As the American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, arrives in Europe, it is instructive to look at the areas where her country's interests clash with those of the EU. They fall into six broad categories: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Israel, China and what one might loosely call "supra-nationalism" - that is, the power of the UN, the Kyoto process, the International Criminal Court and so on. These disputes are not unrelated; they are linked by a common ideological thread. In each case, the United States is pro-democracy, the EU pro-stability.
That is, pro-change and pro-stagnation...
In Cuba, Brussels has withdrawn its support for anti-Castro dissidents. In Iran, the EU has pursued a decade-long policy of "constructive engagement" with the ayatollahs. In Iraq, with a few exceptions, Europeans were horrified at the notion of toppling a tyrant by force. In European capitals, unlike in Washington, Israel's status as the region's only democracy is not seen as meritorious. In China, the EU has not only announced its intention to lift the arms embargo on Beijing, but is also actively collaborating with the Communists on a satellite system called Galileo, designed to challenge what Jacques Chirac calls the "technological imperialism" of America's GPS. And, when it comes to international bodies, the US is almost alone in taking the view that elected politicians are more legitimate than global technocrats and human-rights lawyers.
The Euros, lest we forget, were also incensed at Reagan's description of the Soviet Union as an Evil Empire. They were against the deployment of Pershing missiles to Europe. When Reagan demanded Gorbachev tear down the wall, the Euro papers went nutz.
This difference in approach was, as it were, encoded in the DNA of the two organisations. The US was born out of a revolt against autocratic government. In consequence, it sympathises naturally with democracy, decentralisation and national self-determination. Its founding creed was adumbrated by Thomas Jefferson, who believed that power should be exercised by the individual in preference to the state, and by lower in preference to higher tiers of government.
Toqueville was rather surprised by the setup we came up with. He also wasn't convinced it would work.
The EU, by contrast, was a reaction against the pre-war plebiscitary democracy which, in its patriarchs' eyes, had led to fascism and conflict. Its governing principle is the precise opposite of Jeffersonianism: the doctrine of "ever-closer union".
Those ideas were in place before the rise of fascism. Bismark built the German welfare state. Fascism was nothing if not an "ever-closer union."
Its leaders believe to this day that states are better run by experts than by populist politicians and, just as they apply that belief to their own institutions, so they extend it to other continents. Indeed, the distinction between the two unions can be inferred from the opening words of their founding charters: the American Constitution begins "We, the people"; the Treaty of Rome begins "His Majesty the King of the Belgians".
Don't forget the influence of the Second International. Social Democracy takes managing the economy â and those making it run â as a given. It takes an "expert" to manage an economy.
There is only one part of the world where America does not extend its principles: the EU itself. Everywhere else, this administration has moved beyond the Cold War tendency to do business with local strongmen ("he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch"). George Bush has grasped that undemocratic states tend to export their problems, which makes them objectively inimical to Western interests, however notionally pro-Western their leaders. But, when it comes to Europe, he is happy to indulge the elites even as they take more power from their peoples.
The Euros are given a pass because they're not likely to go to war with each other any time soon.
Previous American presidents did not even mention the EU in their speeches, ("our European allies" was the preferred phrase). Mr Bush is the first holder of his office to have visited the European Commission. His ambassador to the EU went so far as explicitly to endorse the proposed Euro-constitution. Miss Rice herself has spoken of European integration in the warmest terms.
It's a great idea, in theory. I can remember the enthusiasm for the Common Market, the pleasure at finding open borders. The EU seems at first glance a logical extension of that. The contradictions come when you look closer: language differences, cultural differences, and â like it or not â history. There was a reason the Holy Roman Empire never took off. There were reasons the Burgundians never became French. Language and culture make borders.
How are we to explain this contradiction? It doubtless owes something to Tony Blair, who has called in his Iraq debt by securing the President's support for the EU. It also stems from institutional inertia: the State Department traditionally backed European integration as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism, and the policy remains in place despite the collapse of its original rationale. But Miss Rice should be careful. Forty years of solid Washington support for the EU have not led to any reciprocal pro-Americanism in Brussels. As she has found before, and will find again, Europeans often exhibit a psychotic desire to bite the hand that freed them.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/05/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
The Euros are given a pass because they're not likely to go to war with each other any time soon.
And because we have an Army of Occupation that can defeat whatever army they can raise. Nonetheless, they do create a fair amount of difficulty and may well have to be dealt with at some later date, though they may have completed their self-implosion before that becomes necessary.
Nope. Not war. If you prevent enemy combatants from getting enough shuteye, make them sit in uncomfortable positions or mock their genitals, â you have crossed the line in the 21st century. No, war has gotten a conscience (unless, of course, youâre a âfreedom fighter,â in which case strapping plastic explosives to yourself and walking into a school, market or mosque is fair). Actually, the answer is politics. âAll is fair in love and politics.â Try it out. It may not sound right at first, but youâll warm to it. Youâll have to, because this new maxim has more verity than the old one. Consider this synopsis and cast of characters: A congressional minority embittered by a presidential victory by the incumbent. A rapacious âspecial prosecutor.â An apparent white lie before a grand jury. An alleged big lie to the nation. A nation divided. Sen. Edward Kennedy, Rep. John Murtha, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Robert Byrd and the gang? Patrick Fitzgerald? Scooter Libby? WMDs? Red and blue states?
