The Associated Press is reporting that the FBI spied on over 3,500 U.S. citizens and legal residents last year without court approval. They secretly combed through our bank and credit card info and our telephone and Internet records.
[Read story.]
They're supposedly doing this to catch terrorists. You see, reading your e-mail from your Aunt Millie will help them to uncover new al-Qaeda plots. Uh-huh.
And, if their spying is so legitimate, why do they not get a court order?
29 April 2006
Mark Fiore on Darfur
Tomorrow I expect to be in Washington, DC, for the big rally to stop the genocide in Darfur.
Fittingly, this week's new animation by political cartoonist Mark Fiore addresses the crisis in Darfur and the world's apparent (and inexcusable) apathy. [Check it out.]
Fittingly, this week's new animation by political cartoonist Mark Fiore addresses the crisis in Darfur and the world's apparent (and inexcusable) apathy. [Check it out.]
28 April 2006
William Fisher on immigration: We can all agree on this, right?
In a piece posted yesterday at truthout.org, Bill Fisher does an excellent job of addressing an aspect of the immigration issue that most people have probably not thought about. But in my work with Amnesty International, I deal with it all the time.
An excerpt from Bill's article:
-----
In the unlikely event that our senators and congresspersons come together to pass an immigration bill sometime in this century, it is virtually certain to overlook a heartbreakingly simple humanitarian issue: battered women seeking asylum.
This is far from a new issue. It has been kicking around for years - and it has been kicked around for years.
Kicked from the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) within the wildly dysfunctional Department of Homeland Security. And to compound this bureaucratic nightmare, BCIS now shares jurisdiction with the Justice Department (DOJ) for preparation of new guidelines that would cover this category of asylum seeker.
Rewind to 1995, when the INS actually produced some acceptable guidelines concerning women's issues. There was only one problem: the INS failed to follow its own guidelines.
That little lapse resulted in the bizarre case of Rodi Alvarado, a Guatemalan woman who was subjected to extreme domestic violence by her husband, who broke her jaw, kicked her when she was pregnant, wielded a machete and threatened that if she tried to escape he would leave her wheelchair-bound for the rest of her life.
In 1995, Mrs. Alvarado did escape - to the United States, which granted her asylum. But this decision was immediately appealed by the INS and overturned by the Justice Department's Board of Immigration Appeals in 1999.
The Board claimed she was not seeking asylum due to membership in a social group, political opinion, race, religion or nationality. They claimed she needed to show a nexus between the beatings and her political opinion or membership in a social group.
She was allowed to remain in the US pending an appeal of the appeal. And she's still here, living in California and working in a convent.
Near the end of the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno proposed regulations to expand the ability of victims of domestic violence (and other gender-related human rights abuses like trafficking, sexual slavery and honor killing) to seek asylum in the United States.
But those regulations were never implemented. And when John Ashcroft became attorney general, he failed to recommend that the regulations be adopted. Instead, he re-certified Ms. Alvarado's case to himself in order to review it, since the attorney general has authority to make decisions on any immigration case.
But Ashcroft left office in 2004 without making a decision. He said the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security should agree on a set of guidelines covering women's issues, including domestic violence.
Since then, both agencies continue to claim they are working on these guidelines. Despite the fact that proposed regulations were drawn up back in December 2000, nothing has been finalized in more than five years.
According to Rodi Alvarado's lawyer, Karen Musalo, of the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, "The complication, as we understand it, is that now both DHS and DOJ have jurisdiction over the regulations because of the reorganization of the INS, and there has not been consensus between the two agencies on how to proceed."
One has to wonder about how hard these two taxpayer-funded behemoths are working to solve the problem.
Meantime, Mrs. Alvarado and others in her predicament remain in legal limbo.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt from Bill's article:
-----
In the unlikely event that our senators and congresspersons come together to pass an immigration bill sometime in this century, it is virtually certain to overlook a heartbreakingly simple humanitarian issue: battered women seeking asylum.
This is far from a new issue. It has been kicking around for years - and it has been kicked around for years.
Kicked from the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) within the wildly dysfunctional Department of Homeland Security. And to compound this bureaucratic nightmare, BCIS now shares jurisdiction with the Justice Department (DOJ) for preparation of new guidelines that would cover this category of asylum seeker.
Rewind to 1995, when the INS actually produced some acceptable guidelines concerning women's issues. There was only one problem: the INS failed to follow its own guidelines.
