Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
There's also this, a longer of Monbiot's pro-nuke piece: The Moral Case for Nuclear Power August 8, 2011 http://www.monbiot.com/2011/08/08/the-moral-case-for-nuclear-power/ K Hi Chris Hi, Keith. Thanks much, all. I didn't post this piece because I thought it was a great article. I, for one, certainly did not think that was why you posted it (and I doubt anyone else did, either). Oh. That's a relief. :-) Apologies if it seemed that way. No, no, not at all As Daryl says, one can usually expect better of Dyer. . . Dyer is an unknown to me as this is the first i've seen of him. Not a very auspicious introduction. But between you and Darryl getting his back, so to speak, i'll have to try and withhold judgement. But i will say, it is terribly, terribly, extremely hard to read that piece and not conclude that he was (to put it mildly) not really being above board. I wouldn't argue against that. But then, in his defence, there's the case of George Monbiot, for one: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power Japan's disaster would weigh more heavily if there were less harmful alternatives. Atomic power is part of the mix George Monbiot The Guardian, Monday 21 March 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima One of many list comments: http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org/msg75771.html Others: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40lists.sustainablelists.orgq=Why+Fukushima+made+me+stop+worrying+and+love+nuclear+power And then he did it again: Greens must not prioritise renewables over climate change Abandoning nuclear at a time of escalating emissions is far more dangerous than maintaining it George Monbiot and Chris Goodall Monday 8 August 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/aug/08/greens-renewables-climate-change I don't think any of us thought dear old George is in anybody's pocket though. So IMHO we can't (yet) convict Mr Dyer on any evidence that's beyond reasonable doubt. We can say that either he's an idiot or he's been spun (in other words he's an idiot). Maybe he was spun by George Monbiot. As I said, it's a common argument, and I don't think we're done with it yet. Regards Keith ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Hi Chris Hi, Keith. Thanks much, all. I didn't post this piece because I thought it was a great article. I, for one, certainly did not think that was why you posted it (and I doubt anyone else did, either). Oh. That's a relief. :-) Apologies if it seemed that way. No, no, not at all As Daryl says, one can usually expect better of Dyer. . . Dyer is an unknown to me as this is the first i've seen of him. Not a very auspicious introduction. But between you and Darryl getting his back, so to speak, i'll have to try and withhold judgement. But i will say, it is terribly, terribly, extremely hard to read that piece and not conclude that he was (to put it mildly) not really being above board. I wouldn't argue against that. But then, in his defence, there's the case of George Monbiot, for one: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power Japan's disaster would weigh more heavily if there were less harmful alternatives. Atomic power is part of the mix George Monbiot The Guardian, Monday 21 March 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima One of many list comments: http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org/msg75771.html Others: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40lists.sustainablelists.orgq=Why+Fukushima+made+me+stop+worrying+and+love+nuclear+power And then he did it again: Greens must not prioritise renewables over climate change Abandoning nuclear at a time of escalating emissions is far more dangerous than maintaining it George Monbiot and Chris Goodall Monday 8 August 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/aug/08/greens-renewables-climate-change I don't think any of us thought dear old George is in anybody's pocket though. So IMHO we can't (yet) convict Mr Dyer on any evidence that's beyond reasonable doubt. We can say that either he's an idiot or he's been spun (in other words he's an idiot). Maybe he was spun by George Monbiot. As I said, it's a common argument, and I don't think we're done with it yet. Regards Keith ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Hi Keith, True enough. Admittedly, my initial rection was unduly harsh. I don't think any of us thought dear old George is in anybody's pocket though. So IMHO we can't (yet) convict Mr Dyer on any evidence that's beyond reasonable doubt. However, i remember the monbiot piece (the one with kubrick-inspired title)--and it seems you've posted other columns by him, though i don't really remember offhand what they were about. I didn't agree with his reasoning or conclusions on the matter, but the difference between that column and the dyer piece, both in the quality of argument as well as tone, was huge IMHO. Not that it necessarilly makes that much difference, in the end. If he's got it wrong, he's got it wrong. But at least Monbiot comes across as a guy who tries to look at these things conscientiously, and who can be reasoned with. As opposed to Dyer, who, as Darryl so aptly expressed it, just came off as being of a 'hard path' mindset. He didn't really have an argument, just conclusions. And accusations. There was at once a scornfulness, and a sort of veiled, McCarthyistic fifth-column hysteria. Not to mention a kind of resentful grumbling. It was this last, i think, which led me to question his intellectual honesty and journalistic ethics (especially the bit about the fall in the uranium market). Anyway, i haven't yet read monbiot's bits from august last year that you posted, so maybe i'll change my mind about him too, lol. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Hi again Chris Hi Keith, True enough. Admittedly, my initial rection was unduly harsh. I don't think it was, I think you're quite right. And fairly polite about it too. I don't think any of us thought dear old George is in anybody's pocket though. So IMHO we can't (yet) convict Mr Dyer on any evidence that's beyond reasonable doubt. However, i remember the monbiot piece (the one with kubrick-inspired title) That's a great movie! --and it seems you've posted other columns by him, though i don't really remember offhand what they were about. Neither do I, but they're often worth a read. He's a good columnist. http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=monbiotl=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40lists.sustainablelists.org 232 matches. Even when he annoyed everyone by saying biodiesel is worse than fossil fuels, at least he excluded the backyarders, though it was kind of backhanded - he said we spend our time splashing around in barrels of filth, IIRC. But most MSM commentators at the time didn't make that distinction, and it's critical. That aside, Monbiot was right - as we know, industrial biodiesel from soy or rapeseed depends on heavy fossil fuel inputs every step of the way, and both soy and palm oil eat up forests. I didn't agree with his reasoning or conclusions on the matter, but the difference between that column and the dyer piece, both in the quality of argument as well as tone, was huge IMHO. Yes, indeed it was. Not that it necessarilly makes that much difference, in the end. If he's got it wrong, he's got it wrong. But at least Monbiot comes across as a guy who tries to look at these things conscientiously, and who can be reasoned with. That's true of him. In this case, I'm not so sure that he is wrong. It seems to depend somewhat on what time-scale you're looking at. In the shorter term, he might be right. New nukes are a total no-no, but how to set decommissioning existing nukes against building new coal and gas fired plants to replace them, as in Merkel's case? Japan, with all but two of its nukes shut down, has been doing what amounts to the same thing, with huge increases in fossil