Actually, I was referring to Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr, Bill Clinton, lascivious cigar antics and conservatives versus liberals. The maxim that allâs fair in love and politics got its truth-value back in 1998 during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And itâs proving true today. The parallels between these two scandals are deep. But there are some important differences, to be sure. While the Republicans win the honors for letting politics sink to an unprecedented level of ugliness throughout the Lewinsky affair, the Democrats have not only matched them but introduced tactics that actually threaten both national security and global stability. After all, the left is using accusations against the administration a) to claim that the U.S. really shouldnât be in Iraq, and b) to justify withdrawing from Iraq prematurely.
Further, while the Republican-led Congress went on a witch hunt for Clinton in 1998, the witch hunt was grounded in a fact â that Bill Clinton lied about his salacious activities and did so in halls of justice. The Republicans, rather tastelessly, made a mountain out of a mole hill, but in the strictest sense were legitimate in doing so. The same cannot be said for the Democrats in this instance.
Democrats currently are making a mountain out of nothing, because George W. Bush never lied to anyone. If you ever thought differently, I suggest reading Norman Podhoretzâs piece in the December issue of Commentary. Itâs like a time capsule from the lead up to the war. Not only does the article lay out in gory detail the kind of intelligence both Democrats and Republicans were privy to, but it exposes the greatest lie of all â the one many on the left seem willing to follow into a foreign-policy nightmare to score a couple of poll points against Dubya. Podhoretz says it best: âAnd so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq â the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy â have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation and selective perception to vilify
as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.â
Itâs one thing to achieve a new low in dirty politics; itâs another to let dirty politics sully the Iraqisâ prospects for success and the mission of our troops, 2,000 of whom have sacrificed themselves to get us this far. Murtha, for example, may have once been a Marine, but itâs clear heâs now just a politician. His decorations canât shield him from the criticism heâs gotten for allowing his mouth to get ahead of his brain and his partisanship to choke out his conscience. He should be ashamed. More importantly, he should meet with military commanders and the Joint Chiefs before uttering another syllable. In the latest twist to this sordid tale, the Democrats have turned to using the Microsoft strategy â âembrace and extend.â Last weekend, Biden, D-Del., announced his plan for withdrawing troops in a piecemeal fashion: âIn 2006, they will begin to leave in large numbers. By the end of the year, we will have redeployed about 50,000. In 2007, a significant number of the remaining 100,000 will follow.â Isnât this is curiously similar to the presidentâs strategy of âas Iraqis stand up, Americans will stand downâ? The only difference is that it trades specific information to the enemy in exchange for political points. Whether the Dems back the Murtha or Biden plan remains to be seen â but both are predicated upon lies. But the worst part of this affair is that the Democratsâ lie isnât a little white lie, a noble lie, or even a Machiavellian lie. It is the kind of lie that might get you a couple of extra congressional seats and allow you to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Itâs the kind of lie that Lenin might have told â i.e. the one that, if told enough, becomes âtrue.â Mark Steyn sums up its likely consequences: âIn war, there are usually only two exit strategies: victory or defeat. The latterâs easier. Just say, âwhoa, weâre the worldâs pre-eminent power but we canât handle an unprecedented low level of casualties, so if you donât mind weâd just as soon get off at the next stopâ ⊠If you exit, theyâll follow. And Americans will die â in foreign embassies, barracks, warships, as they did through the â90s, and eventually on the streets of U.S. cities, too.â Some may call words like this more Sept. 11 posturing by war hawks and Bush apologists. But suppose there is even a modicum of prescience in this position? Not only will a number of congressmen have blood on their hands, but so will the media. And I donât just mean the blood of soldiers in voluntary service; I mean the kind found at Ground Zero.
Max Borders is managing editor of TechCentral-Station.com.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/05/2005 07:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Great article, I found myself agreeing with all said until his last sentence. I get his point but "the blood of soldiers in voluntary service" sounds like one death for our nation is more sacred than another. Old Max needs to take that sentence out.
Posted by: 49 pan ||
12/05/2005 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative but vague or inaccurate information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer software industry and has since been used more broadly.
FUD was first defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp.: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products." [1]
As Eric S. Raymond writes:
"The idea, of course, was to persuade buyers to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. After 1991 the term has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon." [2]
Opponents of certain large computer corporations state that the spreading of fear, uncertainty, and doubt is an unethical marketing technique that these corporations consciously employ.
By spreading questionable information about the drawbacks of less well-known products, an established company can discourage decision-makers from choosing those products over its wares, regardless of the relative technical merits. This is a recognized phenomenon, epitomized by the traditional axiom of purchasing agents that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" equipment. The result is that many companies' IT departments buy software which they know to be technically inferior because upper management is more likely to recognize the brand.
Although once it was usually attributed to IBM, in the 1990s and later the term became most often associated with industry giant Microsoft. The Halloween documents (leaked internal Microsoft documents whose authenticity was verified by the company) use the term FUD to describe a potential tactic, as in "OSS is long-term credible ⦠[therefore] FUD tactics can not be used to combat it." [3] More recently, Microsoft has issued statements about the "viral nature" of the GNU General Public License (GPL), which Open Source proponents purport to be FUD. Microsoft's statements are often directed at the GNU/Linux community in particular, to discourage widespread Linux adoption, which could hurt Microsoft's marketshare. In a 2004 interview on the growing prominence of Linux, Steve Ballmer's FUD-based ideas had racist undertones, when he commented, "Are you going to trust some guy in China?"