That little lapse resulted in the bizarre case of Rodi Alvarado, a Guatemalan woman who was subjected to extreme domestic violence by her husband, who broke her jaw, kicked her when she was pregnant, wielded a machete and threatened that if she tried to escape he would leave her wheelchair-bound for the rest of her life.
In 1995, Mrs. Alvarado did escape - to the United States, which granted her asylum. But this decision was immediately appealed by the INS and overturned by the Justice Department's Board of Immigration Appeals in 1999.
The Board claimed she was not seeking asylum due to membership in a social group, political opinion, race, religion or nationality. They claimed she needed to show a nexus between the beatings and her political opinion or membership in a social group.
She was allowed to remain in the US pending an appeal of the appeal. And she's still here, living in California and working in a convent.
Near the end of the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno proposed regulations to expand the ability of victims of domestic violence (and other gender-related human rights abuses like trafficking, sexual slavery and honor killing) to seek asylum in the United States.
But those regulations were never implemented. And when John Ashcroft became attorney general, he failed to recommend that the regulations be adopted. Instead, he re-certified Ms. Alvarado's case to himself in order to review it, since the attorney general has authority to make decisions on any immigration case.
But Ashcroft left office in 2004 without making a decision. He said the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security should agree on a set of guidelines covering women's issues, including domestic violence.
Since then, both agencies continue to claim they are working on these guidelines. Despite the fact that proposed regulations were drawn up back in December 2000, nothing has been finalized in more than five years.
According to Rodi Alvarado's lawyer, Karen Musalo, of the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, "The complication, as we understand it, is that now both DHS and DOJ have jurisdiction over the regulations because of the reorganization of the INS, and there has not been consensus between the two agencies on how to proceed."
One has to wonder about how hard these two taxpayer-funded behemoths are working to solve the problem.
Meantime, Mrs. Alvarado and others in her predicament remain in legal limbo.
-----
[Read more.]
27 April 2006
Sierra Club: Bush speech on gas prices ignores real solutions
George W. Bush's approval ratings have gone even lower now that the price of gasoline has hit $3.00 per gallon. Bush's policies are now hitting average Americans where it counts -- their wallets.
So the White House is in damage control mode, and Bush is now suddenly Mr. Conservation.
Bull.
He is not offering any real solutions to the real problems.
The Sierra Club has released a statement in response to Bush's Tuesday speech.
While I maintain that it is critical that we get serious about developing alternative fuels and vehicles that will run on them, in the meantime we need better short-term solutions. The Sierra Club's statement addresses that aspect.
An excerpt:
-----
While rising gas prices are hitting American consumers in the pocketbook, President Bush continues to ignore the most obvious and practical solutions to help consumers save money at the gas pump and cut America’s dangerous dependence on oil. The biggest single step we can take toward saving money at the gas pump, curbing global warming, and cutting America’s oil dependence is to make our cars, trucks, and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gas.
No investigation is needed to understand that America deserves a better energy policy. While it is important to investigate whether price gouging is driving up gasoline prices, there is a deeper crisis facing the country. In the State of the Union, President Bush admitted that America is addicted to oil. But instead of taking steps to cut that addiction, the Bush administration has continued to move forward with its disastrous energy policy that ignores real solutions. The President continues to promote technologies that are years or even decades away from becoming available in order to distract the American people from the devastating realities of today resulting from his failed energy policy.
The technology exists today to make all new cars, SUVs, and other light trucks average 40 miles per gallon within the next ten years. Taking this step would save the average driver over $2,200 at the gas pump over the lifetime of their vehicle. It would also save more oil than the United States currently imports from the entire Persian Gulf and could ever get out of the Arctic Refuge, combined.
But instead of putting this technology to work, the Bush administration has allowed its energy policy to be controlled by its friends in the oil and auto industry. Just two months ago, the Bush administration announced pathetic new fuel economy standards for light trucks that by the administration’s own admission would save less than two weeks worth of oil over four years. While the President pays lip service to hybrid vehicles, his new fuel standards give the auto industry a perverse incentive to make more of the biggest, least efficient vehicles on the road.
-----
[Read more.]
So the White House is in damage control mode, and Bush is now suddenly Mr. Conservation.
Bull.
He is not offering any real solutions to the real problems.