fuel imports - indeed China, of all countries, just told Japan to cut its carbon emissions. Is it better or worse to leave existing nukes in place and accept their emissions reductions (which are real, in current-account terms), in a time when any and every reduction is crucially important, as all agree it is, or should we close them all down and focus on replacing the power they generate with renewable sources? That will take time (too much time?) and cost money, always a prickly problem. Renewables aren't that great either, especially considering the complete absence of a local approach, it's all top-down. And we long ago agreed that replacement isn't the answer, nor even an option. Or should we commit much more science to geo-engineering? Or is another Fukushima just waiting to happen anyway, whatever we do? All of this leaving aside the answerless question of spent fuel disposal, since it's going to be left aside anyway. As are the bombs. It's easy to understand what you said about low morale, why people say sod it, let's just just leave the whole stinking mess to our noble leaders, who will surely steer our course unerringly towards an ever-glorious future. As opposed to Dyer, who, as Darryl so aptly expressed it, just came off as being of a 'hard path' mindset. He didn't really have an argument, just conclusions. And accusations. There was at once a scornfulness, and a sort of veiled, McCarthyistic fifth-column hysteria. Not to mention a kind of resentful grumbling. Absolutely. Thuggish. It was this last, i think, which led me to question his intellectual honesty and journalistic ethics (especially the bit about the fall in the uranium market). It's what led me to suspect he's spun. Those aren't even his own opinions, they're just implants, from the opinion manufacturing industry. It's why he doth protest so loudly. Methinks. Gwynne Dyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer Anyway, i haven't yet read monbiot's bits from august last year that you posted, so maybe i'll change my mind about him too, lol. Interested to know what you think. - K -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Monbiot can't be criticized for pointing out the complicated mess we're in. These are sticky issues indeed. Until we recognize, collectively, that a fundamental restructuring lies at the heart of it, we will forever find ourselves choosing whatever seems the least unpalatable. . . .In this case, I'm not so sure that he is wrong. It seems to depend somewhat on what time-scale you're looking at. In the shorter term, he might be right. New nukes are a total no-no, but how to set decommissioning existing nukes against building new coal and gas fired plants to replace them, as in Merkel's case? Japan, with all but two of its nukes shut down, has been doing what amounts to the same thing, with huge increases in fossil fuel imports - indeed China, of all countries, just told Japan to cut its carbon emissions. Is it better or worse to leave existing nukes in place and accept their emissions reductions (which are real, in current-account terms), in a time when any and every reduction is crucially important, as all agree it is, or should we close them all down and focus on replacing the power they generate with renewable sources? That will take time (too much time?) and cost money, always a prickly problem. Renewables aren't that great either, especially considering the complete absence of a local approach, it's all top-down. And we long ago agreed that replacement isn't the answer, nor even an option. Or should we commit much more science to geo-engineering? Or is another Fukushima just waiting to happen anyway, whatever we do? All of this leaving aside the answerless question of spent fuel disposal, since it's going to be left aside anyway. As are the bombs. It's easy to understand what you said about low morale, why people say sod it, let's just just leave the whole stinking mess to our noble leaders, who will surely steer our course unerringly towards an ever-glorious future. As opposed to Dyer, who, as Darryl so aptly expressed it, just came off as being of a 'hard path' mindset. He didn't really have an argument, just conclusions. And accusations. There was at once a scornfulness, and a sort of veiled, McCarthyistic fifth-column hysteria. Not to mention a kind of resentful grumbling. Absolutely. Thuggish. It was this last, i think, which led me to question his intellectual honesty and journalistic ethics (especially the bit about the fall in the uranium market). It's what led me to suspect he's spun. Those aren't even his own opinions, they're just implants, from the opinion manufacturing industry. It's why he doth protest so loudly. Methinks. Ha, that's funny. I actually googled Dyer already. The first sentence pretty much told me what I needed to know: military historian. Not that i think that that defines him, per se (i did read the whole article, his docu film work sounds interesting), but it explains a lot wrt his posture in this editorial. Gwynne Dyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Gwynne_Dyerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer Anyway, i haven't yet read monbiot's bits from august last year that you posted, so maybe i'll change my mind about him too, lol. Interested to know what you think. - K LOL. I pretty much tipped my hand on that already. :) I just read his 8 Aug., 2011 Guardian column, and the Porritt column he was responding to; as well as the Broadbent piece cited by both. I haven't done any reading or cross-referencing or otherwise looked into any of the various reports and studies that all three of them cite. That being said, it seems to me that Porritt was the more intellectually honest (despite his apparent willingness to put faith in carbon capture). Monbiot misrepresented and distorted Porritt's arguments, and IMHO wildly exaggerated Porritt's highly personal and vicious tone. I don't know if George is simply incapable of taking criticism, or if he's resorting to the victim card because he knows he can't win on the merits. I also find myself wondering if he didn't stage the debate as a way to try and discredit Porritt, anticipating that Porritt would criticize him personally. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Yes We Cannabis
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/30/yes-we-cannabis/ WEEKEND EDITION NOV 30-DEC 02, 2012 Dismantling the Marijuana Control System Yes We Cannabis by HELEN REDMOND The cracks in the American cannabis control system just got wider with the states of Washington and Colorado passing referendums legalizing the recreational use of marijuana for adults. It is nothing short of historic in a country that arrests over 850,000 people every year for possession of small amounts of pot - 50,000 alone in New York City. The marijuana arrest machine has been the leading edge of the war on drugs in the US because it's the most widely used illegal drug and the easiest to detect. Unique to marijuana is its pungent aroma that makes detection by police an easy bust. And because THC metabolites can be found in the urine for up to thirty days, it's more difficult to pass employer drug tests, which results in employees being fired or workers never being hired, and those on probation going back to prison. There is a huge disconnect between what most Americans think about the recreational use of marijuana and official US government policy. Millions of Americans from all social classes knowingly violate marijuana laws every year to buy and smoke marijuana. Unlike any other illicit substance, the prohibition of pot is greeted with contempt and incredulity because so many people have had positive experiences with the drug. Americans simply don't believe drug war lies and hype about marijuana anymore, especially from hypocritical politicians in the Whitehouse, like Barack Obama, a former member of the pot smoking Choom Gang. If you can get stoned a lot, go on to edit the Harvard Law Review, graduate from Harvard