The SCO Group's 2003 lawsuit against IBM, claiming intellectual property infringements by the open source community, is also regarded by some as being an attempt at spreading FUD, especially about Linux. IBM directly alleged in its counterclaim to SCO's suit that SCO is spreading FUD. [4]
Similarly, the claims made by some members of the GPL community about the dangers and threats to freedom of software from non-GPL sources, such as commercial software vendors or BSD- or X11-style licenses, are regarded by many to be FUD.
Free software advocates now often apply FUD as a label to the people who they feel are trying to make the FUD smears against Linux or other open source projects like Mozilla Firefox. (FUD against closed source products exist also, but not to the same extent.) In doing so, FUD takes on somewhat of a double meaning, as it is insinuated that those trying to spread the fear, uncertainty, and doubt are fuddy duddies who are too backward and set in their ways to acknowledge the value of something new and innovative. Sometimes this is written out as "FUDdy-duddy." [5]
FUD can be used to offhandedly "smear" criticism or legitimate debate, even in cases where the allegations are without merit or are merely implied; this tactic is often used in cases where the initial publicity surrounding claims of FUD is likely to vastly overshadow any subsequent retraction. Such an arbitrary usage is a general type of logical fallacy known as ad hominem circumstantial.
At the same time, those being smeared can dismiss criticism as simply being FUD tactics, for example when usability defects in OSS are commented on by marketing directors of competing companies. This is aggravated by the aggressive and sometimes rabid anti Microsoft stance many advocates of Free software take, most frequently seen on the website Slashdot.
Non-computer uses
FUD is now often used in non-computer contexts with the same meaning. For example, in politics the tactic is often used to attempt to alter public opinion on a particular issue or on an opposing group. Often, one group will accuse another group of utilizing FUD. Many critics of George W. Bush accused him of using a FUD-based campaign in the 2004 U.S. presidential election [6]. Bush supporters also accused their opponents of using FUD by spreading rumors about a possible military draft should Bush be re-elected [7]. Ironically, accusations of use of FUD can sometimes themselves become a FUD tactic to discredit the opposing side. Who actually utilizes FUD is a question that leads to difficulties with distinguishing objective and subjective truth.
#5
In a 2004 interview on the growing prominence of Linux, Steve Ballmer's FUD-based ideas had racist undertones, when he commented, "Are you going to trust some guy in China?"
"Racist undertones"? Boy, talk about taking something totally out of context and manipulating it for your own purposes.
I'm sure Steve Ballmer wasn't even considering the fact that China is a communist country with a highly active intelligence agency that would just *love* to see the US DoD use an O/S they could manipulate and fill with backdoors allowing them access to military secrets and the capability of crashing the system in a strategic strike.
Oops--now I'm being racist too!
Posted by: Dar ||
12/05/2005 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Thats the beauty of Linux - you can't hide back doors in it - its entirely transparent since the source code is freely available.
I would hope that the DOD is examing each and every line of source code for applications which it is using in critical situations - including Linux, Windows, Office, etc....
#7
I don't know about the DOD but the CIA's linux kernel is "Secure Linux" (with lots of extra stuff added). They have a complete secure distro.
Never bothered looking at it. Each file has so many forms of security I could not figure out (without a lot of effort) how you would bring it up with functioning programs and services.
#8
I'd say this article is my FAR - Fuckin'-A-Right. Nails it perfectly along with the Dem perfidy in attempting to lose the war so Pelosi can be House Leader and Reid Senate leader. Disgusting, and time to call the media for their part
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/05/2005 22:14 Comments ||
Top||
The Pakistan government has decided to expunge a poem titled "The Leader" from the new English textbook prescribed for class XI, because the first alphabets of all its verses, if put together in sequence as they occur, read - "PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH".
The 20-verse poem, authored by an anonymous poet, spells out ideal qualities "the leader" has.
It was first printed in 2004 after the Pakistan government had decided to deregulate publication of textbooks. And, it was prescribed for the first year students of the federal board in 2005.
An official working with the Pakistan Education ministry said that the poem was being deleted from the textbook because it was inserted (in the book) deliberately to enumerate the qualities of the American President...
The poem reads as follows:
Patient and steady with all he must bear,
Ready to accept every challenge with care,
Easy in manner, yet solid as steel,
Strong in his faith, refreshingly real,
Isn't afraid to propose what is bold,
Doesn't conform to the usual mold,
Eyes that have foresight, for hindsight won't do,
Never back down when he sees what is true,
Tells it all straight, and means it all too,
Going forward and knowing he's right,
Even when doubted for why he would fight,
Over and over he makes his case clear,
Reaching to touch the ones who won't hear,
Growing in strength, he won't be unnerved,
Ever assuring he'll stand by his word,
Wanting the world to join his firm stand,
Bracing for war, but praying for peace,
Using his power so evil will cease:
So much a leader and worthy of trust,
Here stands a man who will do what he must.