The Sierra Club has released a statement in response to Bush's Tuesday speech.
While I maintain that it is critical that we get serious about developing alternative fuels and vehicles that will run on them, in the meantime we need better short-term solutions. The Sierra Club's statement addresses that aspect.
An excerpt:
-----
While rising gas prices are hitting American consumers in the pocketbook, President Bush continues to ignore the most obvious and practical solutions to help consumers save money at the gas pump and cut America’s dangerous dependence on oil. The biggest single step we can take toward saving money at the gas pump, curbing global warming, and cutting America’s oil dependence is to make our cars, trucks, and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gas.
No investigation is needed to understand that America deserves a better energy policy. While it is important to investigate whether price gouging is driving up gasoline prices, there is a deeper crisis facing the country. In the State of the Union, President Bush admitted that America is addicted to oil. But instead of taking steps to cut that addiction, the Bush administration has continued to move forward with its disastrous energy policy that ignores real solutions. The President continues to promote technologies that are years or even decades away from becoming available in order to distract the American people from the devastating realities of today resulting from his failed energy policy.
The technology exists today to make all new cars, SUVs, and other light trucks average 40 miles per gallon within the next ten years. Taking this step would save the average driver over $2,200 at the gas pump over the lifetime of their vehicle. It would also save more oil than the United States currently imports from the entire Persian Gulf and could ever get out of the Arctic Refuge, combined.
But instead of putting this technology to work, the Bush administration has allowed its energy policy to be controlled by its friends in the oil and auto industry. Just two months ago, the Bush administration announced pathetic new fuel economy standards for light trucks that by the administration’s own admission would save less than two weeks worth of oil over four years. While the President pays lip service to hybrid vehicles, his new fuel standards give the auto industry a perverse incentive to make more of the biggest, least efficient vehicles on the road.
-----
[Read more.]
26 April 2006
William Fisher: Someone does not mean anyone
In a very interesting piece at truthout.org, Bill Fisher explores how Zakarias Moussaoui has become terrorism's scapegoat.
An excerpt:
-----
The trial of Zakarias Moussaoui has all the makings of a soap opera. If Kafka wrote soap operas, that is.
Consider the cast of characters:
A defendant who alternately proclaimed his innocence and boasted of his guilt.
A prosecution that magnified the importance of a bit player in the 9/11 terrorist plot, and put the death penalty on the table despite charging him not with doing anything, but only with conspiring to do something.
A government that claimed that if only Moussaoui had not lied to the FBI, they could have prevented the attacks of 9/11, even though on 9/11 Moussaoui was in a Minnesota jail, while FBI headquarters was minimizing repeated alarms from its Minneapolis field office about Moussaoui's flight training.
A heart-wrenching chorus of survivors of 9/11 victims, unified in their view that the defendant was guilty of committing a crime, but divided about whether to exact retribution by executing him (thus conferring the martyrdom he says he welcomes), or jailing him for life (so that he will have to look in the mirror every morning and hate himself for the terror he wrought). Except that he didn't actually commit any act of terrorism. And, judging from his testimony, if he hated himself for anything it would be for not killing any American infidels.
Psychiatrists who painted the defendant as a paranoid schizophrenic, prompting some of us to label him "crazy" and others to decide he's "crazy as a fox."
A media that slavishly focused on the defendant's bizarre courtroom rantings and portrayed the trial as some kind of 21st century passion play about retribution vs. forgiveness, good vs. evil.
But there remains a major issue this trial has ignored. As lawyer David Cole wrote me, "There is something fundamentally wrong with trying to execute Moussaoui, an admittedly marginal figure who was not himself even involved in the planning of 9/11, when we have detained the mastermind of the attack, and the alleged 20th hijacker, but have brought no charges against them - and probably never will, because our torture of them effectively immunizes them from prosecution."
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
The trial of Zakarias Moussaoui has all the makings of a soap opera. If Kafka wrote soap operas, that is.
Consider the cast of characters:
A defendant who alternately proclaimed his innocence and boasted of his guilt.
A prosecution that magnified the importance of a bit player in the 9/11 terrorist plot, and put the death penalty on the table despite charging him not with doing anything, but only with conspiring to do something.
A government that claimed that if only Moussaoui had not lied to the FBI, they could have prevented the attacks of 9/11, even though on 9/11 Moussaoui was in a Minnesota jail, while FBI headquarters was minimizing repeated alarms from its Minneapolis field office about Moussaoui's flight training.
