A Bit Odd...

We have our Ministers busy off trying to sell trade.  Obama too. 

What strikes me as odd, is they will be busy telling their voters that they are doing so on behalf of their populations.  I look around the world and see the destruction successive governments have inflicted on people around the world.  The US and the UK have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.  And that means they have destroyed the lives of the people there, either by killing them or destroying their normal lives.

If they can do that to others, then doesn't it make you wonder what they could do to their own people.  The methods would be different, of course.  My thoughts are this: callous people are callous people.  Full stop.  I don't think their callousness is restricted depending on where borders lie.  It's just a matter of what they think they can get away with without being stopped, really.  Just a thought.

I Shouldn't Smirk

I can't help it.  I'm smirking.

Dave Cameron et al wanting to represent people, giving democracy back to local communites etc.

How many Girl Guides leaders, local kids football club organisers, fete organisers, Smaritan volunteers etc has he taken on his latest mission overseas? 

Or is he being a bit like Obama, and being met by multinational company bosses, mostly from his own country?

Oh, it's trade is it?  Right.  Where is the soft Loch Ness Monster toy, a photo of Edinburgh Castle and a bit of Blackpool rock?   And don't forget the music, the designer clothes...... suppose the airline lost the luggage......

Poison Media

The world is beautiful, sometimes contaminated by humans with nothing more than hate to pimp via the media.  As the media runs riot in the US, we have the press in Uganda printing the names of homosexuals at a time when some vicious people, pretending to be religious, are demanding the death penalty for homosexuality.

I'm all for freedom of speech.  But surely there are limits?  The Uganda press participating in this disgusting, dangerous activity bring shame, not to East Africa, but to the press. 

For those of you not so great with geography, Uganda borders Rwanda.  For those of you who have not kept up with history, Rwanda suffered genocide in the 1990s.  800 000 people murdered in a short few months. For those of you who don't pay attention, the US press, well is the US press.  Currently, there is the election campaign targetting immigrants, the tabloid journalism that fails to inform the citizens about what really goes on while their country wages war.  The list is almost endless. 

The press were an active instrument in that orchestra.

The press in both America and Uganda are a threat to reason, possibly a threat  to people. 

Hate speech such be illegal in my view.  But do not forget, the press relies on money.  The most efficient way to stop hate speech is to refuse to purchase the peddlers of division, the bullies and to refuse to join in their dangerous delusions. 

Have we forgotten the words 'Never Again' so soon, again? Or do we not understand their important meaning?

US Public Housing

Well, what do you know!  Reagan, like Thatcher thought selling off public housing was a good idea (shrinking that 'huge' state, going back to the days of those slums).  Seems it failed and even Jack Kemp couldn't get it to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kemp

Jack Kemp seems to have been a bit of guy - listen to this early show on Democracy Now!

Lord Turnbull v George Osborne 'Brink'?

Watch the video here

UMUNNA: Do you think it’s accurate to describe the UK as being on the brink of bankruptcy?




TURNBULL: No I don’t. But I think it was essential, for a slightly different reason, to have a deficit reduction programme.

Ideology for the Rich

While the public suffer the cuts, and Nick Clegg feels 'challenged' over the cuts, I wonder if he'll blush at this story from the Guardian over those Swiss Bank Accounts?

And they weren't too impressed by Prof Philo's idea of taxing the rich to pay the debt? 

Yip ideology, representation of the businesses by the businesses.

Not my kind of music but.....

This isn't my kind of music at all, but I can't help liking it. 

And I still think Julian Assange and everyone involved in wikileaks should be awarded the next Nobel Peace Prize.

Mr Murdoch

We had Blair making friends with the global media magnate.  Will the ConDems go further?  Before you decide to let the BBC shrink down into the depths of a black hole to nowhere, maybe you might want to take a look at this broadcast from Democracy Now! show from 2007

A Man-Made Disaster

Countdown and wikileaks warlogs

The whole thing is simply horrible. Always has been. Always will be.

A lot of people need to be in jail.



MSNBC isn't a channel I particularly like, but this is a good interview with the investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill who does know what he's talking about.

Some Brass Neck!

Wikileaks have done it again.  Thankfully.

Some people, who knows how many, have the guts to provide the documents, and another group have the guts to make it all available.

The mess in Iraq is no surprise.  Anyone aware of the histories of the UK and the US, the real histories, won't be surprised at all at the stories, the destroyed lives revealed by the data.  Robert Fisk at the Independent, among many have outlined some of the horrors, the utter failure of our warmongering leaders to follow international laws, to abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Just one example:

The shooting of men trying to surrender - In February 2007, an Apache helicopter killed two Iraqis, suspected of firing mortars, as they tried to surrender. A military lawyer is quoted as saying: "They cannot surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets."

Frightening.  Terrifying. 

How can a lawyer even think such a thing?  Is that a fact of law?  Is it because a helicopter is metal rather than human?  So that would imply that people could not surrender, waving their white flags, as a tank approached, does it? 

Perhaps there is some complexity of law that distinguishes between a lump of metal on the ground and a lump of metal in the air.  Perhaps the lawyer didn't think that perhaps the men were surrendering to the occupants of the lump of metal, rather than the lump of inert metal.  Was it truly beyond their legal wits, beyond their understanding? 

Military lawyers have a record of not grasping the legal importance of life, of not understanding life is of primary importance.

It may well have been money.  Well, bullets are cheaper than having to land an aircraft, organise transport, food, shelter etc for those men hoping to safely surrender.  How much is an Iraqi life worth?  Is it worth the same as ours?  You would think so, though the US and the UK have a track record of making such calculations.  Lawyers have had a problem with that too.

I'm no lawyer so I can't argue one way or the other.  But I am a human.  And I know the difference between right and wrong - in this world.  Medieval right from wrong thinking has no place in the minds of modern thinking.  It isn't difficult.  If I smash your window I could be guilty of criminal damage.  But what if I smash that window in order to rescue you from your burning home?  If I smash your window and then surrender to a police officer sitting in his car, is that OK?  Or impossible?  Do I really have to wait until he is out of his car?  Can't I really hold my hands up in the air as the police helicopter hovers above and have that count as surrendering to the police for smashing a window?   

It sounds silly and we'd all assume that every lawyer would be laughed at if he tried to argue that in court.

But it isn't silly.  These people, these lawyers cause untold misery and despair. 

Take a look at this passage:

The United States and the United Kingdom committed other acts of sabotage on deployment to Rwanda.  For instance, I had long been arguing with New York that RTLM had to be shut down, as it was a direct instrument in promoting genocide.  The UN did not have the means to stop the broadcasts, either through jamming, a direct air strike on the transmitter, or covert operations, but it made a formal request of the United States, which had the means to try all three.  The issue was studied by the Pentagon, which in due course recommended against conducting the operation because of the cost - $8,500 an hour for a jamming aircraft over the country - and the legal dilemma.  Bandwidth within a nation is owned by the nation, and jamming a national radio station would violate international convention on national sovereignty.  The Pentagon judged that the lives of the estimated 8,000-10,000 Rwandans being killed each day in the genocide was not worth the cost of the fuel or the violation of Rwandan airwaves,  The death toll, which was estimated at 200,000 by the end of April, reached 500,000 by the end of May and 800,000 by the last day of June. (Dallaire, Lt Gen Roméo., Shake Hands With The Devil.  The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda., 2004, page 375.)