#2
Pervez the immaculate -
Sorry - no tune, this was too good without one...
Perhaps the Pakistanis should feel from Everyone who has eyes to see Reaching in the Northwest Frontier land Very aware of Osama's last stand Each day we watch an inept fire drill Zoo animals, they're like - running round the hills
Make way for the old Baluchi corps Under the blazing Asian sun Something I think that must be done Hale and hearty that little man Has he got any kind of plan? Any here seen Osama or Omar Running cave to cave like rats? Afar in the high hills protected by fools Fortune would have them under earthquake rules...
by James S. Robbins, National Review EFL'd to get to the good part.
. . . CPT friends and fellow travelers have rallied around the effort to get the hostages released. . . . Maybe the abductors will see reason; but there is no reason to believe they would recognize reason if they saw it. Ouch!
I do not even think they are good at what they do. Double ouch!
These kidnappings are simply bad terrorism. The targets are all wrong. The point of taking hostages is to gain publicity, to bring issues and demands to the public eye whether they are realistic or not. If you can also raise money, so much the better. And if you execute people who are working on rebuilding projects or aiding Coalition forces, you might scare others away. However, you do not abduct the âuseful idiotsâ on the other side who support you. This serves no purpose whatsoever.
A sensible terrorist political warfare strategy tries to drive wedges into the enemy society by isolating the groups you will never be able to win over and appealing to as wide a base as possible. The Swords of Truth Brigades should not be threatening the CPT team; they should be holding a joint press conference to denounce the Coalition. The way they are behaving is comparable to the North Vietnamese shooting Jane Fonda with a firing squad instead of a camera in 1972. "Of all sad words of tongue or pen/The saddest are these: "It might have been!"
The terrorists really do not know who their friends are. They kidnap humanitarian workers. They target journalists. They bomb the U.N. Lenin must be spinning in his tomb.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/05/2005 13:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If Arabs used common sense and intelligence, they....well, they wouldn't be Arabs, or Islamists at least . Back to the 7th Century!
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/05/2005 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I know it's so obvious but did he have to come right out and say just how the terrorists can improve their PR campaign?
East Asia isnât big enough for the two of us. That is Chinaâs message to India in the run-up to the East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur (December 6-14). The summit is expected to announce the core group for a future East Asian community. Beijing is pushing for a group that excludes India.
At the heart of the diplomatic battle is a summit declaration that, say diplomats, will say who will be âresponsible for creating an East Asian communityâ. The âwhoâ will be determined by which countries issue the declaration.
China wants the all-important line to be part of the declaration of the Asean+3 â the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus China, Japan and South Korea. This means these countries would form the core of what its proponents hope will become the continentâs main multilateral body.
India wants the line to be part of a declaration issued by all the summit participants. At present, India is in a separate Asean+1 grouping. âWeâve been arguing for the two groupings to be made into an Asean+4 since the Laos summit last year,â said a senior Indian official. âSo we want the summit to define East Asian in a manner that includes India, covering countries from Japan to Australia.â
Asia has split right down the middle. Malaysia has taken up Chinaâs position within Asean. Singapore and, surprisingly, Indonesia are supporting India. Some southeast Asian countries like Thailand, say Indian officials, fear Asean will be overwhelmed by both Asian giants and have declined to take sides.
Even the +3 countries are split. Japan backs the Indian call. South Korea wonât anger China, given the Pyongyang problem. Australia and New Zealand are in the same boat as India at the summit. âNormally, we wouldâve worked out the final declaration well before the summit. Now it looks like itâll go down to the wire,â said a southeast Asian diplomat.
New Delhi says India has a double stake in being part of the East Asian community. One is economic. âIndiaâs trade and investment ties with East Asia have grown dramatically in the past decade,â said an Indian official. âThe region will be crucial to Indiaâs future economic growth.â
The second is geopolitical. India sees Chinaâs opposition to a larger East Asian formulation as evidence of Beijing wanting to curb Indian influence. Prime Minister Manmohan Singhâs speech in Kuala Lumpur is expected to echo the recent statement of Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran that India is prepared to play a âbalancingâ role in Asia.
Asia-Pacific diplomats are in agreement that Beijing's motives are overtly geostrategic. "India, by its sheer size, is the only country that could stop the community from being dominated by China," said one diplomat. However, say others, China may be more troubled at the idea of a close US ally like Australia joining.
No one is certain where the East Asian community, something which originated in 2000, will go but it has the potential, said one observer, "of being an Asian version of the European Economic Community".
Cheez, I sure hope they do better than that.
India has notched up its lobbying over the past two months, say both Indian and Asean diplomats. A Foreign Ministry team is expected to fly to Malaysia on December 11, just before the heads of governments arrive.
But victory is far from certain. Asean works on consensus, so even one country can block forward movement. Delhi may be lucky to even secure a draw in which the East Asia community line is diluted or becomes part of two declarations.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/05/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
This twenty first century Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere including South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Singapore and Australia will be dominated by China. Okay. Sure.
#4
I am paying attention to the contention between India and China. The bottom line is that demographically, economically and militarily they are already in conflict with each other. They just don't know it yet.
Their respective military buildups are much like those of the belligerents prior to World War One. And China especially is feeling so powerful that it has foolishly tipped its hand to India, Taiwan and Japan, all of whom know better.