A heart-wrenching chorus of survivors of 9/11 victims, unified in their view that the defendant was guilty of committing a crime, but divided about whether to exact retribution by executing him (thus conferring the martyrdom he says he welcomes), or jailing him for life (so that he will have to look in the mirror every morning and hate himself for the terror he wrought). Except that he didn't actually commit any act of terrorism. And, judging from his testimony, if he hated himself for anything it would be for not killing any American infidels.
Psychiatrists who painted the defendant as a paranoid schizophrenic, prompting some of us to label him "crazy" and others to decide he's "crazy as a fox."
A media that slavishly focused on the defendant's bizarre courtroom rantings and portrayed the trial as some kind of 21st century passion play about retribution vs. forgiveness, good vs. evil.
But there remains a major issue this trial has ignored. As lawyer David Cole wrote me, "There is something fundamentally wrong with trying to execute Moussaoui, an admittedly marginal figure who was not himself even involved in the planning of 9/11, when we have detained the mastermind of the attack, and the alleged 20th hijacker, but have brought no charges against them - and probably never will, because our torture of them effectively immunizes them from prosecution."
-----
[Read more.]
Human Rights Watch: States negligent in use of lethal injections
To the observer, it looks like a peaceful way to go. But lethal injection has come under fire lately due to evidence that the paralyzing component of the three-drug cocktail might simply hide the fact that a prisoner might be experiencing excruciating pain during execution.
The excellent organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) has just released a 65-page report on problems with the use of lethal injection in executions in the U.S.
According to HRW, "incompetence, negligence, and irresponsibility by U.S. states puts condemned prisoners at needless risk of excruciating pain during lethal injection."
There are some who say that the criminals on death row deserve to suffer a painful death. However, the fact remains that the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
[Read more on the HRW site.]
The excellent organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) has just released a 65-page report on problems with the use of lethal injection in executions in the U.S.
According to HRW, "incompetence, negligence, and irresponsibility by U.S. states puts condemned prisoners at needless risk of excruciating pain during lethal injection."
There are some who say that the criminals on death row deserve to suffer a painful death. However, the fact remains that the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
[Read more on the HRW site.]
25 April 2006
US to release one-third of prisoners at Gitmo
Whenever I write about the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere, I get hate mail from people who insist that those prisoners are "the worst of the worst" and that they deserve the treatment they get. These critics will not accept that a large number of detainees are actually not guilty of terrorism but have been falsely imprisoned.
Will they change their tune with today's big news? (Unfortunately, they probably will not.)
From the Christian Science Monitor:
-----
The same day that the Department of Defense announced that it was going to file charges against more of the detainees being held at the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, including the death penalty in some cases, it also quietly announced that it was going to release 141 of the prisoners.
The Los Angeles Times said the US plans to release about one-third of the men being held at the prison because they pose no threat to the United States.
-----
[Read more.]
Will they change their tune with today's big news? (Unfortunately, they probably will not.)
From the Christian Science Monitor:
-----
The same day that the Department of Defense announced that it was going to file charges against more of the detainees being held at the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, including the death penalty in some cases, it also quietly announced that it was going to release 141 of the prisoners.
The Los Angeles Times said the US plans to release about one-third of the men being held at the prison because they pose no threat to the United States.
-----
[Read more.]
Today is Equal Pay Day (and women are still not paid fairly)
We women have come a long way since our grandmothers' day, but we still have a long way to go. The actual statistics regarding pay inequality are disturbing.
From a news release from the National Organization for Women:
-----
Today, April 25, is Equal Pay Day -- the day when women's average earnings finally catch up with the amount men earned on average in the previous calendar year alone. At our founding in 1966, the National Organization for Women identified the wage gap and its negative impact on women. Forty years later, the gap remains wide and progress has slowed to a crawl. Now, women working full-time, year-round, are paid only about three-quarters as much as men, and African-American women and Latinas receive even less.
Women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. According to data from the Department of Labor, women are paid less than men in every occupation for which sufficient information is available—more than 300 job classifications. This disparity not only affects women's day-to-day spending power; it also affects their retirement by penalizing them through gaps in social security and pensions. In spite of the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the pay gap remains, having closed by an average of less than half a penny per year since the act was passed.
[...]