So you can't block hate broadcasts because of international law, but you can ignore international law, invade a country that hasn't attacked you (or threatened to) and shoot anyone who wants to surrender if they surrender to military in a metal flying box!  It would be funny if this was a lecture theatre, the uuniversity law faculty.  But it isn't.  This is serious, a matter of life and death.  There is nothing more serious than life.

Money matters when it comes to choosing life or death, for military powers, at least.   How much did it matter in Iraq?  Billions were being splashed around and still are, so perhaps money wasn't so important as to be considered in this instance. $2 500 for an innocent mother killed with her husband in a car, a car taking their children home, $2 500 for a car.  Simply Shocking. 

How much for an American life?  How much for a British life?

It's all part of saving people from tyranny.  Is it?  So easy to shoot those surrendering now, yet so difficult to take out a media broadcast, a broadcast of hate and death. 

Different centuries, different countries, different populations and different resources.  Sadly, legal ability, understanding seem to have improved at all. 

Huge military powers have no respect for human life.  They just hide that idea as best they can, threatening journalists and whistleblowers who reveal the nasty, little secret.  We aren't supposed to know.  Hiding the details of these brutal deaths tells us the authorities know it is wrong.  Well, if they'd been saving lives we would hear all about it.  Over and over and over again, the politicians would be proudly, smiling, handing out medals and cheering.

You don't hide things you are proud of.

Bill Moyers on Democracy Now!

Anyone who cares about the world and how we manage ourselves would do well to think about what Bill Moyers says here on Democracy Now about war, politics and advertising.

Prediction

I predict the cuts to both the military and the police will lead to a new growth industry in the UK.

Private security and spying companies.  All bothering peace lovers, council house tenants who don't like Boy George etc.


Hardly original, but then when was the last time a mainstream British politician showed much sign of originality?  We only ever copy the Americans.  It's our love of international, clever people and the belief by political classes that Brits (except themselves of course) are thick!

I'm not being original here, just keeping an eye on world media.

Even worse, the 'privatise everything' mantra that is so popular in Washington has expanded into the military and intelligence-gathering - producing a booming new industry, as documented by investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, among others.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/10/20101012111034580809.html

Nick!

We can all assume it's been a busy weekend over in the US as the latest wikileaks revelations are on view.  The leaks document grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. 

Wiki details the Conventions in easily readable non-legalese form:

Grave breaches

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

• willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
• willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
• compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
• willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

• taking of hostages
• extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
• unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[11]

Nations who are party to these treaties must enact and enforce legislation penalizing any of these crimes.[12] Nations are also obligated to search for persons alleged to commit these crimes, or ordered them to be committed, and to bring them to trial regardless of their nationality and regardless of the place where the crimes took place.

The principle of universal jurisdiction also applies to the enforcement of grave breaches. Toward this end, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia were established by the United Nations to prosecute alleged violations.

Nick Clegg, reported on France 24 says:

"I'm assuming the US administration will want to provide its own answer. It's not for us to tell them how to do that.

http://www.france24.com/en/20101024-us-under-pressure-over-wikileaks-allegations

Mr Clegg, the rule of law applies to everyone  It is for the whole world to tell them exactly how to do that.  In a court, an International Court.


All nations must insist on it.  Indeed, the US had a partner in this atrocity, the UK, and we too must comply.  If that means UK officials and UK military are put on trial, then so be it. 

The law applies to everyone, to every nation, irrespective of riches in money or firepower.

Tree Huggers Needed!

All those who say we don't have the Tea Party running Britain could maybe have a bit of a problem...



Tree Huggers Beware!  It takes heroes to save the planet and our trees, keepers of the natural processes for capturing carbon.  It isn't safe to sit in trees, so those who do are brave people.

http://www.democracynow.org/2000/5/24/10th_anniversary_of_the_bombing_of
Legislation governing the treatment of "ancient forests" is to be changed giving firms the right to cut down trees. http://bit.ly/chkdN8

Wikileaks and the warlogs

People will now question why the Americans have been so cruel in Iraq.  I worry that people will assume it is because Americans simply do not respect the rights of Arabs.

Take a look at US behaviour in Latin America over the decades. 
Take a look at the number of unemployed people in the US.  Why?
Take a look at the number of people living on the streets in America.  How are they treated?  How did they get there? 
Take a look at the number of US citizens being imprisoned in America.  America apparently has the largest  prison population in the world.  Why?
Take a look at healthcare provision in the US.  How many poor people (ie not working for the global corporations as executives, either in their head offices or in the government) have good healthcare?
Take a look at US military behaviour in Haiti in response to the election of people like Aristide, or the human tragedy of earthquakes. 
What involvement did the US have in Did the US officials work to save the global environment in Copenhagen?
Did the US officials work hard to ensure water is a human right or just access to water (meaning you have to have money)?
What did the US do to help prevent the unfolding of the horrific genocide in Rwanda?

This isn't about Arabs or muslims.

This is about greed.  This is about unchecked power. 

This is about having no respect for human rights, across the board.

This is about big business and profits.  This is about big a democratic deficit, where governments act on behalf of and in the interests of business, not on behalf of and in the interests of citizens.


The US does not stand alone. 

When will we have leaks of UK British documents relating to Iraq?

And when will we, each citizen on earth, have access to the documents, the evidence that will tell us all just how nasty our governments really are.

Spinning BBC Bias

The Transport Minister, Philip Hammond, was reportedly “shocked” at the level of hostility towards the government’s programme of cuts. The article (more short note) by Rod Liddle in the Spectator is saying the BBC is being accused of bias because Question Time was held in the town of  Middlesbrough http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/6405683/biased-bbc.thtml, thought the article doesn't name the accuser.

Bizarre.  But then we do have nuts running the country.  All their policies are US neo-liberal policies.  Its as if they have the Franchise Manual and we aren't supposed to notice!

Watch out, bias will soon be any BBC Question Time not aired from Potomac, the expensive Washington DC suburb.

Asking for poverty?

I just say this on twitter:

bbcquestiontime Q: Private sector pensions have been reduced dramatically, so isn’t it fair that public sector pensions should come now into line? #bbcqt 

  

 
 
Why do the rich bankers want more while the ordinary British worker thinks ordinary workers should have less?

Must be the failing education system, but never mind.  Let me help

It should have been:

Q: Private sector pensions have been reduced dramatically, so isn’t it fair that private sector pensions should be brought into line with the public sector pensions? #bbcqt

Or do workers think that less money will buy you more?

I hear that tune to the Twilight Zone off somewhere in the distance........

Foreign Policy and the Press

I watched this yesterday.

I've not had too much time to watch the speech and digest it.  But since when did the press have the role of promoting a nation's foreign policy?  Isn't that what elected officials are supposed to do while the press are supposed to provide information?

Scary stuff, really.





Some thoughts....

Did John Logie Baird Reckon On This

Fuck it! 