Ironically, the main preparations for at least 25 years have been based on a US vs China war scenario. An irony might be the US looking on as the principals duke it out. But the distances involved might make it very chancy for the US to directly provide support to the non-China side.
#5
While it is comforting to imagine that there are a few short knives waiting on China's doorstep, even their combined leverage may be wholly insufficient to tip the scales. China is the elelphant in the henhouse and those on her borders had best watch the pachyderm very closely. At least India now has a clear message regarding their status as second fiddle in the East Asian orchestra. I'm hoping America remembers who is democratic and who is not as this potential conflict unfolds.
US forces have entered Syria. Not a surprise considering Syria, as a proxy for Iran, has been undermining our efforts in Iraq since the onset of the liberation of Iraq and decisive action was long overdue. Many of our boys have died because of the foreign fighters and border skirmishes Syria has been engaging in.
Do not fool yourself into thinking this maneuver into Syria is an isolated effort. IMHO, it is part of the much larger strategy to wrangle the impending nuclear disaster out of the hands of the Iran, nombre deax in the axis of evil. Just as Iraq was a part of the axis of evil and had to be taken down, so too must Iran. This is the vision and the art of Bush's war on the War on Radical Islamofascism. He outlined the plan and who the enemy was back in 2001 after 9/11.
IN December 1997, representatives of most of the world's nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate a binding agreement to cut emissions of "greenhouse" gases. They succeeded. The Kyoto Protocol was ultimately ratified by 156 countries. It was the first agreement of its kind. But it may also prove to be the last.
Today, in the middle of new global warming talks in Montreal, there is a sense that the whole idea of global agreements to cut greenhouse gases won't work.
A major reason the optimism over Kyoto has eroded so rapidly is that its major requirement - that 38 participating industrialized countries cut their greenhouse emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2012 - was seen as just a first step toward increasingly aggressive cuts.
But in the years after the protocol was announced, developing countries, including the fast-growing giants China and India, have held firm on their insistence that they would accept no emissions cuts, even though they are likely to be the world's dominant source of greenhouse gases in coming years. Their refusal helped fuel strong opposition to the treaty in the United States Senate and its eventual rejection by President Bush.
But the current stalemate is not just because of the inadequacies of the protocol. It is also a response to the world's ballooning energy appetite, which, largely because of economic growth in China, has exceeded almost everyone's expectations. And there are still no viable alternatives to fossil fuels, the main source of greenhouse gases.
Then, too, there is a growing recognition of the economic costs incurred by signing on to the Kyoto Protocol. As Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, a proponent of emissions targets, said in a statement on Nov. 1: "The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge."
Not even Chirac is that dumb.
This is as true, in different ways, in developed nations with high unemployment, like Germany and France, as it is in Russia, which said last week that it may have spot energy shortages this winter.
Some veterans of climate diplomacy and science now say that perhaps the entire architecture of the climate treaty process might be flawed.
And the science, and the technology, and the politics, and the advocacy, and ...
The basic template came out of the first international pact intended to protect the atmosphere, the 1987 Montreal Protocol for eliminating chemicals that harmed the ozone layer, said Richard A. Benedick, the Reagan administration's chief representative in the talks leading to that agreement. That agreement was a success, but a misleading one in the context of climate. It led, Mr. Benedick now says, to "years wasted in these annual shindigs designed to generate sound bites instead of sober contemplation of difficult issues."
While it was relatively easy to phase out ozone-harming chemicals, called chlorofluorocarbons, which were made by a handful of companies in a few countries, taking on carbon dioxide, the main climate threat, was a completely different matter, he said. Carbon dioxide is generated by activities as varied as surfing the Web, driving a car, burning wood or flying to Montreal. Its production is woven into the fabric of an industrial society, and, for now, economic growth is inconceivable without it.
Developing countries - China and India being only the most dramatic examples - want to burn whatever energy they need, in whatever form available, to grow their economies and raise the living standard of their people.
Try being the prime minister of India and telling nearly one billion people that you're going to limit economic growth so as not to add more carbon dioxide to the air.
And the United States - by far the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases - continues to say that emissions targets or requirements would stunt economic growth in both rich and poor nations. All this has turned the Montreal meeting, many participants have conceded, into, at best, a preliminary meeting on how to start over in addressing the threat of global warming.
Indeed, from here on, progress on climate is less likely to come from megaconferences like the one in Montreal and more likely from focused initiatives by clusters of countries with common interests, said Mr. Benedick, who is now a consultant and president of the National Council on Science and the Environment, a private group promoting science-based environmental policies.
The only real answer at the moment is still far out on the horizon: nonpolluting energy sources. But the amount of money being devoted to research and develop such technologies, much less install them, is nowhere near the scale of the problem, many experts on energy technology said.
Because the science and technology simply isn't there. It's one thing to invest enormous amounts of money to make something work when you have a basic theory that's sound. The Manhatten Project proved that; it was enormously expensive, but Fermi, Oppenheimer and the rest had a very good idea of what they were doing and that they would be right in the end. Contrast that to the problems of generating energy without generating carbon dioxide today (with nuclear fission off the table), and there's no underlying, proven theory that you can bank on as you invest. Fusion? Bio-fuels? Geo-thermal? Solar? None of them have an underlying premise that says, 'do this, this and that, and you'll have the answer you need to have.'