Law School, teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and then become president of the United States, is smoking marijuana really that bad? Popular culture has helped to break down the myths and lies about pot. The groundbreaking, award-winning Showtime series Weeds exploited the contradiction between how smoking a couple of joints to have fun and relax is no different than having a couple glasses of Chardonnay or a few Coronas. And most importantly, the show demolished the idea that only bad people in ghettos get high when in fact more white people use marijuana. This shift in consciousness about marijuana usage was consciously blocked at every turn by government drug warrior's hell bent on maintaining pot prohibition. The U.S. government has expended enormous amounts of resources in the war against marijuana using a mix of deception, demonization and demagoguery. Federal and state officials have periodically unleashed hysterical public campaigns against marijuana based on racism and scapegoating. In the 1930s, the notorious Harry J. Anslinger, America's first Drug Czar and the first Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, declared war on pot. With the help of a stenographic media, he whipped up a marijuana panic so full of lies and exaggerations you would have thought he was stoned out of his mind. The always hyperbolic Anslinger warned, By the tons it is coming into this country - the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms. Marijuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marijuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. He was a vile racist and targeted African American communities for buy and bust operations. Anslinger wanted to destroy the careers of famous Black jazz musicians and singers like Billie Holiday and Charlie Parker. He allegedly kept a file called Marijuana and musicians. He asserted with no evidence at all, There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others. The openly propagandistic film Reefer Madness, released in 1936 contributed to the backlash against marijuana. It made outrageous and unsubstantiated claims about the effects of marijuana saying that it caused insanity, instant addiction and drove people to commit murder and mayhem. The outlandish allegations of Reefer Madness are laughed at today, but they were taken seriously in the heyday of Anslinger's war on marijuana that went on for over two decades. No longer able to claim the insanity defense, the defenders of marijuana prohibition have turned to junk science and disinformation to convince people that marijuana is a dangerous drug. A small army of junk scientists have been deployed to spread fear and hysteria. They invented the theory that marijuana is a gateway drug to the use of harder drugs.
[Biofuel] UN general assembly makes resounding vote in favour of Palestinian statehood
The UN vote to recognise Palestine legitimises a racist status quo There's bitter irony in the UN's recognition of a much-diminished Palestinian state on the anniversary of its 1947 partition plan Joseph Massad guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 November 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/30/un-vote-palestine-legitimises-racist-status-quo?INTCMP=SRCH Israel to build new Jewish settlement homes after UN Palestine vote Binyamin Netanyahu's plan for mass building on occupied terrorities seen as retaliation for recognition of Palestinian state Chris McGreal in Jerusalem guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 November 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/30/israel-build-jewish-settlement-un-palestine/print The Significance of the UN Vote Despite the United States, Palestine Finally Returns Home http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/30/palestine-returns-home/ --0-- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/29/united-nations-vote-palestine-state/print UN general assembly makes resounding vote in favour of Palestinian statehood Overwhelming majority votes to recognise Palestine as non-member state as US and Israel are left to condemn decision Ewen MacAskill at the UN and Chris McGreal in Ramallah The Guardian, Thursday 29 November 2012 The United Nations general assembly voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to recognise Palestine as a state, in the face of opposition from Israel and the US. The 193-member assembly voted 138 in favour of the plan, with only nine against and 41 abstentions. The scale of the defeat represented a strong and public repudiation for Israel and the US, who find themselves out of step with the rest of the world. Thursday's vote marked a diplomatic breakthrough for Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and could help his standing after weeks in which he has been sidelined by Palestinian rivals Hamas in the Gaza conflict. Abbas, who flew from Ramallah, on the West Bank, to New York to address the general assembly, said: The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly: enough of aggression, settlements and occupation. A Palestinian flag was unfurled on the floor of the general assembly after the vote. Several hundred people turned out in Yasser Arafat square in Ramallah on the West Bank, waving flags and singing along to nationalist music to mark the occasion. In his address, Abbas noted the symbolism of the date, the 65th anniversary of the UN partitioning what had been British-ruled Palestine into Jewish and Arab countries. In the decades that followed, the idea of an independent Palestine had often been in danger of disappearing but had been miraculously kept alive, he said. The general assembly resolution had finally given legitimacy to Palestine, he said. The general assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the state of Palestine. Israel and the US immediately condemned the resolution. The office of the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, described Abbas's speech as incitement and full of lies about Israel. Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, said: Because this resolution is so one-sided, it doesn't advance peace, it pushes it backwards. The only way to a Palestinian state was through direct negotiations, he said. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, described the vote as unfortunate and counterproductive. She said: Only through direct negotiations between the parties can the Palestinians and Israelis achieve the peace that both deserve: two states for two people, with a sovereign, viable and independent Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel. Thursday's resolution raises Palestine from being a non-member observer entity to a non-member observer state. The key is the final word, which confers UN legitimacy on Palestinian statehood and, while it cannot vote at the general assembly, it will enjoy other benefits, such as the chance to join international bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). While important, the resolution is limited, elevating Palestine only to the status of the Vatican, which until Thursday had been the only other non-member observer state. For Palestinians, the idea of an independent state bears little reality on the ground, given the degree of Israeli involvement in the West Bank and Gaza. The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, speaking after the vote, disputed that the resolution conferred statehood on Palestine. Today's grand announcements will soon fade and the Palestinians will wake up to realise that little in their lives has changed, Rice said. This resolution does not establish Palestine as a state. But the coalition against the vote was thin. Apart from Israel and the US, those voting against were Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Panama. European countries such as France, Italy, Spain,
[Biofuel] AP Believes It Found Evidence of Iran's Work on Nuclear Weapons