Murdoch has a celebrity X-factor lined up for next year.

I mean that literally. As Politico recently pointed out, every major contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination who isn’t currently holding office and isn’t named Mitt Romney is now a paid contributor to Fox News.

Sorry but I'm not even going to bother following the link from Krugman's page to the original article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman

Electoral Fraud?

I've just seen this on Baroness Warsi.

How many convictions have there been in the UK in relation to electoral fraud, say in the last 10 years. 

If there is going to be an issue about electoral fraud then we have to ask if there is indeed an issue.  If there really was a problem, I'm sure Baroness Warsi would be able to provide data on convictions.  I can't see where she provides that evidence.  Hmmm.

I'll assume it's a game.  Just like the game the Republicans played and won when they prevented people they believed to be likely to vote for the Democrats in Presidential Elections and that we should be as scared of such claims about 'electoral fraud' just as much as we should be scared about meeting criminal aliens around the Natural History Museum.

Greg Palast and Robert F Kennedy Jnr explain it all in the video below.





There seems to be a big thing about postal ballots being a means of fraud here in the UK.  I feel as if I'm watching a new franchise being built, using the same methods I've seen somewhere else.  When will we have those dodgy machines brought in, installed and hailed as being better than old-fashioned pen, paper and making your mark?

Diego Garcia and David Milliband

I've finally got round to making a start on Freedom Next Time by John Pilger.

I like this bit on page 40:

BBC newsreaders still refer to US aircraft flying out to bomb afghanistan and Iraq from the uninhabited island of Diego Garcia.

Right, so no one lives there.   Do the pilots and the other workers commute from a ship?
It's nice to see that David Milliband wasn't elected as leader of New Labour, or whatever they call themselves now. 

He's not much of a leader if he thinks he has the power to stop the Chagossians going home is he?  He's not mentioned in the early pages of the chapter 'Stealing A Nation' but he is on wiki, where it states:

On October 22, 2008, the Law Lords reached a decision on the appeal made by the Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the UK, David Milliband. They found in favour of the Government in a 3-2 verdict, ending the legal process in the UK and dashing the islanders hopes of return. The judgment was published on the UK parliament website.  see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossian

I think he put our relationship with the US ahead of the people who want to go home.  Not much sign of him understanding right from wrong, or choosing the kind of mates his mother would have let him play with, is there?

Let's hope the EU courts sort it out and let them go home.  It's their home after all.

Travel Warning - Let's Think About It

The US and UK authorities have issued travel warnings to those travelling to Europe.  It seems they have intelligence saying their will be an attack similar to the one that happened in Mumbai.

It's a bit inconvenient for Osama to be doing that now.  I mean, we are seeing protest after protest - the people of Europe are trying to sort out the politicians.  Are the hundreds of thousands of people supposed to stay away from train stations? 

Does he want us to stay away from major cities and leave our fruitcake politicians to carry on doing what they are doing or not?

Then again, since we haven't seen any credible evidence, and there have been no believable arrests, maybe the politicians are making up tall tales to scare the population (in the hope that if no one protests, they can claim the population don't mind paying for bankers greed). 

It's not as if they never tell tall tales, is it?

Fallujah - Genocide II

I've just come across video.  Watch it, it's important, just as importand as everything Dr Helen Caldicott has been saying for years.




And, let's not forget Noam Chomsky, who has something important to say about this too.

Fallujah - Genocide?

I've just been reading a paper, Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009
by Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi.

We and the US bombarded Iraq with tonnes of depleted uranium. 

Using depleted uranium is not only radioactive, it is a toxic metal.  We know radioactive materials are really nasty.  They are a threat to your DNA.  And that means they are a threat to your life and to the health of any children you may have.  We control radioactive materials very carefully.  Think about it.  Imagine someone took just a little bit of radioactive material and left it lying in the city centre.  How do you think the authorities would behave?  And if you were the nasty individual who left it there, deliberately, how many years to you think you would serve in jail? 

If it was a lump of radioactive metal, once it was identified the authorities could easily take it away and place it in safe storage.  Imagine, instead it was radioactive powder?  The wind would blow it all over the place.  Rain would wash deeper into the soil and the groundwater. 

That's what happens to DU shells - they pulverise, they burn and they turn into powder.  How simple would that be to clean up?  And if you were the sorry soul who was cleaning it up, what protective equipment would you demand?

It's been a long time since I opened up my school physics books and studied nuclear science.  But here's the first two things that come to mind other than nuclear power:

1. Becquerel left uranium on top of an unexposed photographic plate, later noticed the fogging and hence discovered radioactivity.  That's why he, along with Marie Curie and Pierre Curie, won the Nobel Prize in Physics
2. Little Boy, the bomb was a uranium bomb, the one that was dropped on Hiroshima

Because it has been such a long time, to see what kind of emmitter uranium is.  It's an alpha emmitter, so at least in metal form, uranium won't get to your DNA because the alpha particles can't get through your skin.  But what happens when it gets into your body?  Through your lungs, into a cut (you'll have those in a war zone), or via your digestive system?   Well it has an affinity for phosphate so that means bone; it will get to your bones.  And this metal has an enormous half-life!

It's nasty stuff.  How do we know?  Well, we could dig out all our old books and re-learn them, or we could take a whizz over to wiki.  Wiki lists the studies some saying it isn't so bad and others saying it is.  What seems to be the issue here is:   we can see how nasty it is with rodents and in in vitro studies looking at cell cultures.  But since we haven't got really good data on what happens when we spray it over populations, we can't say it is dangerous?

From a human perspective (take the science hat off) then I'll say this.  Nonsense!  It's a known toxin, never mind it's radioactive properties.  At the very least we've dusted a country with a chemical weapon, a chemical suspected of causing genetic defects.  That means people will suffer the effects for generations.  That means people civillians will have their chances of having healthy children reduced, of living a healthy life reduced.  And as long as that chemical, the chemical we put there stays there, that will continue.

Anyone who wants to quibble, can pack up their families and move to Iraq!  Any takers among our decision makers?  Nope, didn't think so.

We are responsible for cleaning that mess up.  If that is possible, which I doubt we can.  What parts of the country were not subjected to this weapon?  And where has all that dust gone?  Everywhere, presumably.  Dust doesn't settle and become 'glued down', does it? 

We, and the US have taken us to new depths of disgraceful, sickening, cruel behaviour.  And now the dreadful effects are being measured. 

I'd ban those weapons.  We could have done so at the UN Security Council but we didn't.  That says is that we don't have the necessary qualifications I'd expect for any country to be sitting on that council: not the morals, not the the intellect.

Anyone interested in education?

If you are concerned about Michael Gove and his school plan in England,  then you should be reading the guest post on Naomi Klein's blog.

Appalling!

When do we turn away?

If they aren't attacking the poor, it seems they are now attacking the sick. 

When Republicans attack health care reform, Democrats like to counter by accusing Republicans of wanting to repeal a law that requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. According to Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, that's exactly right. People with pre-existing conditions, he explains, are like houses that have already burned down.