If women were paid as much as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education and union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, then women's annual income would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half. Working families would gain an astounding $200 billion in family income annually.
"It is shameful that, in the United States of America, women are paid so much less than men—and that that there is so little political will to deal with the disparity," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "These inequities are injuring women and our families. Both employers and politicians are way past due in demonstrating that they value women's contributions as much as they value men's."
-----
[Read more.]
From a news release from the National Organization for Women:
-----
Today, April 25, is Equal Pay Day -- the day when women's average earnings finally catch up with the amount men earned on average in the previous calendar year alone. At our founding in 1966, the National Organization for Women identified the wage gap and its negative impact on women. Forty years later, the gap remains wide and progress has slowed to a crawl. Now, women working full-time, year-round, are paid only about three-quarters as much as men, and African-American women and Latinas receive even less.
Women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. According to data from the Department of Labor, women are paid less than men in every occupation for which sufficient information is available—more than 300 job classifications. This disparity not only affects women's day-to-day spending power; it also affects their retirement by penalizing them through gaps in social security and pensions. In spite of the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the pay gap remains, having closed by an average of less than half a penny per year since the act was passed.
[...]
If women were paid as much as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education and union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, then women's annual income would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half. Working families would gain an astounding $200 billion in family income annually.
"It is shameful that, in the United States of America, women are paid so much less than men—and that that there is so little political will to deal with the disparity," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "These inequities are injuring women and our families. Both employers and politicians are way past due in demonstrating that they value women's contributions as much as they value men's."
-----
[Read more.]
More fun with CIA leaks
The plot thickens in the case of CIA agent Mary McCarthy, who was fired last week for supposedly leaking information about the CIA's network of secret prisons to the press.
While the CIA at the time had indicated that McCarthy had confessed to the leak, apparently she is now denying it. And her lawyer has indicated that McCarthy didn't even have access to the information in question.
Furthermore, we now learn that McCarthy had worked in the Clinton administration and for the John Kerry campaign.
[Read the latest.]
Valerie Plame's CIA career was destroyed because she was married to a critic of the Bush administration. Could the McCarthy thing be another case of an innocent CIA employee being unjustly punished for the company she keeps? Or was she simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?
While the CIA at the time had indicated that McCarthy had confessed to the leak, apparently she is now denying it. And her lawyer has indicated that McCarthy didn't even have access to the information in question.
Furthermore, we now learn that McCarthy had worked in the Clinton administration and for the John Kerry campaign.
[Read the latest.]
Valerie Plame's CIA career was destroyed because she was married to a critic of the Bush administration. Could the McCarthy thing be another case of an innocent CIA employee being unjustly punished for the company she keeps? Or was she simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?
More arguments against nuking Iran
Each day, I stumble upon more and more good reasons why Bush should not attack Iran.
Here are the latest ones worth checking out:
• A British perspective from The Times (UK): The madness of bombing Iran
• An eye-opening animation from the Union of Concerned Scientists: The Nuclear Bunker Buster
Here are the latest ones worth checking out:
• A British perspective from The Times (UK): The madness of bombing Iran
• An eye-opening animation from the Union of Concerned Scientists: The Nuclear Bunker Buster
24 April 2006
Osama is back to remind us that he remains free
So now we have a new video of (supposedly) Osama bin Laden directing some new threats at the west. [Read story.]
But that's fine. Bush has destroyed Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein, so we're in good shape. Uh-huh.
Thanks, George.
But that's fine. Bush has destroyed Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein, so we're in good shape. Uh-huh.
Thanks, George.
Blogger having technical difficulties
It looks as though my daily posts will arrive much later than usual, as Blogger is having technical difficulties...
23 April 2006
They just keep on shooting the messengers
Now a CIA analyst has been fired for leaking information about the CIA's network of secret prisons to the press. [Read story.]
While I recognize that there are some intelligence secrets that must remain guarded, it seems that this kind of stuff only hits the fan when the leak exposes some kind of illegal action on the part of the Bush administration (e.g., using a secret network of prisons, outing a CIA agent, etc.).
In this case, we should be alarmed not by the leak but by the information that it revealed. This is supposed to be an open democracy. Secret prisons have no place here.
Shooting the messenger is an obvious attempt to cloud the issue.
While I recognize that there are some intelligence secrets that must remain guarded, it seems that this kind of stuff only hits the fan when the leak exposes some kind of illegal action on the part of the Bush administration (e.g., using a secret network of prisons, outing a CIA agent, etc.).