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/28-2 Published on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 by the Guardian/UK AP Believes It Found Evidence of Iran's Work on Nuclear Weapons A primitive graph provided by a country critical of Iran's atomic program indicts the news outlet more than Tehran by Glenn Greenwald Uncritical, fear-mongering media propaganda is far too common to take note of each time it appears, but sometimes, what is produced is so ludicrous that its illustrative value should not be ignored. Such is the case with a highly trumpeted Associated Press exclusive http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-graph-suggests-iran-working-bomb from Tuesday which claims in its red headline to have discovered evidence of Iran Working on Bomb. What is this newly discovered, scary evidence? It is a graph which AP says was leaked to it by officials from a country critical of Iran's atomic program to bolster their arguments that Iran's nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon (how mysterious: the globe is gripped with befuddlement as it tries to guess which country that might be). Here's how AP presents the graph in all its incriminating, frightening glory: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/11/28/1354101191311/ap.png This, says AP, shows that Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Moreover, an intelligence summary provided with the drawing - provided, that is, by the mysterious country critical of Iran's atomic program - linked [the graph] to other alleged nuclear weapons work - significant because it would indicate that Iran is working not on isolated experiments, but rather on a single program aimed at mastering all aspects of nuclear arms development. Where to begin? First, note that AP granted anonymity here not merely to an individual but to an entire country. What's the proffered justification for doing so? The officials wanted it, so AP gave it: officials provided the diagram only on condition that they and their country not be named. That's very accommodating of AP. Second, this graph - which is only slightly less hilariously primitive than the one Benjamin Netanyahu infamously touted with a straight face at the UN - has Farsi written under it to imbue it with that menacing Iranian-ish feel, but also helpfully uses English to ensure that US audiences can easily drink up its scariness. As The Atlantic's Robert Wright noted: How considerate of the Iranians to label their secret nefarious nuke graph in English!. It's certainly possible that Iranian scientists use English as a universal language of science, but the convenient mixing of Farsi and English should at least trigger some skepticism. Third, even if one assumes that this graph is something other than a fraud, the very idea that computer simulations constitute evidence that Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon is self-evidently inane. As John Glaser extensively documents, experts from across the spectrum have agreed with the military and intelligence consensus [from the US and Israel] that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and presents no imminent threat. Buried in the AP article is a quote from David Albright explaining that though the diagram looks genuine [it] seems to be designed more 'to understand the process' than as part of a blueprint for an actual weapon in the making. The case for the attack on Iraq was driven, of course, by a mountain of fabricated documents and deliberately manipulated intelligence which western media outlets uncritically amplified. Yet again, any doubts that they are willing and eager to do exactly the same with regard to the equally fictitious Iranian Threat should be forever dispelled by behavior like this. As always, the two key facts to note on Iran are these: 1) the desperation to prevent Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon has nothing to do with fear that they would commit national suicide by using it offensively, but rather has everything to do with the deterrent capability it would provide - i.e., nukes would prevent the US or Israel from attacking Iran at will or bullying it with threats of such an attack; and 2) the US-led sanctions regime now in place based on this fear-mongering continues to impose mass suffering and death on innocent Iranians. But as long as media outlets like AP continue to blindly trumpet whatever is shoveled to them by the shielded, unnamed country critical of Iran's atomic program, these facts will be suppressed and fear levels kept sky-high, thus enabling the continuation and escalation of the hideous sanctions regime, if not an outright attack. © 2012 The Guardian/UK ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
[Biofuel] Expertise on climate is a terrible thing to waste
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/eo20121130a1.html Expertise on climate is a terrible thing to waste By KEVIN RAFFERTY Special to The Japan Times The Japan Times: Friday, Nov. 30, 2012 HONG KONG - Doha, the capital of the oil state of Qatar, might be regarded as the most appropriate host for the climate change talks that have started, given that it is a living, breathing testament to the oil and gas-guzzling modern economy. It offers up free electricity, traffic jams of SUVs and a profusion of steel and glass high-rise buildings that have tamed the 40-to-50-degree (Celsius) heat into comfortable air-conditioned bliss. In consequence, Qatar is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases per person, more than twice those of the United States. But the government has no plans to take action on climate change. Is it a savage irony or just a sad joke that the latest attempt to reach an international agreement to curb the greenhouse gases that threaten the future of fragile planet Earth have opened there? Delegates from 194 countries plus armies of experts from the United Nations and its agencies have started two weeks of creating a lot more hot air and trying to find a successor agreement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which was stillborn because the U.S. refused to ratify it after signing it. The best hope is that Doha will be a steppingstone on the way to a new climate change treaty, which will be agreed by 2015 but will not come into force until 2020. However, skeptics are unsure whether even this leisurely pace toward an agreement can be achieved. Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the U.N. climate convention, admits that We are far behind our targets in every single report. Nevertheless, she is hoping that, in Doha, possible institutional arrangements for a deal will be put in place. She has already prepared optimistic closing remarks for the Doha meeting. She told The New York Times: I'm going to say, 'This is another firm step in the right direction, but the path is still a long road ahead.' If this is the best case, the world is in big trouble. It is. Time is running out. Time has already run out. All of the best scientific research is pointing in the same direction - that world leaders are doomed to failure when it comes restricting the rise in Earth's temperatures to 2 degrees above pre-Industrial levels. The United Nations has noted that greenhouse gas emissions are 14 percent higher than they should be if the world is to keep the temperature rise to 2 degrees. The World Meteorological Organization has reported that greenhouse gases have reached a record 394 parts per million, way above the 280 ppm of the pre-industrial era, and is rising rapidly from the 389 levels of 2010. The uncomfortable fact is that human beings are spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than at any time in the past 55 million years. The World Bank this month warned that the world is on track to be 4 degrees higher, and some scientists claim that the temperature rise may even reach 6 degrees. The consequence is not merely that the Earth will become unbearably hot. The rise in sea waters will mean that some cities and countries may be swamped; others will have to live with