"It sounds so good, and it's such a warm message to say we're not gonna deny anyone from a preexisting condition," Huckabee explained at the Value Voters Summit today. "Look, I think that sounds terrific, but I want to ask you something from a common sense perspective. Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, "I'd like to buy some insurance for my house." He'd say, "Tell me about your house." "Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today." And he'll say, "I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned." Well, no pre-existing conditions."

The author, William Rivers Pitt writes:

The five diseases I listed account for well over a third of the American population, and if Mike Huckabee or someone who agrees with him somehow becomes president someday, those millions of people should just dig their own graves and lie down in them.

If these people,  Huckabee and his mates, are elected, how will we and the rest of the world react? At what point will we turn away from these people? At what point do we break international relations with them? And at what point will the religious leaders of the planet stand up and say 'No more'?


Religion? The man doesn't have a gramme of humanity, he's a danger to humanity in my opinion.


http://www.truth-out.org/sick-bastards63456

Ecuador III

More analysis on Ecuador from the The Real News.




and

Monsters

Yes, anyone who can behave in such a frightening, callous manner really is a monster.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/01/us-apology-guatemala-syphilis-tests

Any refusal to provide compensation is the behaviour of a child refusing to clean up their own mess.  But in instances such as this, it isn't a child who needs to learn, it is of adults who do know better.  That is frightening to think that elected officials and policy makers are so churlish.

What's all this?

So the Chinese workers have decided they aren't putting up with poverty! Good for them.






And the Americans too.  They seem to be getting organised and demanding jobs.



And the French are busy this weekend rejecting the austerity measures too.

http://www.france24.com/en/20101002-anti-reform-activists-target-weekends-new-push-against-govt-sarkozy-pension-protests-france

Then there is Iceland:




And the economists at the IMF are warning that 45 million jobs will have to be created each year for the next decade just to tread water!

So when people demand to know why you don't have a job, tell them it is the world leaders who can not find a solution. If they can't (and their high salaries are meant to represent their immense ability and intellect) they what makes any one think that you can? The blame for your unemployment does not rest on your shoulders, so put that blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the politicians and policey makers.

BP hopes for profits...

After this, I don't think they should be in business!

Ecuador II

So now we have some analysis and a little history of events in Ecuador.

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/10/failed-washington-sponsored-ecuadorean.html

I hope this stops and the President of Ecuador remains safely in his job.

Perhaps the Latinos should send some NGOs to the US to help out with their democratic process - all they need to do is register in Delaware for $10!

Ecuador

Why would an event where police officers showing they are unhappy at taking a pay cut be called a coup?

Has someone else declared themself in charge or even tried to?

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/ecuador-attempted-coup/4743

So far it looks like the police were behaving like a bunch of pissed off workers.  Is it really more than that?

Workers Working!

Lively, and determined those Argentinians, aren't they!



Democracy Now! always gives decent journalism from around the world.

Well done everyone

I'm Being Sincere, honest!

So the US are applying more sanctions on Iran, or at least on Iranians are they?  This time they are citing human rights and '[Clinton] She noted that this week alone, two reformist political parties and two newspapers were shut down' as reported by Al Jazeera

That's a bit odd. 

Are we not supposed to notice?

A US politician getting on a high horse about human rights and the media?

On mainland America it seems to be OK to have press censorship, just as long as it is the corporate world doing it rather than a government.  Just ask Phil.  Is that some kind of WTO deregulation thingy?

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I think the Americans are confused.  They must be.

I wonder when they'll get round to sorting out all those countries that seem to have made a bit of a problem by blowing up buildings full of journalists or killing them in other ways. 

Well, just who are the Americans to be talking about human rights when they go and do this Protests Continue Against FBI Raids, Subpoenas of Antiwar Activists or the report the US produced on their own human rights record in the same week!

Dubbya and Iraq

So they planned it from the first day!

I've no words for this.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jry7qEOA-VOa8dJRWVJaJDGUU1yg

Lib Dem Paul Burstow

Imagine a government minister telling members of the party what newspaper they should read and which papers they shouldn't!

Apparently Lib Dem Minister Paul Burstow did just that this week at his party's conference. Alan Arusbridger, Editor in Chief of Guardian Newspapers informed us all from his twitter account.  Seems our minister a little bit upset with something the Guardian has been publishing. 

Excuse me, but didn't the Guardian come out for the LibDems at the last General Election?

So what is this minister playing at?

Has the Guardian found the policies of this government just as revolting, unjust and destructive as the voters? 
Newspapers are often the tools of propaganda aimed at influencing the way in which people think about the world they live in.  Radio and TV can and are used for the same purposes. 

You know, when anyone, particularly a government minister tells me not to read something, then like everyone else in a democracy I behave as I should.  I go and read it.  There is no government minister who can tell me what to read and what not to read and then expect the privilege of being judged fit to lick the soles of my shoes!  You may have been judged fit to lick them before you saw fit to tell me not to read something, or you may not have been.  With one simple speech that minister is in the category of 'not fit' forever more.

You can't kill ideas by telling us not to read them.
You can't kill information by telling us not to read it.

Or perhaps this minister is aware that as soon as we are told not to read or listen to something, then the British immediately do it?  When I was a teenager, ever manager of every music band knew the way to guarantee, not only a hit, but a fast hit, straight to No1 on the charts was to have the song banned by BBC Radio 1.  If this is his idea, then he is being, well no more than a wimp.  Stand up and say you do not agree with this government's policies.  Resign your cabinet seat vote against the cuts.  Losing the whip is a lot less severe than what is about to be done to too many people of this country.

If the newspapers are providing inaccurate data or immoral opinion, then the minds of the people will grasp that.  We will understand.  We can assess data, and we can detect good ideas and bad ideas, poor reasoning and good reasoning.  We are adults, after all, not little children in need of protection. So let's not have anymore Kim Il-sung fatherly love.

For as long as we have a free press in this country we will make use of it, without advice from any government worker, elected or not. 

What we read is our concern, not yours Mr Burstow. 

Your business is to ensure you administer a country based on the principles of social justice, not on robbing the poor and working class to enrich the elites, to ensure a good living standard for all rather than pushing the poor further into poverty, to ensure a world-class education system is freely available to all even at university level, that healthcare is not only world class but free to all, to ensure all criminals such as those involved in international conspiracies to cover up the rape of young children freely enter this country with no attempt made at prosecution, to ensure all war criminals are prosecuted, to ensure all genocidal mass murders are prosecuted, to ensure our environment is protected for our benefit and the benefit of future generations and to ensure that this country withdraws ties with states judged to behave as terrorists whilst also ensuring this nation and our armed services work towards the security of us all, rather than continuing to behave no better than a global terrorist ourselves.

In short, while we read our free press, you should be busy ensuring we who elected you, who pay your salary have physical, mental and economic security each and every day or our lives.

Something Good for A Change

Sometimes the failures at the UN astound me.  And sometimes, just sometimes, they manage to do the right thing, even when the rich and powerful try to block good people.

In typical fashion, the US wasn't happy

The representative of the United States expressed his Government’s deep commitment to finding solutions to global water challenges, noting that water and sanitation would be an important focus at the upcoming Millennium Development Goal Summit.

Since when have the Millennium Goals been a priority?