Enormous investments in basic research have to be made promptly, even with the knowledge that most of the research is likely to fail, if there is to be any chance of creating options for the world's vastly increased energy thirst in a few decades, said Richard G. Richels, an economist at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit center for energy and environment research.
"The train is not leaving the station, and it needs to leave the station," Mr. Richels said. "If we don't have the technologies available at that time, it's going to be a mess."
Mr. Richels has it bass-ackwards. First you do enough small time research (small time in a comparative sense) and develop ideas that have promise. Then you spend the big dollars. Right now there's no promising idea. That's the problem of looking for one big thing. So we're left with, of all things, the Bush approach of quiet collaboration with countries and industries that have a shared interest. And that, not Kyoto, has the best chance of getting us towards controlling emissions as we continue to grow.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/05/2005 00:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And the United States - by far the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. Correct me if I'm wrong but Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is a biproduct of human exhalation (breathing). Europeans pontificating about Kyoto spew out enormous amounts of hot air at an increasing rate since Kyoto was signed.
#3
By sure numbers of Population certainly China wins but I think Europe gets extra Carbon credits for the amount of hot air their politicians have created and the heat of said air.
Either way someone should reavaluate viza-be the USA where Bush barely even defends himself.
My bet is the carbon released by Mt St Helans reuptions is far greater than anything put out by the industrialized nations and if there is a hockey stick (which I believe was disproved by the original guy who came up with the idea when he realized his data was bad) it has far more to do with Volcanic eruptions than human action.
Should we avoid shitting in our own beds, yes, but better a mess in bed than to become so poor we can't afford a bed at all.
Simple, eventually the radical greenies will want to find a way to shut down fully half of the photosynthesis cycle - the one where the process reverses from using CO2 to create oxygen (don;t tell anybody, but that's a contributor to the oxidyzing agent "ozone" which has been shown to contribute to greenhouse gas buildup) to storing and releasing excess CO2 not used in the reductase process.
All those zillions of trees will simply have to go - along with every plant that utilizes the dark/light photosynthesis cycle - that'll help clear up all that nasty haze over the forests.
Oh, yeah - that grass all over the place? That'll have to go too.
Doesn;t matter that the oceans absorb enormous quantities of CO2 and act as an enormous heat sink, that the carbon cycle is also present in the _rocks_ of the earth and that natural weathering releases gigatons of the stuff every year that's been locked up by natural processes.
Oh, no...but all that's simply real science. Can't have that.
There's nothing to see here. Move along, move along...
The dyspeptic Polly Toynbee, Britain's answer to Molly Ivins, takes on Narnia. She loses, of course, as does anyone who goes up against Aslan.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/05/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to? Poor child Edmund, to blame for everything, must bear the full weight of a guilt only Christians know how to inflict, with a twisted knife to the heart"
#3
This prune's understanding falls way short of what Jesus did for Mankind on the Cross: he risked being held in hell for all the sins that would be put on him by our confession of faith in him. His resurrection proved that no man can sin so much that he cannot be forgiven, because no man can sin as much as himself and another man.
We (and Edmund) would have cause for guilt if Jesus (Aslan) was not raised from the dead. The resurrection enables Jesus (Aslan) to say to the offender "you are forgiven." Jesus made extra sure that Peter knew (and all the disciples as well) that he, Peter, was forgiven. And while I dispute sympathetic revisions of Judas, I maintain that he, too, would have been forgiven and become a terrific disciple if he had not, by his own hand, put himself beyond confession and forgiveness.
Remember, the Left desires a monopoly on guilt, with their forgiveness conditioned on good works done on THEIR terms and judged on THEIR terms. Stop and think how many things are done in this country as a form of worldly "atonement" for sins done in the past that we are somehow guilty of, because the Left has a notion of inheritable guilt that serves their purpose and has the illusion of legitimacy.
A forgiveness and restoration freely given by an authority greater than themselves is a severe blow to their extortion schemes, which, of course, is why they denounce Christians, who proclaim true forgiveness without cost and without price, more hysterically than terrorising Islamists. In this, they see the "near threat" as greater than the "far threat".
#4
The irony is that Lewis was always tender-hearted about the Last Judgement. Comments
like Toynbee's would only confirm him in his
understanding of God's Justice
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
12/05/2005 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
After reading Toynbee's denunciation, there's only one thing to do.
I am so taking my kids to this movie. Opening night.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/05/2005 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Hear, hear, all! While I read these books when I was younger, I completely enjoyed them. And, while I was a Christian believer at the time of reading (and still am), I completely missed the "religious" side of Lewis' work. I fell in love with the characters themselves and the whole good vs. evil plot. It was only later that I came to see the almost pure genius Lewis' had. What amazes me about his writing, is how his more "religious" books (especially Mere Christianity) are VERY HARD reading, while he explains the same Christ on a child's level through the Narnia series. I read a good portion of Mere Christianity, and while I understood it, it made my head hurt to read it b/c I had to focus so much on what he was saying to understand it. Pure genius.
Posted by: BA ||
12/05/2005 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Agree, Mike, it must be good to get her head to spin and spew vomit like this.
Ptah..well said.