the possibility of regular storm surges reaching several meters high. It is not merely writing on the wall. There have already been savage visitations from Nature. This year has seen huge floods in China, India, Australia and Nigeria, while the United Kingdom had drought in the spring and is now suffering flooding. Even the skeptical U.S. has seen its hottest year on record and blistered crops. The final stages of the U.S. election campaign were interrupted by super Hurricane Sandy, which wreaked damage worth an estimated $40 billion. Bloomberg Businessweek heralded the storm with a cover picture of floods and a bold headline that yelled, It's Global Warming, Stupid! But American politicians are wrapped up in immediate issues. They rushed to give succor and aid for victims of Sandy - and President Barack Obama drew plaudits from the Republican governor of New Jersey for his promptness and energy - but promises to do something about global warming or the threat to the Earth were missing from the election campaign. At the global level, leaders are pussyfooting around. Even if they can achieve agreement on a new protocol and implement it immediately by 2015 - which is not on the agenda - it will almost certainly prove too little and too late. Critic Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish academic and director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center who was named as one of the world's top 100 thinkers by Foreign Policy magazine, makes an important point in claiming that An extremely optimistic Doha climate outcome could cost half a trillion dollars a year, with benefits of only three cents on the dollar. More controversially, he asserts that a successful
[Biofuel] The Rise of the Sharing Communities
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/28-5 Published on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 by Shareable The Rise of the Sharing Communities by Cat Johnson As the sharing economy picks up momentum, its reach has become global. In cities and towns around the world, people are creating ways to share everything from baby clothes to boats, hardware to vacation homes. There are also groups emerging that consciously identify with the big-picture sharing movement. These groups focus on education, action and community-building, and advocate for a cultural shift toward widespread sharing. From neighborhood-level cooperatives to global organizations, these groups work to bring sharing into the mainstream. They see sharing as a new paradigm; a means to a more democratic society, and they understand that sharing is not a new fad but an ancient practice that technology is reinvigorating. What follows is a far-from-exhaustive list of sharing advocacy groups around the world. There are, certainly, many others. Ideally, this list will serve as a springboard for connecting with a sharing community near you, or one that is aligned with your vision for a shareable world. Ouishare With hubs in Paris, London, Berlin, Barcelona, Rome and Brussels, Ouishare is an international network of entrepreneurs, citizens, activists, journalists and designers working toward the development of the collaborative economy. To me, the question is not so much about whether access is better than ownership, says Ouishare co-founder Antonon Leonard. It's about people. It's a change in culture. People have just started to realize that they have amazing opportunities to express themselves, be their own bosses, and start a new life. Leonard stresses that community is everything and that Ouishare is built around people who do things, not those who say they will do things. We need complex solutions to solve complex world issues, he says. We bet that it's only by connecting people with different perspectives that we'll be able to bring sustainable change. Sharing is an amazing opportunity to build a community and you need to build a community in order to make sharing work. Shared Squared Based in New York, Shared Squared is helping people to share by holding events, providing resources to empower sharing economy innovators, and making it easier for people to get involved in the movement. Our approach is simply to give people the opportunity to learn about, know about, meet and support other people in the same industry, says Shared Squared founder, Adam Berk. If there is one industry that should collaborate, it's ours. So I want to make sure we all work together and support each other when possible and where it makes sense...I think we are unique in the fact that we are transparent, do not care about politics and have a no nonsense policy when it comes to competition: everyone in the space is welcome, no matter how big you are. Berk would like to see the sharing economy move away from telling people why they should share, and focus on making sharing cheaper, better, more convenient and more fun. He believes that in the future, third parties will play a bigger role in managing risk, inventory and maintenance for P2P companies. I do not think you need to be a Treehugger to share, he says. Rich people share yachts and planes. When you are not using your money, you put it in the bank. The sharing economy in general has done a bad job at marketing. Hotels are not the antithesis of Airbnb. Hotels are actually shared rooms too, just with a different model. The third party plays a bigger role in a transaction that is still P2P in reality. The People Who Share The UK-based organization the People Who Share is working to bring sharing mainstream. Committed to reshaping the world through sharing, their vision is a thriving sharing economy where everyone is a supplier of tools, resources, goods, experiences, time and experience. Recently, along with partners Ouishare and Shareable, they organized the first ever Global Sharing Day. Fundamentally, we live on a planet with finite resources and we have a growing population, we are going to need to share to survive, says Benita Matofska, Chief Sharer at the People Who Share. The businesses and organisations of the future are those who build their models around the sharing of resources. What differentiates the sharing economy from our current economic model, Matofska says, is that this new economy is built by, with and for people and planet. Fundamentally people unite around the idea that we have unlimited sharing potential and sharing is how we build strong, sustainable, happy connected communities. Unstash Unstash is a peer-to-peer platform for collaborative consumption that works to facilitate and enhance the sharing experience by making sharing fun, easy and social. The Toronto-based organization is laser focused on the
[Biofuel] U.N. readies for protests on eve of secret Internet regulation treaty
http://www.zdnet.com/u-n-readies-for-protests-on-eve-of-secret-internet-regulation-treaty-707962/ U.N. readies for protests on eve of secret Internet regulation treaty Summary: With potential of becoming SOPA and CISPA on steroids a multinational U.N.