The United Kingdom has a reputation to maintain and they did, too

The representative of the United Kingdom said her delegation had abstained for reasons of substance and procedure.  Concerning substance, there was no sufficient legal basis for declaring or recognizing water or sanitation as freestanding human rights, nor was there evidence that they existed in customary law.  As for procedure, it was disappointing that the text pre-empted the work going on in the Human Rights Council, she said, noting that the United Kingdom had supported the resolution establishing the independent expert, as well as the text on human rights and access to safe water and sanitation, adopted in 2009.

Now, access to water?  What good is access to water if that access is understood to mean a human being having the right to enter a shop to purchase the water?  I think we can safely assume the United Kingdom representative was concerned about a UK-based industry that wanted to sell water! 

On the 28th July 2010 the UN passed an important resolution.  Water is now officially a human right.  Clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right.  Surprising that it wasn't already, isn't it given we can't survive without it.  It's a step.  Too many resolutions are ignored.  However, it is an important principle and those who led the demands, and who fought to have the demand for water to be officially acknowledged as a human right, in particlar the Bolivians are to be congratulated.

122 countries voted in favour of the resolution while 41 abstained. There were no votes against the resolution, so we can assume no country had the brass neck to have a vote against this on their record.  Still, the number of abstenntions should have been zero.  The leaders of those 122 countries are decent people and should be congratulated.

I wonder when we will start discussing and pushing for food to be recognised as a human right.  You will die pretty quickly from dehydration.  You will also die from hunger, just more slowly than you would from dehydration.

If you think it is ridiculous that food should be a human right.  As yourself why you do?  Do you have access to land to grow your own?  Can you afford to buy food and see no need.  Well, what about all those denied the ability to buy food?  And just because you can buy food today doesn't mean you will be able to buy food tomorrow.  You may find yourself out of work.  And with the attack on social welfare programmes in the countries that have them, you could very well find yourself in trouble.  Imagine a world when a single large corporation, or government owns all the food and wants to chage you a super-premium price for it?  Those are purely selfish reasons.  They may appeal to those who feel no impulse to reach out and help their fellow human beings, to those who are unable to comprehend what a good life really is.

Supply-Side Economics and The Laffer Curve

There seems to be a bit of talk going on about the Laffer Curve. For anyone interested, wiki describes it as:

"In economics, the Laffer curve is a theoretical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation. It is used to illustrate the concept of Taxable Income Elasticity (that taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

It's part of the arguments for supply side economic theory.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics).

In the description of supply side economics we find this:

"On January 3, 2007, George W. Bush wrote an article claiming "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues."

Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004 responded.

Here is that response:

"To anyone in the Administration who may read this blog, I have one small wish for the new year. Please stop your boss from writing or saying the following:

It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues.
You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

If I'm wrong, show me the evidence ... and tell me why the tax cuts were so small given their effects on revenues."

http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-plea.html


Remember, a theory isn't a fact.

In science, a scientific theory is a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains observations and fits ideas together in a framework. If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

So how scientific is the study of economics?

Well, this is interesting http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes

And so is this:
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/Flash/afa2290d-2a19-46b8-8dcf-c2fbc86a0a17/viewer.html

US Continues as a Civilisation, Does it?

It is now the back end of 2010 and the economic nightmare created by the monkeys in charge of the global economy are presumably lucky enough to have avoided the effects.

Unlike these people living a nightmare they never created:









Shame on the banker monkeys and the government for not dealing with this in a civilised, decent way.

Free Press?

Why do we put up with this kind of Free Press in the world?  Surely, it is as morally corrupt as Radio Rwanda and Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). were in the time prior to the genocide in 1994.






I wonder what the Founding Father of America would make of it all. 

This TV programme is providing information, and the information provided is clearly mis-represented.  Surely if a police officer were to behave is such a shoddy manner towards anyone they would be disciplined? A scientist, too, would be professionally damaged, their career probably destroyed for life for such a deliberate mis-representation of information.  It's a deliberate attempt to mislead. 

Don't media people understand the difference between truth and fiction, right and wrong?  Why aren't journalists, TV crews walking off the set?  Do any of them have integrity?  Self-respect?
Whether you like Obama or not, or any other any public figure, deliberate mis-representation is no way for the media within a civilised society to proceed.
 
And shame of the viewers for returning to watch any more of the channel where this fantastical show was aired.

Krugman: wise man on Ireland, Spain and Austerity

I'm putting this here to remind myself there at least some economists on the earth capable of thought and who prefer that to hysterical fashions.  Some of these economists are like teenage girls who have not yet developed the ability to withstand any sort of peer pressure.  Seriously!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/irelandspain-update/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman

Mercenary

One more announcement from our government this week gave me yet more to fear. Our highly educated government ministers have the good sense to sack SAS soldiers. For financial reasons.  These men form an exceptional fighting force. The SAS soldiers are elite involved in everything from wars, to releasing hostages held during the Iranian Embassy Siege and that at Peterhead Prison within the UK.  We've all grown up with the idea of the SAS soldiers being the most capable, tough, invincible humans on the face of the earth able to achieve anything.  Soldiers, let's be frank, have killing as their primary skill; we train them to fight and to win. 

For perhaps twenty years, a small handful of ex-SAS have made a very good living by publishing their stories in one form or another, some true accounts, some fictional although always focusing on their unique skills and amazing experiences.  How many books can the general public read?  Our economy is in dire straits as the government takes the axe to every part of the country, so that won't improve prospects for any of the redundant soldiers to earn a banker's bonus from publishing.

What other opportunities are available to them?  Well, we know a fair number of soldiers struggle when they leave the army and many eventually find themselves behind bars, as they struggle with adapting to the nightmare of their past and the nightmare of being unwanted by employers. 

One employer may find the unique skills of the SAS valuable.  Very valuable.  That should be a terrifying prospect for each and everyone of us.  Soldiers and soldiering skills should only ever be used in the defence of a nation from aggressors, not some trumped up businessman who thinks those farmers who refuse to pay a fine 'because mother nature' blew some seeds from one farm to the next must be dealt with.  Soldiers and soldiering skills should only ever be used in the protection and the perhaps rare rescue of citizens not as a tool for some silly little spoilt kid finding it difficult to operate his business because the elected leaders of the country where he wants to operate insist on fair taxation, fair license fees for natural resources and laws to protect the human rights and dignity of citizens.  Will we have newspaper magnates attempting to hire our soon-to-be redundant elite troops conduct political coups? 

We need laws to ensure no British, and no ex British forces are ever involved in incidents such as the attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea that involved Mark Thatcher reported in Bolivia in April 2009 on the BBC for example.

Mercenary armies undermine democracy because a government can fight a war without the support of the electorate.  The government can simply hire people from other countries.

'In October 2007, the United Nations released a two-year study that stated, that although hired as "security guards", private contractors were performing military duties. The report found that the use of contractors such as Blackwater was a "new form of mercenary activity" and illegal under International law. Many countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, are not signatories to the 1989 United Nations Mercenary Convention banning the use of mercenaries. (see wiki)

Security guards are doing the same job as soldiers in occupied countries.  Now why aren't we signatories to this UN Convention?  What problem could my government have with the Convention?  Do we really want to have our forces facing down former colleagues one day?  Can you imagine, two groups of soldiers, both groups trained at our expense facing one another, one group armed and financed by the tax payer and the other armed and financed by another nation or even a global soldier agency?