In this case, we should be alarmed not by the leak but by the information that it revealed. This is supposed to be an open democracy. Secret prisons have no place here.
Shooting the messenger is an obvious attempt to cloud the issue.
Mike Carlton: "Tide turns on Dubya's wreck"
In an excellent column in the Sydney Morning Herald, Mike Carlton shares an Australian perspective of the Bush administration.
It's definitely worth reading.
An excerpt:
-----
SYDNEY, NSW, is a long way from Washington DC but, even at this distance, it is clear that the Bush Administration is falling to pieces.
In recent weeks, scanning the political coverage in the mainstream US media and sampling the blogs has been to watch a flood tide ebbing to reveal a rotting, skeletal hulk. It is the George W. Bush ship of fools, stuck in the mud for the world to see in all its mendacity, its incompetence, its faith-based stupidity.
It is possible, at this late stage, that even Bush himself has begun to realise something is wrong. That oddly simian face is ashen, the eyes leaden. The voice is shrill and its tone defensive.
"I'm the decider and I decide what's best," he squawked to reporters in the White House rose garden the other day, as the screws turned tighter on his disastrous Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Can you imagine Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Kennedy blurting something like that?
-----
[Read more.]
It's definitely worth reading.
An excerpt:
-----
SYDNEY, NSW, is a long way from Washington DC but, even at this distance, it is clear that the Bush Administration is falling to pieces.
In recent weeks, scanning the political coverage in the mainstream US media and sampling the blogs has been to watch a flood tide ebbing to reveal a rotting, skeletal hulk. It is the George W. Bush ship of fools, stuck in the mud for the world to see in all its mendacity, its incompetence, its faith-based stupidity.
It is possible, at this late stage, that even Bush himself has begun to realise something is wrong. That oddly simian face is ashen, the eyes leaden. The voice is shrill and its tone defensive.
"I'm the decider and I decide what's best," he squawked to reporters in the White House rose garden the other day, as the screws turned tighter on his disastrous Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Can you imagine Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Kennedy blurting something like that?
-----
[Read more.]
Bush irony of the week: Has protester arrested while verbally promoting freedom
In reflecting on the past week's events, the one that stands out in my mind took place during the visit to Washington of Chinese President Hu Jintao.
As Bush and Hu spoke about working together to advance freedom, the Secret Service forcibly removed a female protester who shouted a plea asking Bush to stop Hu from killing innocent people in China.
Instead, Bush apologized to Hu for the the fact that the woman exercised an essential liberty guaranteed by the Consitution. In essence, he was apologizing for democracy.
[Read story.]
As Bush and Hu spoke about working together to advance freedom, the Secret Service forcibly removed a female protester who shouted a plea asking Bush to stop Hu from killing innocent people in China.
Instead, Bush apologized to Hu for the the fact that the woman exercised an essential liberty guaranteed by the Consitution. In essence, he was apologizing for democracy.
[Read story.]
22 April 2006
Are meat eaters aiding global warming?
Today, 22 April, is Earth Day 2006.
Many will be marking this date by taking some action to benefit the planet, or to learn more about environmental issues.
On this day, you might also want to consider the effect that your diet has upon this planet.
Recent research suggests that eating meat may be "as bad for the planet as it is for our bodies."
According to one of the researchers, changing your diet can have an effect on the planet that is "comparable to the difference between driving an SUV and driving a reasonable sedan."
[Read more.]
I'm proud to be a Corolla-driving vegetarian.
Many will be marking this date by taking some action to benefit the planet, or to learn more about environmental issues.
On this day, you might also want to consider the effect that your diet has upon this planet.
Recent research suggests that eating meat may be "as bad for the planet as it is for our bodies."
According to one of the researchers, changing your diet can have an effect on the planet that is "comparable to the difference between driving an SUV and driving a reasonable sedan."
[Read more.]
I'm proud to be a Corolla-driving vegetarian.
21 April 2006
More proof that lots of innocent people are being tortured at Gitmo
We have known for some time via reports by Amnesty International and other human rights/civil liberties groups that a majority of detainees by the U.S. military on the "war on terror" are probably innocent of any terrorist ties. They simply had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and/or fell victim to the U.S. military's policy of paying bounty hunters for random bodies. Or whatever.