I have a prediction that the left is going to find religion. Nobody needs it more than they do. The only problem is that I suspect that they will become the kind of religious people that made us all think that Christians were the ultimate hypocrites. I suspect that they will embrace religion for all of the good things that the fellowship provides, yet continue to blame Israel, blame George Bush, blame those who support the Boy Scouts...etc. Ah well, I guess we all grow up to become our parents. Besides, aybe if we can get them into the pews some of them might actually experience the Grace that is the basis of Christianity.
#8
The positive nature of the Narnia books can be largely summarized by the following passage:
"Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposite, I take to me the services thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted."
Too many worshippers of Tashlan nowadays. Too many people who think they can violate every aspect of their religion, advocate murder, torture, even genocide, as long as they do it in good Jesus' name.
Most of the rest of the positive aspects of the Narnia books can be summarized in the way that Aslan is pretty much the most approachable guy around. He can be hugged, you can put your hands in his fur, he's amused with jokes and can play little jokes of his own. (Too many people think deities, even benevolent ones, need have the personality attitudes that'd characterize an antisocial psychopath if present in a human. Even books I largely liked like "The Once and Future King" seemed to think that angelic-ness would by necessity mean an unfriendly, inhuman, arrogant behaviour).
But the approachability of Aslan serves as a validation of the world and human nature as fundamentally good. An affirmation and NOT condemnation of the World. Even when the protagonists essentially reach heaven in The Last Battle, some of the first and most immediate pleasures they discover are physical joy: ability to run forever without getting tired, ability to see as far and clearly as you wish... (Such physical joys in drink/food/dance can also be seen in the mini-resurrection of Narnia in "Prince Caspian" -- once again that's a very positive elements of the books.)
#9
Thanks, 2b, and well said, Aris. One of the errors of Christianity was to adopt the body/mind|flesh/spirit dichotomy of Greek Philosophy, and ignored the belief held by its Jewish founders that the human being was a fusion of body and spirit. This led to all kinds of messes and confusions that Christianity still suffers, and pays for, to this day.
#10
Don't forget. Aslan isn't a tame lion. The Left would want a tame religion which they can use to beat themselves over the head and enslave others. Kind of like the Ape in The Last Battle putting up a fake tame Aslan in order to get people to do what he wants.
I always thought the whole idea behind redemption was that man[kind] cannot, without help, achieve redemption - being flawed. It took God, in the form of Jesus, and without sin, to make the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. Or, to coin a phrase, take a bullet for us of his own free will to provide salvation. However we, having free will, need to accept it.
I recently re-read the Narnia series from The Magician's Nephew to The Last Battle and still love the series.
#11
Too many people who think they can violate every aspect of their religion, advocate murder, torture, even genocide, as long as they do it in good Jesus' name.
nice try, Aris. Name me one person of note advocating murder, torture or genocide in Jesus' name. To the contrary, many cheeks were turned in an effort to avoid war.
#12
"Over the years, others have had uneasy doubts about the Narnian brand of Christianity. Christ should surely be no lion (let alone with the orotund voice of Liam Neeson). He was the lamb, representing the meek of the earth, weak, poor and refusing to fight."
Ah, yes, I see. The only aspects of Christianity that are good.......
....... are the ones which coincide with cultural Marxist notions of what is good.
Fart.
Posted by: No Mo Uro ||
12/05/2005 16:41 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Those who think that the God of Israel is a meek God haven't read the Bible.
The left wants to make Jesus into a limp wristed pansy boy - who walked around with a halo over his head, giving out candy canes to the children, but he was not.
If you want to understand Christianity - think Alcoholics Anonymous. You acknowledge that you are a sinner, repent of your ways, and you ask for forgivenes and it's granted so that you can move forward. There is never any expectation that you have become perfect - rather it's just the opposite....it's understood that you are going to have to work hard to fight temptation so that you can live a better life.
Think also of those saintly souls that you know who go out to dark alleys to help the drug addicts, the homeless people, the prostitutes. It's not fun or easy and it is dangerous. Not a job for the faint of heart.
#14
hmm...haven't heard from Aris. He must still be out searching google in the hope he can find a somebody advocating torture, genocide and murder in Jesus' name. Keep it up, Aris - I'm sure you can find someone.
#15
We need no holy guide books, only a very human moral compass. Everyone needs ghosts, spirits, marvels and poetic imaginings, but we can do well without an Aslan.
She sounds bitter and confused. I think she should stick to Scooby Doo.
#16
First of all, I said "people", I didn't say "people of note".
nice try, Aris. Name me one person of note advocating murder, torture or genocide in Jesus' name. To the contrary, many cheeks were turned in an effort to avoid war.
Secondly: Whatever, idiot boy: Read Read here and stop trying to turn this thread into a personal one yet again.
hmm...haven't heard from Aris. He must still be out searching google in the hope he can find a somebody advocating torture, genocide and murder in Jesus' name. Keep it up, Aris - I'm sure you can find someone.
Yeah, me being in the Balkans it was so very difficult to find people advocating crimes in religion's name. Took me two seconds to find the link -- and frankly the reasons I give you the Serbs is because, unlike you, I am not in the mood to go *much* more personal and discuss the nice little suggestions that nice little Christian Rantburgers have made in the past.
