Powell cornered Bandar later.  "What the fuck are you doing?" he demanded. "You're putting the fear of God in everybody here.  You scared the shit out of everybody."

"I don't give a damn what you feel," Bandar shot back.  "We are scared ourselves."

...Two days later Bush sent the Crown Prince a two page letter: "Let me make one thing clear up front: nothing should ever break the relationship between us.  There was been no change in the strategic equation.  I firmly believe the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and to live securely in their own state, in their homeland..."

Bush agreed to come out publicly for a Palestitian state.  A big rollout was planned for the week of September 10, 2001.

Of course something else was also planned for that week.  Bush everntually did make his desire for a two state solution public with the unveiling of the "Road Map to Peace".  That plan has since been derailed and two wars have kept the administration's mind off the root problem of "terrorism", and the place where the solution to the problem of Middle East stability is found - Palestine.

State of Denial

Picked up a copy of Woodward's book and as I started reading it and watching the media frenzy about it, I realized Woodward is no dummy. 

People wondered how this journalist, close to the Republican administration which he often wrote flattering things about, could all of a sudden trash them in this third installment about the Bush government.  Well it just so happens that when his first two books were published, Woodward's contacts would remain important to him.  The administration was still going strong and would be around for a while.  Now, with no chance to get re-elected and poll numbers in the gutter, the same people Woodward has been interviewing and enjoying a colse relationship with will no longer be around come time for his next book.  So, nothing is lost by showing those guys the door..and Woodward does, with a shot in the gut and a hard kick on their way out.

The first 300 pages is largely about administration mismanagement and the personality and managing style of Rumsfled.  The denial part is just beginning.

Its juicy and amazingly detailed with lots of quotes. I'll keep posting about it.

Poll: Iraqis support attacks on US troops

I'm not staying very current with posting, but that was never my intention.  It is just too much to post thought out commentaries every day.  So pardon me for talking about old news but this cannot be forgotten quickly:

About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, a poll finds...more

Here is when you know you lost a war - when 60 % of the people you are fighting FOR want to kill you.  There is no doubt in my mind that the Bush administration has DECREASED America's security by fighting a counterproductive "warr on terror".  The war is counterproductive because it has INCREASED Americas enemies by making Al Qaida and organizations like it attractive options for new recruits.  Angry, poor young people are attracted to terror because they believe, rightly or not, that America is

1. killing innocent people by indiscriminate bombing.

2. waging a war on Islam

3. taking an unfairly one sided approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

4. trying to repress Middle Eastern people and their religion by introducing Western values, ideologies, and stealing the region's oil resources, and setting up military bases in the area.

Muslim's perception of these four points must change before Iraqi's can accept American presence.  Then  America can start making the world safer.  What Bush has done up until this point is take bombs to the terrorists and everyone around them.  This insensitive and blanket military approach to the problem is driving American antagonism.  The appropriate course of action is to take the bombs to the people that deserve it - the big names in terrorism and at the same time deal with the larger community of muslims differently.

What should the non-military war on terror look like?  I am not an expert, but it must deal with the fanatic Muslim schools that teach hate to youths.  There must be a concurrent "war on the indocrination of young people with hate".  There must be a diplomatic "war on the injustices in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict".  There must be a war "on Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other politically active fanatics within America".

The war on terror must be 10% bombs and 90% brains.  Until now it seems just like the opposite.

Conservatives kill legal aid in Canada

The Toronto star reports Stephen Harper has cut funding to the Court Challenges Program which serviced minority groups in Canada.

The unique part about the article is that Harper's chief of staff previously wrote a dissertation on the program.  This article outlines some of his arguments.  They show a glimpse into the conservative philosophy from which justification emerges for cutting this program and all the other decisions that are moving Canada in a different direction than it has been under liberal rule.

"Three interests — official language minority groups, feminists, and homosexual rights groups — have been particularly successful at pursuing their objectives through the courts," Brodie wrote when he was a professor at the University of Western Ontario.

"All three of these interests consider themselves traditionally `disadvantaged' groups in Canadian society, and so their success is puzzling."

The paper, which he co-authored in 2003 just before joining Harper's staff, suggests "a solution to this puzzle."

The paper concludes that the so-called "haves" really do come out ahead in our legal system — and that's because the Court Challenges Program has simply helped reverse the definition...more

Basically Ian Brodie argues that because this government program has been successful in winning homosexuals, language minorities, poor people, disabled and aboriginals recognition of their rights - all these people are the real power players in Canada.

I see a lot of job openings for env. lawyers

Remarkably the state of California has brought a lawsuit against GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan for the auto industry's role in contibuting to climate change.  Its about real money that the state said it must spend on the ecenomy, health and environment to counter the effects of changing weather and pollution.  It thinks car makers should take some of the responsibility.

Interesting to see where that goes.  From the BBC..more

Drunk man bites Panda

I love human - animal stories where the animal gets the last bite.  Yesterday a drunk man wandered into a Panda enclosure in Beijing, China...

"He felt a sudden urge to touch the panda with his hand" and jumped over a waist-high railing down into the enclosure, the Beijing Morning Post said. "When he got closer and was undiscovered, he reached out to hug it."..more