Are we to have wars played out before our eyes as businesses battle over fertile farmland, using hired soldiers to do the fighting, soldiers that we have educated, and trained in the art of warfare.  At taxpayers expense?  With no accountability? With no democratic means of the population stopping the fighting?

If Machiavelli grasped the problems with mercenaries, then why not us? 
While investigative journalists beaver away, studying organisations such as Blackwater, I can't help but feel a terrible chill running through me.  Who will hold mercenary armies or groups to account?  Is this yet another nightmare that has crept up on us while students studied and worked, some of us worked too hard with no time for anything else, and others had their minds numbed with Big Brother?

This week we have further revelations, revelations that are nightmarish, but hardly surprising.  There is evidence to suggest mercenary groups have been travelling to the African continent on business.  Large corporations in the US and the EU have been paying for the services of mercenary organisations.  Why?  http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/16/the_nation__docs_reveals_blackwater

They aren't covered by the Geneva Conventions; no business or corporation has signed it.  Indeed they should never sign it - they aren't sovereign quite yet. 

These mercenary organisations simply should not be allowed to operate anywhere on the face of the earth.  Will my government, a government determined to wipe out at least 40% of the public sector while it kneels and prays to their gods that the supreme god of the private sector for showers and bounty act to inhibit any form of business?

For now, we hope that each of our soldiers has a stronger backbone, and a greater sense of democracy, of decency than the likes of Michael Mann & company or anyone employed at the American Empire agencies using mercenaries. 

Let's hope that any soldier made redundant, whether from the SAS or any other regiment, that their values are far healthier than the motives of vast wealth we've seen with too many politicians.  Decent jobs would be more reliable than hope.

Wiki leaks

The governments of the world wouldn't allow this removal of free speech would they?

http://tiny.cc/ipw8o

Wiki leaks is taking the place of an utter failure of global media.  There should be uproar if it does happen.  people need to be clearly informed.  The instant wiki leaks is shut down, then the global population will have entered a new period, a new Dark Age.

Modern History

Some people really find it difficult to remember events in the not so distant past. 

This guy doesn't and he can use his knowledge to great effect!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/09/has_the_casino_swallowed_barcl.html#P100446858

Well done Mr Writings On the Wall, whoever you are.

Alex Jones - Words and Snapshots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwqJrx-6sE

It's old, so what has changed?

Fur Coat and Nae Knickers, Posh Suit and Nae Brains!

This has just arrived in my email this morning from the New York Times:

4 Oil Firms Commit $1 Billion for Gulf Rapid-Response Plan


By JAD MOUAWAD
Four large oil companies are committing $1 billion to set up a system to deal with oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico.

But when you look at the animation below, you really have to wonder why now and not a long, long time ago.  I mean, surely these people, these executives are paid to do more than wear expensive suits.  Can't they think?

Just how well prepared are these oil-industry executives usually, in places like Alaska, Nigeria? 
Answer: Not at all, not at all!



I got this from this blog, where the author says all rigs showing are still there.  Though are they active?  I'd assume so, otherwise they'd have been recycled, surely...

Data?

It seems the US politicians, as reported on RT News today, are saying there is no point in providing welfare to the unemployed because they will only use it to buy drugs.

Hmmm.
I wonder what the statistics on that are to support the claims?

I'd be really interested to know what drugs are taken buy which Wall St business men.  Wouldn't it be fun to legislate for random drug tests of all politicians and those appointed to political positions?  And just how much of their salaries are spent on the drug alcohol?

Nice clean data; that is what we need.

Public Housing and Community Spirit

During 1997 the US Congress busied itself looking at public housing.  They wanted to ensure those living in public housing worked for 8 hours a month for no pay.  Those who refused to work in the communities could face repossession.  In the US public housing is used, or was used often as a safety net for people, keeping them from homelessness if they were too poor to afford private rents or a mortgage. 

Jesse Jackson Jnr, the Congressman talked about the aspect of the bill that was the reason why a majority of Democrats opposed it was the community service requirement, calling it a form of slavery (Democracy Now!).

Indeed it is.  It could be argued there is nothing wrong with expecting citizens to contribute to the community, working and providing services where there is a need.  However, this requirement was for only those living in government-built housing, because in the US that is viewed as a form of subsidy.

Would't it be nice to see all the companies, all the rich being treated in the same way for the subsidies they receive?  How many jobs would companies have to create just to meet that requirement?  I suspect it would bring an end to global unemployment in one fell swoop.  Crowds would gather to watch company directors paint the lampposts, sweep the streets and pick up the autumn leaves. 

The fact that no such law was every considered shows the words of Jesse Jackson Jnr have more than the sound of truth.

Calling It What It Is...

I quite like what Prof Paul Krugman is saying in his blog today:


Britain embarked on austerity even though there was no hint that bond markets were actually worried about its solvency. American politicians are saying that we have to cut now now now or become Greece, even though interest rates on US debt are at near-record lows. As I’ve written repeatedly, we’re running scared of invisible bond vigilantes.


The point is that policy makers aren’t responding to what financial markets demand — they’re responding to what they believe, thanks to some mystical source of knowledge to which I’m not privy, markets will demand one of these days.

And with only 30-odd percent of the national vote, just one seat in Scotland these mystic-worshipping people are on a mission to re-create the world of Dickens, not on the stage but in every town and city in the UK.
 
Tragic doesn't quite describe it.

Civilization?

When we in the UK think of slums we think of our country and how people lived years ago.  I'm old enough to remember the slow building of new homes where I grew up.  And the slow destruction of the slum homes they were to replace.  We think of homes with toilets in the stair wells to be shared by families or a toilet outside behind the cramped little house, just where the midden was.  When we think of shanty towns, we think of poor, poor countries with large cities.  We think of African and Latin American countries. 

When we think of California we think initially of Holywood and giant redwood trees.  We think of movie stars and mansions.  We don't think of rain either. Homeless, wet and damp. In America.



My initial thoughts aren't this:




or this:



or this:




Or how about Oregon? I think of evergreen forests, mountains, snow, oceans bringing morning mists and clean fresh air. I don't think of people being left to freeze in winter tents like this:





When I think of American kids, I think of little white kids who are desperately worried about having the latest trainers and trying anything to fit in at school. To be a 'cool kid' whatever that is, and spending their leisure time at the mind-numbing mall. I think of poor black kids who don't stand a chance. Few people born poor stand a chance. It doesn't matter what colour your skin is as far as I can see. There are other things, like regional accents in the UK that mark you out, your choice of words every time you speak act like tatoos of destiny. Blackand hispanic kids in the US have the tatoos that will bring them despair and that is what I think when I think about American kids. What I don't think about is homeless American kids, and I don't think about hungry American kids.




Just fleeting thoughts. Do they reflect reality? Well, whoever said real life and Holywood were the same? And have you ever seen a TV show based on the life of school dinner ladies who earn the minimum wage?