-sponsored treaty will be decided behind closed doors in Dubai next Monday. Leaked documents show why everyone wants it stopped. By Violet Blue for Pulp Tech | November 27, 2012 In a closed-door meeting this weekend in Dubai, the telecommunications arm of the United Nations -- the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) -- plans to seize a big role in Internet governance. The ITU is holding the World Conference on International Telecommunications from December 3-14 where countries will seek agreement about proposed revisions to the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR, a legally binding international treaty signed by 178 countries) treaty in a bid to expand the ITU's scope of power to oversee the Internet. It would push regulatory control of the Internet's traffic and citizen access over to governments and away from organizations such as ICANN. Leaked documents: Internet tolls and no private traffic The treaty appears intent to solidify Internet infrastructure, encourage broadband rollout and investment, and ensure the integrity of emergency communication protocols. It also would charge governments with the task of regulating its telcos' creation of national and communications charges -- another way to say, Internet tolls and taxes. The meeting and its proposals are being withheld from public view. A steady stream of leaked documents from Web site WCITleaks have the organisers in a defensive panic -- for reasons that make it clear that something's rotten at the U.N. Created by researchers at George Mason University, WCITLeaks is soliciting and sharing copies of leaked draft documents. In WCTIleaks document TD-64 (the anticipated final draft), the language states that countries will be granted the right to suspend their citizens' Internet access and telecom services partially or totally -- and that member states have the right to prohibit the anonymizing of traffic, forcing any identifying information masked for privacy reasons be made duly available to law enforcement agencies. The ITU has strong backing of oppressive governments, including Russia and China. Telcos make a power play? In a June 2012 speech by ITU's Secretary-General, Dr. Hamadoun Toure said that telecom companies had the, right to a return on [the] investment of dealing with Internet congestion, and that the meeting and treaty would: (...) address the current disconnect between sources of revenue and sources of costs, and to decide upon the most appropriate way to do so. Interestingly, Dr. Alexander Kushtuev, WCIT Workgroup Preparation Chairman and ITU Deputy Director-General, works for Russia's largest national telecommunications operator, Rostelecom. In June 2011, Vladimir Putin met with Toure, where the then-Russian Prime Minister reminded the Secretary-General that Russia co-founded the ITU, and made a few headlines when Mr. Putin stated that Russia intends to actively participate in, establishing international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Condemned in increasing numbers This past weekend, a newly leaked WCTIleaks document revealed that the organizers are preparing a public-relations strategy to avoid public outcry by hiring consultants in an attempt and avoid the same global backlash that ultimately defeated SOPA, PIPA and CISPA. Looking at the growing opposition online, they'll need all the PR strategists they can afford. Fight for the Future, and Access Now -- in which both played a key role in decimating SOPA -- have launched the Web site. Supported by a video, the groups caution: If some proposals at WCIT are approved, decisions about the Internet would be made by a top-down, old-school government-centric agency behind closed doors. Some proposals allow for access to be cut off more easily, threaten privacy, legitimize monitoring and blocking online traffic. Others seek to impose new fees for accessing content, not to mention slowing down connection speeds. One week ago, Google created its Take Action petition and campaign, pushing the covert meeting into wider Internet awareness saying that the treaty threatens the free and open Internet. The ICU responded to Google over the weekend in a fairly incomprehensible blog post. Prior to this, opposition has ranged in fits and starts as far apart as Vint Cerf's piece in The New York Times to hacktivist collective Anonymous -- and the U.S. government has recently confirmed it will oppose placing control of the Internet into the hands of the United Nations. (Edit: The European Parliament has now added its collective
[Biofuel] Obama II - The Purge And The Pact
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33158.htm Obama II - The Purge And The Pact By Thierry Meyssan November 26, 2012 Information Clearing House - Enjoying a legitimacy reinforced by his re-election, President Barack Obama is preparing to launch a new foreign policy - drawing the conclusions from the relative economic weakening of the United States, he has renounced the idea of governing the world on his own. US forces continue their departure from Europe and their partial disengagement from the Middle East in order to take up positions around China. From this perspective, he wants to weaken the developing Russo-Chinese alliance at the same time as sharing the burden of the Middle East with Russia. Consequently, he is ready to apply the agreement on Syria which was reached on the 30th June in Geneva - deployment of a UN peace force, composed mainly of troops from the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, and maintenance of Bachar el-Assad in power if he is designated by his people. This new foreign policy is running into strong resistance in Washington. In July, a series of organised leaks to the Press sank the Geneva agreement and forced Kofi Annan to resign. This sabotage seems to have been hatched by a group of senior officers who are unable to accept the end of their dreams of a global empire. This problem was never evoked during the Presidential campaign, since the two main candidates were in agreement about the change of policy and only disagreed on the manner in which it should be presented. So Barack Obama waited no longer than the evening of his victory before giving the signal for the start of a purge which has been in cautious preparation for months. The resignation of General David Petraeus from his functions as head of the CIA has been widely publicized, but it was only the appetizer. The heads of many other senior officers are about to roll in the dust. The purge first affects the Supreme Commander of NATO and Commander of EuCom (Admiral James G. Stravidis), who is at the end of his term, and his scheduled successor (General John R. Allen). It continues with the ex-Commander of AfriCom (General William E. Ward) and the man who has been his successor for a year (General Carter Ham). It will probably also eliminate the chief of the anti-missile shield (General Patrick J. O'Reilly) and still others of lesser importance. Each time, the senior officers are accused either of sexual misconduct or embezzlement. The US Press has feasted on the sordid details of the sexual triangle which implicates Petraeus, Allen and Petraeus' biographer, Paula Broadwell, while avoiding any mention of the fact that she is a Lieutenant-Colonel in Military Intelligence. It seems abundantly clear that she was infiltrated into the entourage of the two Generals in order to bring them down. The purge in Washington was preceded in July by the elimination of the foreign executives who oppose this new policy and who were implicated in the battle of Damascus. Everything went down as if Obama had allowed the clean-up to happen. For example, the premature death of General Omar Suleiman (Egypt), who had come to undergo treatment at a US hospital, or the attack on Prince Bandar ben Sultan (Saudi Arabia), seven days later. It remains for Barack Obama to compose his new Cabinet by finding men and women who are capable of forcing acceptance of this new policy. He is counting especially on former Democratic candidate for the Presidency and current President of the Senate Committee for Foreign Relations, John Kerry. Moscow has already made it clear that his nomination would be welcomed. In particular, Kerry is known as an admirer of Bashar el-Assad (The Washington Post) whom he has frequently met in preceding years. [1] In the event Kerry should be given the State Department, the Department of Defense may be entrusted either to Michèle Flournoy or Ashton Carter, who would continue to apply the current budgetary restrictions. In the event that Kerry should take over the DoD, the State Department could be given to Susan Rice, a nomination which would be sure to pose certain problems - she was seen to be particulary discourteous when Russia and China opposed their recent vetos, and doesn't seem to possess the cool head this job requires. And in fact, the Republicans are attempting to block her nomination. John Brennan, who is known for his particularly unethical and brutal methods, may become the new head of the CIA. He would be tasked with turning the page on the Bush years by liquidating the jihadists who are working for the Agency and dismantling Saudi Arabia, which is of no further use. Failing this, the mission would be offered to Michael Vickers or even Michael Morell, the shadow advisor who was at George W. Bush's side on a certain 11th September, and who dictated his conduct. The noted Zionist, but nevertheless pragmatist,