#17
Jeese, Aris, for a moment I thought you were going to have a sane comment noting that the entire WOT is based on a religion that wants to bring us to Mohammed by sword and has no problem with advocating murder, genocide and torture to achieve it.
Thanks for enlightening me with your blog entry. (scoff) I wasn't aware that the conflict in Bosnia was inspired by Christians wishing to convert their Moslem neighbors by the sword. Such a simple explanation.
#18
Let's just not mention the "methods" used by the Ottoman Turks to move people from Christianity several hundred years ago, when they conquered the region. Such a discussion would be "inconvienient"
#19
Jeese, Aris, for a moment I thought you were going to have a sane comment noting that the entire WOT is based on a religion that wants to bring us to Mohammed by sword and has no problem with advocating murder, genocide and torture to achieve it.
That would have been evasion, you absolute moron. You asked me about genocidal fanatics that preach murder, genocide, torture, in the name of *Jesus*, not Allah.
Perhaps you yourself don't read your own words, but I do.
Thanks for enlightening me with your blog entry. (scoff)
Jeez, 2b, for a moment I had wondered you were gonna admit the ludicrousness of your former attempts to pretend that there are no genocidal pretend-Christians at all.
But nope, yet again, your dishonest tactics show themselves once more. Nice "scoff" there. (Btw, you've never read what CS Lewis says about scoffers in the Screwtape Letters, have you?)
I wasn't aware that the conflict in Bosnia was inspired by Christians wishing to convert their Moslem neighbors by the sword. Such a simple explanation.
Now, did I claim that anywhere? Nice dishonesty yet again. Nice strawman. Nice evasion. Nice scoffing.
Nice lies. You asked me a question. After less than two hours (during which time I was watching a movie) you mocked me, claiming that I was incapable of answering it.
When I had seen your post, I answered it completely and easily in two seconds.
At which point you "scoff" yet again. You know why scoffers are the lowest form of moral creatures, 2b, even worse than ad hominem attackers? Because in their "scoffing", they don't actually attack any point of their opponent's argument, or even their opponent as a person, they attack the whole idea of moral decision-making and meaningful debate as a whole. They try to reduce the whole of human morality into a gigglefest of point-and-mock.
Congrats, 2b, you made the thread personal yet again. And showed yourself for the worm that you are.
#20
"We need no holy guide books, only a very human moral compass." Ummmm, where do you think that moral compass came from ass-hat lady?
It is Europe's secularism that will be its downfall. The continent is adrift because it's moral compass has lost the bearing point. It is a soceital sickness that will not easily be cured.
I would guess that the people will only cry for Christ when real pain and danger is upon them. Sad that it would come to that.
#21
Let's just not mention the "methods" used by the Ottoman Turks to move people from Christianity several hundred years ago, when they conquered the region. Such a discussion would be "inconvienient"
You are making my very point about Tashlan, though you can't see it. That you seem to care about in whose deity's name something was done, rather than the good or evil of the deed itself.
Instead of arguing that the Serbs increased the number of crimes committed by the previous Ottoman worshippers of Tashlan, you seem to think that they are somehow on different sides of the scales, to be weighed *against* each other -- just because they used a different deity's name to do their works for.
#22
Poly's an angry lil bitch, ain't she? What Wally George helped her reproduce? That much spite makes you sick - ask Molly
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/05/2005 19:50 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Too many worshippers of Tashlan nowadays. Too many people who think they can violate every aspect of their religion, advocate murder, torture, even genocide, as long as they do it in good Jesus' name.
You fool only yourself Aris. I merely pointed out the obvious. Your bigoted attempt at slurring Christians was pathetically obvious and ridiculous considering today's reality - something you are detached from. The best you can do is to support your claim was a blog entry. I scoff again. Seems the Turks would have been first on your mind, since you are such a pious soul.
I'd tell you to go to hell, but that would be un-Christian of me. Instead I'll turn the other cheek. Perhaps .com can provide an appropriate graphic.
#24
Scoff away. Your whole argument is reduced to the fact of what? that you don't seem to like blogs? --- you are not even disputing that genocide and murder happened and was blessed by Christian churches in the Balkans, you simply scoff that I picked a blog entry that detailed such. Fine, you pick one of the thousand other sources that will tell you exactly the same.
When you can't scoff at the argument, scoff at the words. When you can't scoff at the words, scoff at the source. When you can't scoff at the source, scoff at the style of the webpage.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Nope. Not war. If you prevent enemy combatants from getting enough shuteye, make them sit in uncomfortable positions or mock their genitals, â you have crossed the line in the 21st century. No, war has gotten a conscience (unless, of course, youâre a âfreedom fighter,â in which case strapping plastic explosives to yourself and walking into a school, market or mosque is fair). Actually, the answer is politics. âAll is fair in love and politics.â Try it out. It may not sound right at first, but youâll warm to it. Youâll have to, because this new maxim has more verity than the old one. Consider this synopsis and cast of characters: A congressional minority embittered by a presidential victory by the incumbent. A rapacious âspecial prosecutor.â An apparent white lie before a grand jury. An alleged big lie to the nation. A nation divided. Sen. Edward Kennedy, Rep. John Murtha, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Robert Byrd and the gang? Patrick Fitzgerald? Scooter Libby? WMDs? Red and blue states? 