But that doesn't matter to King George W. These prisoners have no rights. Guilty until proven innocent, but no legal means to prove your innocence.
Sound fair to you? I hope not.
Well, now that the Pentagon has been forced to release the names and nationalities of the 558 Gitmo detainees, the stuff is hitting the fan, and countries around the globe are demanding that the U.S. government cut the nonsense and release their citizens from unjust detention.
[Read more.]
Will Dubya listen? Or will he just continue to give the world an arrogant smirk -- with impunity?
But that doesn't matter to King George W. These prisoners have no rights. Guilty until proven innocent, but no legal means to prove your innocence.
Sound fair to you? I hope not.
Well, now that the Pentagon has been forced to release the names and nationalities of the 558 Gitmo detainees, the stuff is hitting the fan, and countries around the globe are demanding that the U.S. government cut the nonsense and release their citizens from unjust detention.
[Read more.]
Will Dubya listen? Or will he just continue to give the world an arrogant smirk -- with impunity?
William Fisher on torture policy: Getting closer to the top?
More good dirt from Bill Fisher: In a new piece on truthout.org, he reveals evidence of torture moving beyond "a few bad apples" to much higher up the tree.
An excerpt:
-----
In less than a month, we may finally get to hear from the army general who ordered commanders at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison to "get dogs."
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who ran the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then was sent to Iraq to "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib, has been silent on his role in introducing cruel and degrading interrogation techniques to that prison.
Originally, Gen. Miller invoked his military rights not to incriminate himself. But last week, a military judge ordered prosecutors to produce him on May 17 as a witness for the defense in the trial of a military dog handler accused of abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib.
Defense lawyers have said it was Miller who first told intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib to "get dogs" to exploit Arab fears of the animals.
As reported by The Washington Post, Miller's appearance "will give defense attorneys a chance to question Miller about the use of dogs in security and interrogation operations at Guantanamo and in Iraq. It also means lawyers could use Miller's testimony to attempt to draw connections between the alleged abuse and the policies developed by top Pentagon officials who had regular contact with Miller when he was the commander at Guantanamo."
Witnesses in other cases have testified that Miller went to Iraq at the request of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who wanted to "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib. Tactics used on detainees in Iraq - including dogs, a dog leash and placing women's underwear on their heads - were the same as those used on one Guantanamo Bay detainee in 2002.
So, it seems, we inch closer to the top - to the White House and Pentagon policy makers who sliced and diced the Geneva Conventions to redefine torture, and left the grunts who followed orders to pay the price.
Miller would be the first general and the highest-ranking officer to testify in any case connected to the now infamous abuses at Abu Ghraib. Lawyers for Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, 31, are the first to be successful in persuading a judge that his involvement could shed light on how dogs came to be used to threaten high-value detainees during interrogations in Iraq in late 2003.
One of Cardona's lawyers said he plans to question Miller about the Rumsfeld-inspired trip he made to Iraq to advise US officials on how to get better intelligence.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
In less than a month, we may finally get to hear from the army general who ordered commanders at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison to "get dogs."
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who ran the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then was sent to Iraq to "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib, has been silent on his role in introducing cruel and degrading interrogation techniques to that prison.
Originally, Gen. Miller invoked his military rights not to incriminate himself. But last week, a military judge ordered prosecutors to produce him on May 17 as a witness for the defense in the trial of a military dog handler accused of abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib.
Defense lawyers have said it was Miller who first told intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib to "get dogs" to exploit Arab fears of the animals.
As reported by The Washington Post, Miller's appearance "will give defense attorneys a chance to question Miller about the use of dogs in security and interrogation operations at Guantanamo and in Iraq. It also means lawyers could use Miller's testimony to attempt to draw connections between the alleged abuse and the policies developed by top Pentagon officials who had regular contact with Miller when he was the commander at Guantanamo."
Witnesses in other cases have testified that Miller went to Iraq at the request of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who wanted to "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib. Tactics used on detainees in Iraq - including dogs, a dog leash and placing women's underwear on their heads - were the same as those used on one Guantanamo Bay detainee in 2002.
So, it seems, we inch closer to the top - to the White House and Pentagon policy makers who sliced and diced the Geneva Conventions to redefine torture, and left the grunts who followed orders to pay the price.