[Biofuel] Breaking Point
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33160.htm Breaking Point By Linh Dinh November 28, 2012 Information Clearing House --- Catalans want to break from Spain, again, and secession is also the buzz in Flanders, Scotland, Texas and Vermont. With the global economy collapsing, people everywhere are becoming fed up with being ruled by distant bureaucrats and bankers hell-bent on destroying local livelihoods. Wages are down, jobs lost and entire countries gone bankrupt thanks to government-enabled banking frauds, a process lubricated by increasing centralization and the intertwining of national finances. The private banking cartel generates public and private debts, debt slavery and inflation, and with a common currency, it can more readily screw you across borders. A nation can only control its destiny by being firmly in charge of its currency, like China, for example, and for that, it is often singled out for condemnation, but all fiat currencies are manipulated, with us Americans extra cursed with a Federal Reserve that doesn't work in our interest. Until this globalist banking cartel can be blown up, and its head honchos tossed into a tight dungeon, many people just want to extricate themselves, step by step, from its strangulation. Forced to dumpster dive, abandon their children or jump out windows, millions of Europeans are also fighting back. Pay attention, Americans, for we can certainly learn from them. In Spain, the Indignados protests, with tents occupying public spaces, preceded our own Occupy Movement by several months, but the Spanish didn't stop there. They then mounted a general strike and now, many Catalans are trying to break from their banker-manipulated central government, which has been crippled by these same transnationalists. Imperial and colonial ambitions have often assumed a transnationalist mask. Think of Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Zone, Russia's absorption or domination of numerous peoples under Communism, or NATO and the European Union serving American interests. Also, the US has often cited The Free World to justify war on another country, with Libya and Syria the latest examples. Beware, then, of the supranationalist's pitch of mutual peace, security and prosperity, for it often hides an evil reality. Imagine no countries, he'll sing, and the world will be as one, before hushing to murmur the refrain, Imagine no possessions. The European Union started with such promise, but now nearly all the countries are broke. Imagine. As the Catalans fancy life without Madrid, Americans can also dream of existence sans Washington. Jesus, I feel better already, as well as younger and taller. With a visa, and TSA nutcracking and fingering right after landing at Reagan Airport, we can still visit, of course, to marvel at the charred husk of the Federal Reserve, then see Bush's Mission Accomplished flight suit and a panorama of Glenn Beck's rally, complete with a Sarah Palin hologram, at the Smithsonian. At the White House, pensive visitors are welcome to stroke the fabled Lewinsky dress, still unwashed after half a century. Made-in-China Obama nostalgia gimcracks are available at gift kiosks, but sadly, the Jefferson, Lincoln and King statues have all been shipped to various Chinese amusement parks, to pay back debts. In the here and now, however, DC has become so wealthy from loots of all kinds, above and under the table, its official homicide rate has plummeted. Most nickel and dime (bag) thugs have been shooed from the Beltway, to make room for the three-piece-suited uber muggers. The real kill rate has also stayed robust, since decisions made here do pulverize entire neighborhoods worldwide. Enough of DC! Banksters used to connive and jerk from behind curtains, but now they're right on stage, with seasoned money manipulators ruling Italy and Greece, and the Spanish Minister of Economy a former employee of Lehman Brothers. The US Treasury has also turned into a Goldman Sachs outhouse, but this don't faze Americans none, since they're too busy elbowing and jostling each other, shopping, or hypnotized by another leather ball sailing across a wide screen. Splurging on credit, Americans are grateful to their bankers, and voting for one corrupt war criminal after another, they're happy to be ladled slogans and reassurances by their President, even as their country is deliberately imploded. Many won't know what's what until they're curled up in a tent city, or extraordinarily renditioned to Kazakhstan, perhaps. In Egypt, people immediately protested and even clashed with cops after Morsi gave himself dictatorial powers, but here, all was supine, docile and purring even as Obama had assumed the right to arrest or kill anyone, without trial or even charge, and Americans are unperturbed at the possibility of being stopped from flying without explanation or recourse to appeal. Though we don't
[Biofuel] Retail Madness
Tomorrow is the 1st of December, and I'm ALREADY weary of the advertising onslaught . . . With all of the very serious issues we're facing as a society, our attention remains focused on consumerist behavior that distracts from our real problems and enables the status quo: http://robertluisrabello.com/retail-madness/ Robert Luis Rabello Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Meet the People video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txsCdh1hZ6c Crisis video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZedNEXhTn4 The Long Journey video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy4muxaksgk ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Breaking Point
It has a lot of good points but he is mixing many things, and by doing so it can get discredit easily. Distant bureaucrats or close in bureaucrats it does not matter so the breaking has nothing to do with (and I do not agree with it! well... I could agree IF they let my house break away too and it will be the kingdom of Ivan then I agree, but I bet those who want to break away, will not let me break away from them as a house by itself, will they? and if not, why they feel like they could/should and my household can not? I am guessing THEY are drawing the line) I could go one by one down the line but as an over all it sounds like an overexcited guy writing. The Federal Reserve.. that I do not understand and I can write pages about it. If anyone can shine any light of why a government doesn't/can't say from tomorrow we start OUR own central Bank Ivan -Original Message- From: Keith Addison Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 12:37 PM To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Breaking Point http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33160.htm Breaking Point By Linh Dinh November 28, 2012 Information Clearing House --- Catalans want to break from Spain, again, and secession is also the buzz in Flanders, Scotland, Texas and Vermont. With the global economy collapsing, people everywhere are becoming fed up with being ruled by distant bureaucrats and bankers hell-bent on destroying local livelihoods. Wages are down, jobs lost and entire countries gone bankrupt thanks to government-enabled banking frauds, a process lubricated by increasing centralization and the intertwining of national finances. The private banking cartel generates public and private debts, debt slavery and inflation, and with a common currency, it can more readily screw you across borders. A nation can only control its destiny by being firmly in charge of its currency, like China, for