Now think a little longer about the UK. Is this our new reality thanks to the spivs of the Universe who are trying so hard to tell us all we, not they, need some austerity?

Sometimes Nightmares Do Come True, Sometimes Not

The Cabinet ministers have now settled in.  They've found their skivvies, they've found the booze cupboard and they've set about putting into practice their favourite nutty policies.  We all know their policies weren't detailed in the run-up to the election and most of us suspect that if they were, the election results would have been very, very different with the Tories coming in way behind even the Communist party!

But they are in power now and they are happily destroying what we have because, well that is what they do.

The excuses are being trotted out to reduce the size of government.  We all know that without government there will be even less regulation of big business, because with no one working for us to enforce the regulations then you get something like a banking crash or massive ecological disasters.  Familiar? 

Their other main plank for the moment is education.  Mr Gove. The only use I can think for this man, the only use for the entirety of mankind is to bring back Spitting Image just so we can see the puppet the original puppet makers would make of him!  In the meantime he is busily selling his disguised policy of privatising our State Education system. 

Parents are supposed to set up committees to run schools.  After all, parents will, by his definition be better than the professionals.  Once the enthusiastic parents have embarked on the path to the ideology of Mr Gove.  They will wear themselves out.  Just before they collapse with exhaustion or the stress of biting off far more than they can professionally chew, they'll call in the experts.  The experts will of course be private education companies.  The company bosses will, like the MBA courses have told them to, aim high and begin buying up as many companies as they can.  To do otherwise is to invite failure, apparently.  We'll have globalised education providers soon enough.  Home Economics will consist of teaching kids around the world what soup brand to purchase.  Tin openers will be provided free by the sponsor (who also happen to be selling the top-rated brand of soup).  And no one will suspect a thing.  It will be just coincidence, won't it?  Maths will be taught by a consultant from an investment bank or Enron II.  Science classes will be devoted to finding ways of restricting the atmosphere to small portable packages while the business class will be busy creating marketing plans designed to sell permium fresh air to those who can afford it. 

Be warned.  We've an even bigger problem if that man is put in charge of nuclear power plants.  Honestly.  A serious problem.  Just imagine what he could really be daft enough to do!

Luckily, here in Scotland education is devolved and Mr Gore doesn't have a job here! Not so far.

Civil Servants

I've just been reading a new bit of investigative journalism from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism about the giant companies treating senior civil servants to nights out, fancy meals, tickets to football matches (Bureau publishes comprehensive civil service hospitality database).

I'm disgusted.  But I'm not surprised.  Let's face it we don't live in the democracy we are told we do, after all.  Until those civil servants spend an equivalent amount of time with every person on the registrar of voters, then I won't believe this isn't corruption. I know we'll be told the companies arent buying influence, just 'time'.  Shall we guess?  Exactly the amount of time (and luxury) it takes to successfully influence someone, get them to look after their 'new friends'.

Red Tape?

I've just been reading this post from Tax Justice Network about how the Tories differ in their view of what red tape is with their coalition partners.

So Vince talks about the cost of form-filling while Boy George and his mates are talking about not only the form to complete for your holidays, but also the pay you get while you are on holiday!

Cracks in the marriage?  Or will David win out over Nick and our way of life changes so much that we will become like America with little or no paid holiday entitlements?

Successfully Subsidised

You know, our BBC news programmes love to tell us about the profits made by various companies.

I'd like to see how much government subsidy these companies receive all of it, including free school meals to the kids of their employees) and how much tax they paid at the same time!

Wouldn't that be revealing?


Perhaps we could have all those so-called business experts declare tax paid and subsidies received as they allow us to hear just how successful they really are by imparting their great knowledge.  Would they be seen as successful and wise if we had this information? 
 
Now why do we talk of subsidies to businesses but 'benefits' to people?  Why is one OK but not the other?

UPDATE:
After I turned the machine off for the night, I was thinking that perhaps I should write about the true costs of the oil business. Bophal is back in my mind too with the paltry sentence handed out to the local managers employed by Union Carbide.  I remember walking past their very ornate-looking front door on Michigan Avenue in Chicago.  The student I was with at the time pointed out the building, declared it was beyond belief that the company was still trading and then spat on the pavement.  From the look of that pavement, he wasn't the only American with that opinion and I've no doubt BP is held in contempt by many, many Americans across the world.  Our environment is important, but we should never forget many, many more died and many, many more suffered in Bophal.

Monbiot has beaten me to it, and has written far more concisely than I'd have managed.

The Gulf of Mexico

So, now BP and their contractors have failed yet again to stop the thousands of barrels of oil pouring up from the sea bed.  It is still pouring out, floating to the surface and heading for the coast line where it will poison the wildlife that live out their lives in the water and on the edges of land.

It seems the mission is now going to be a task of sweeping up the oil with little hope of stopping the massive leak.

It isn't as simple as just sweeping it all up.  The Gulf of Mexico is warm and that means storms.  That toxic sea water could very likely be dumped further inshore than you'd imagine. 

And that Gulf Stream heads up into the Florida Straits.  According to wiki the water moves at a rate of 30 million cubic metres per second.  The waters of the Gulf of Mexico aren't static.  They will move and they will take that pollution with them.  The waters move right up the coast of America and Canda, they move over to the west coast of Africa and they move up passing the UK and keeping Norway warmer than you'd expect it to be.

I hope BP get it cleaned up.  Otherwise, they'll be cleaning up a lot of oil from a lot of different places. Will they work for years in an attempt to repair every bit of damage the damage? Really?

One thing that may come from this is a growing realisation among the public that companies are legally obliged to make profits that require risks to be taken and cost burdens the public will carry not the company.  Risk-management is a burden so such departments within companies are too often ignored and minimised; red-tape is viewed as something to be reduced and then reduced further. 

Too often the real costs are externalised. 

We need more red-tape.  And we need a change in company law - all costs must be calculated and  borne by the corporate body upfront rather than externalised to be paid for by others before profits and premiums are paid.

Apartheid, A Ghetto And Another Atrocity

So many words have been written this week about the act of war committed by the Israeli State. It isn’t the first. Sadly, I doubt it will be the last. As I write another ship is sailing toward Gaza. The ship stocked with food and medicine, manned by people from all walks of life including a Nobel Peace Prize medallist is named after Rachel Corrie. At the age of 23 Rachel was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer as she tried to protect a family who were living in conditions most of us could never imagine. Her parents attended a ceremony where the residents named a street in Ramallah in honour of their beautiful daughter while they were in Israel and the Occupied Territories as they pursue a wrongful death lawsuit against the State of Israel.

I’m being optimistic despite myself. Democracy Now! broadcast the American Vice President, Joe Biden on the 3rd June speaking in response to the boarding of the ship and the deaths that followed. His words are extraordinary. Joseph Biden: "You can argue whether Israel should have dropped people onto that ship or not, but the truth of the matter is, Israel has a right to know—they’re at war with Hamas—has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in. And up to now, Charlie, what’s happened? They’ve said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship, if you divert slightly north, you can unload it, and we’ll get the stuff into Gaza.’ So what’s the big deal here? What’s the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it’s legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what’s on that ship. These guys are dropping eight—3,000 rockets on my people.”

On the same day the UN Human Rights Council voted for a probe into the attack. The US Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe said: "Unfortunately, the resolution before us rushes to judgment on a set of facts that, as our debate over the last day makes clear, are only beginning to be discovered and understood. It creates an international mechanism before giving the responsible government an opportunity to investigate this incident itself and thereby risks further politicizing a sensitive and volatile situation."

I had naively hoped the Americans would do the right thing but they didn’t. The Americans opposed the vote but the vote passed by 32:3. I’m being optimistic that the Americans will change their stance. I said optimistic not realistic. Let’s face it, she didn’t see the need to call for an independent inquiry! Does she mean the Israeli government should investigate their own armed foces?  Does she actually think an Israeli probe may reveal useful information? The British Government wasn't much better; they abstained. 

The Israeli forces boarded a boat sailing through international waters and used armed force to do so. After assaulting, those onboard, assault that led to the deaths of some of those heroic activists, they then took command of the ships and took them to Israeli ports. Are we to assume the Israeli Authorities have left all the forensic evidence in tact?

All of us on this earth should applaud each of the heroes on board those ships and should always remember the brave actions of those who gave their lives in trying to help the residents of Gaza. I can think of no suitable words. Let me give you these words, taken from Democracy Now! programme broadcast on the 3rd June 2010.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, we also have on the line also someone else who was on that boat. Ann Wright is a retired Army colonel, a former US diplomat. She spent twenty-nine years in the military and later served as a high-ranking diplomat in the State Department. In 2001, she helped oversee the reopening of the US mission in Afghanistan. In 2003, she resigned her State Department post to protest the war in Iraq. She was on the Freedom Flotilla and just deported to Turkey.

ANN WRIGHT: Well, I was also on the Challenger 1 with Huwaida. And let me just give a great compliment to Huwaida and all of the Free Gaza Movement. It’s a tremendous, tremendous thing that they have done in creating this movement of boats that had six large vessels that went toward Gaza. And let me tell you how thrilling it was to see all of those boats steaming, those civilians trying to challenge the governments of the world that say there must be a siege to strangle the 1.5 million people in Gaza, and yet the citizens of the world are challenging that with everything they’ve got.

And in response to the words of Vice President Joe Biden…

ANN WRIGHT: Well, I think our vice president needs to take another look at this thing. The ships were open to inspection beforehand, and I’m quite sure Mossad had their little agents that were all over that place. These groups are humanitarian groups that are bringing in goods that are needed for the people of Gaza. They’ve had plenty of inspections on them.


If you talk about violence, it’s not 3,000 rockets Hamas is putting on Gaza; it’s a twenty-two-day attack that the Israelis did that killed 1,400 people, wounded 5,000, left 50,000 homeless. And here we are a year and four months later, and the Israelis will not let any sort of reconstruction materials in. And then, when reconstruction materials start coming that way, instead of waiting until—if they have a zone that they are trying to protect, let ships come into it and stop them.


But I would say that there are ways that you can stop them without killing people. There are ways you can stop even passenger ship like that ferry boat, and certainly like our little thirty-foot craft. You don’t have to use commandos with—I mean, you can use commandos with excessive force, which they do, but there are other ways to do it, if you want to kind of preserve a sense of civility, humanity, and meeting the international law, quite honestly.

Perhaps it is time Israel experienced a blockade to ensure the Israelis are unable to obtain materials that could be used to attack their neighbours.

Poisoning The Earth And People And Animals And Plants And Everything. Again.

An estimated 50 000 barrels of oil per day are currently flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. An estimated 100 000 barrels of oil is currently poisoning the Niger Delta (1). For your information one barrel of oil is equivalent to 158.9873 litres of crude. That means the Gulf of Mexico has 7, 949, 365 litres of oil floating on the surface taking up an area about the size of Scotland while the Nigel Delta from a single leak was soaked in 15, 898, 730 litres for each day until that rupture was mended, an operation that took a week. Sadly for the people living in the Niger Delta this is just one of many incidents they suffer. Almost sixteen million litres of oil a day! In one leak! That one day loss is enough to drive a mini cooper around the earth 26 times, drive off to the moon for the weekend make it all the way back home and still have enough fuel left over to commute to work for the rest of the year if you assume crude oil is the equivalent of what goes in the petrol tank. How many leaks have they had in the past year? How much gas is flared each day? Hardly the sign of an efficient, well-run industry is it?

These ecological disasters also present a major problem for the health. I’m sure you are aware of the effects of crude oil on human health, not only during the days following exposure but also long term health problems (2). Indeed, there are rumours that those working to clean up the Gulf of Mexico are having difficulty in accessing suitable respirators (3, 4). I dread to imagine the damage to health that will be found in the Niger Delta.

A £50 million fine on BP or any other organisation involved in the extractive industries for not adhering to any environmental or work-related legislation is no more than a business cost. They could drop that in the street and not notice. A £50 000 million fine would be more effective as a deterrent. That, combined with long prison sentences for responsible directors would be exceptionally constructive not only for the global population, but for future generations. No organisation should be allowed to operate and put at risk not only the waters of the Gulf of Mexico but international waters too. Regardless of US regulation, BP could simply have followed best practice. Allegations are now being made that BP did not do so (6). Just how bad, just how much damage will we wait for before we decide to assess these corporate failures and negligence as real crimes against humanity? I’m not concerned about where these disasters happen. The fact is they do and they are. We need to have international responsibility and enforcement. We need it now.

I would like to see the UK government establishing strong legislation that would hold extractive industries liable for the environmental destruction they inflict. Attempts at clean-up and repair are not enough. They must be held liable for the costs incurred as a result of extractive industries by the local communities. Significant fines must be imposed on those industries that result in damage to human and environment health or work within areas where human rights abuses are rife. Surely the human rights of those living in the Niger delta are as important as any European? Surely the human rights of those Congolese miners are as worthy of yours. Yet they are among the most insecure communities in the world. We would not tolerate such a toxic and health-insecure environment.

Why are we allowing a British company to abuse so many communities and the Gulf of Mexico? Why are we dealing with companies that inflict such harm in the Niger Delta? The headquarters of Shell are in the Netherlands. Chevron, Exxon-Mobil and Texaco-Chevron are American, while Total is French. When will our governments and our political leaders stand up and remind these organisations that the world, this beautiful planet belongs to people, to all of us, rather than corporations? When will our governments and political leaders find the backbone to close down companies, our companies that pose such a clear danger to millions of people and to the global environment? When will our government and political leaders find the backbone to refuse such companies access to our markets? Because some things are simply far more important than revenue sources.

1. http://www.commodities-now.com/news/power-and-energy/2649-africas-oil-spills-are-far-from-us-media-glare.html

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/28/bp-gulf-oil-spill-pollution

You can refer to academic journals for scientific data. I include a quick-to-read-article here for simplicity.

3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/30/bp-oil-spill-gulf-mexico

4.  http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/coast_guard_grounds_ships_involved_in

5.  http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3245293

6.  http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/5/bp_funnels_millions_into_lobbying_to