example, and for that, it is often singled out for condemnation, but all fiat currencies are manipulated, with us Americans extra cursed with a Federal Reserve that doesn't work in our interest. Until this globalist banking cartel can be blown up, and its head honchos tossed into a tight dungeon, many people just want to extricate themselves, step by step, from its strangulation. Forced to dumpster dive, abandon their children or jump out windows, millions of Europeans are also fighting back. Pay attention, Americans, for we can certainly learn from them. In Spain, the Indignados protests, with tents occupying public spaces, preceded our own Occupy Movement by several months, but the Spanish didn't stop there. They then mounted a general strike and now, many Catalans are trying to break from their banker-manipulated central government, which has been crippled by these same transnationalists. Imperial and colonial ambitions have often assumed a transnationalist mask. Think of Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Zone, Russia's absorption or domination of numerous peoples under Communism, or NATO and the European Union serving American interests. Also, the US has often cited The Free World to justify war on another country, with Libya and Syria the latest examples. Beware, then, of the supranationalist's pitch of mutual peace, security and prosperity, for it often hides an evil reality. Imagine no countries, he'll sing, and the world will be as one, before hushing to murmur the refrain, Imagine no possessions. The European Union started with such promise, but now nearly all the countries are broke. Imagine. As the Catalans fancy life without Madrid, Americans can also dream of existence sans Washington. Jesus, I feel better already, as well as younger and taller. With a visa, and TSA nutcracking and fingering right after landing at Reagan Airport, we can still visit, of course, to marvel at the charred husk of the Federal Reserve, then see Bush's Mission Accomplished flight suit and a panorama of Glenn Beck's rally, complete with a Sarah Palin hologram, at the Smithsonian. At the White House, pensive visitors are welcome to stroke the fabled Lewinsky dress, still unwashed after half a century. Made-in-China Obama nostalgia gimcracks are available at gift kiosks, but sadly, the Jefferson, Lincoln and King statues have all been shipped to various Chinese amusement parks, to pay back debts. In the here and now, however, DC has become so wealthy from loots of all kinds, above and under the table, its official homicide rate has plummeted. Most nickel and dime (bag) thugs have been shooed from the Beltway, to make room for the three-piece-suited uber muggers. The real kill rate has also stayed robust, since decisions made here do pulverize entire neighborhoods worldwide. Enough of DC! Banksters used to connive and jerk from behind curtains, but now they're right on stage, with seasoned money manipulators ruling Italy and Greece, and the Spanish Minister of Economy a former employee of Lehman
Re: [Biofuel] AP Believes It Found Evidence of Iran's Work on Nuclear Weapons
AP were way off the mark on this one. Clearly that graph demonstrates that Iran is not merely researching 'da bomb', but possess knowledge which only comes from having secretly built and detonated many, many bombs. In fact it appears they are poised to leapfrog the u.s. in nuclear weapons capability. We can only be thankful that they have never actually fielded any nuclear weapons. A fact which, given their capabilities, only underscores just how irrational they really are. Quick, mobilize the fleet. No time to waste. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.orgwrote: http://www.commondreams.org/**view/2012/11/28-2http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/28-2 Published on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 by the Guardian/UK AP Believes It Found Evidence of Iran's Work on Nuclear Weapons A primitive graph provided by a country critical of Iran's atomic program indicts the news outlet more than Tehran by Glenn Greenwald Uncritical, fear-mongering media propaganda is far too common to take note of each time it appears, but sometimes, what is produced is so ludicrous that its illustrative value should not be ignored. Such is the case with a highly trumpeted Associated Press exclusive http://bigstory.ap.org/** article/ap-exclusive-graph-**suggests-iran-working-bombhttp://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-graph-suggests-iran-working-bomb from Tuesday which claims in its red headline to have discovered evidence of Iran Working on Bomb. What is this newly discovered, scary evidence? It is a graph which AP says was leaked to it by officials from a country critical of Iran's atomic program to bolster their arguments that Iran's nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon (how mysterious: the globe is gripped with befuddlement as it tries to guess which country that might be). Here's how AP presents the graph in all its incriminating, frightening glory: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-**images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/** 2012/11/28/1354101191311/ap.**pnghttp://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/11/28/1354101191311/ap.png This, says AP, shows that Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Moreover, an intelligence summary provided with the drawing - provided, that is, by the mysterious country critical of Iran's atomic program - linked [the graph] to other alleged nuclear weapons work - significant because it would indicate that Iran is working not on isolated experiments, but rather on a single program aimed at mastering all aspects of nuclear arms development. Where to begin? First, note that AP granted anonymity here not merely to an individual but to an entire country. What's the proffered justification for doing so? The officials wanted it, so AP gave it: officials provided the diagram only on condition that they and their country not be named. That's very accommodating of AP. Second, this graph - which is only slightly less hilariously primitive than the one Benjamin Netanyahu infamously touted with a straight face at the UN - has Farsi written under it to imbue it with that menacing Iranian-ish feel, but also helpfully uses English to ensure that US audiences can easily drink up its scariness. As The Atlantic's Robert Wright noted: How considerate of the Iranians to label their secret nefarious nuke graph in English!. It's certainly possible that Iranian scientists use English as a universal language of science, but the convenient mixing of Farsi and English should at least trigger some skepticism. Third, even if one assumes that this graph is something other than a fraud, the very idea that computer simulations constitute evidence that Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon is self-evidently inane. As John Glaser extensively documents, experts from across the spectrum have agreed with the military and intelligence consensus [from the US and Israel] that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and presents no imminent threat. Buried in the AP article is a quote from David Albright explaining that though the diagram looks genuine [it] seems to be designed more 'to understand the process' than as part of a blueprint for an actual weapon in the making. The case for the attack on Iraq was driven, of course, by a mountain of fabricated documents and deliberately manipulated intelligence which western media outlets uncritically amplified. Yet again, any doubts that they are willing and eager to do exactly the same with regard to the equally fictitious Iranian Threat should be forever dispelled by behavior like this. As always, the two key facts to note on Iran are these: 1) the desperation to prevent Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon has nothing to do with fear that they would commit national suicide by using it offensively, but rather