Miller would be the first general and the highest-ranking officer to testify in any case connected to the now infamous abuses at Abu Ghraib. Lawyers for Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, 31, are the first to be successful in persuading a judge that his involvement could shed light on how dogs came to be used to threaten high-value detainees during interrogations in Iraq in late 2003.
One of Cardona's lawyers said he plans to question Miller about the Rumsfeld-inspired trip he made to Iraq to advise US officials on how to get better intelligence.
-----
[Read more.]
William Fisher: In terror war, not all names are equal
In Bush's world, Muslim charities are guilty of terrorism until proven innocent. And even when proven innocent, it might not matter.
In IPS News, Bill Fisher reports that the non-profit group OMB Watch has accused the U.S. government of using the "war on terror" to give preferential treatment to law-breaking companies like Halliburton (Dick Cheney's organization), while discriminating against (and shutting down) Muslim charities that often have no opportunity to prove that they have no ties to terrorism.
In Bush's world, you are judged not by the quality of the work you do, but by your skin color and religious affiliation. This is Bush's crusade.
[Read story.]
In IPS News, Bill Fisher reports that the non-profit group OMB Watch has accused the U.S. government of using the "war on terror" to give preferential treatment to law-breaking companies like Halliburton (Dick Cheney's organization), while discriminating against (and shutting down) Muslim charities that often have no opportunity to prove that they have no ties to terrorism.
In Bush's world, you are judged not by the quality of the work you do, but by your skin color and religious affiliation. This is Bush's crusade.
[Read story.]
20 April 2006
China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the USA: The top four countries that execute their citizens
Today, Amnesty International published its annual report on the death penalty.
According to an Amnesty press release, the U.S. remains one of the top executing countries, along with China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Together the four nations accounted for 94 percent of all executions worldwide in 2005.
George W. Bush must be so proud.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world (the civilized portion), the annual number of executions has fallen dramatically.
[Read more.]
According to an Amnesty press release, the U.S. remains one of the top executing countries, along with China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Together the four nations accounted for 94 percent of all executions worldwide in 2005.
George W. Bush must be so proud.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world (the civilized portion), the annual number of executions has fallen dramatically.
[Read more.]
"I'm the Decider, koo koo ka choo"
I don't often post humor to this site, but someone has created a great new song about George W. Bush that's worth checking out.
The lyrics and audio are available on the Huffington Post site.
[Check it out.]
The lyrics and audio are available on the Huffington Post site.
[Check it out.]
Mark Morford: Iran, You Ran, Let's Bomb Iran
In his latest column, the inimitable Mark Morford analyzes Bush's desperate need to blow up another country -- this time possibly with nukes. [Read it.]
UN torture panel presses US on detainees
The United Nations committee against torture wants to hold the U.S. accountable for prisoner abuse and renditions. Will they succeed, or will Bush continue to find ways to evade accountability for his crimes?
From Reuters via truthout.org:
-----
The United Nations committee against torture has demanded that the United States provide more information about its treatment of prisoners at home and foreign terrorism suspects held in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
In questions submitted to Washington, the panel also sought information about secret detention facilities and specifically whether the United States assumed responsibility for alleged acts of torture in them, U.N. officials said on Tuesday.
"It is the longest list of issues I have ever seen," Mercedes Morales, a U.N. human rights officer who serves as secretary to the U.N. Committee against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, told reporters.
Washington is expected to send a delegation of 30 officials to defend its record at a meeting next month in Geneva of the committee, composed of 10 independent human rights experts.
The debate, set for May 5 and May 8, will focus on a report filed a year ago by the United States on its compliance with the Convention against Torture, which bans all forms of torture.
Washington said at the time it was abiding by the treaty and that any abuses of detainees in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were not systemic. Critics called the report a whitewash.
The U.N. committee has responded, asking firstly how memoranda from the U.S. Justice Department declaring that torture covers only extreme acts is compatible with the treaty.
It asked whether there had been any independent investigation into "the possible responsibility of high-ranking officials" for authorizing or consenting to acts of torture committed during interrogation of detainees.
-----
[Read more.]
From Reuters via truthout.org:
-----
The United Nations committee against torture has demanded that the United States provide more information about its treatment of prisoners at home and foreign terrorism suspects held in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
In questions submitted to Washington, the panel also sought information about secret detention facilities and specifically whether the United States assumed responsibility for alleged acts of torture in them, U.N. officials said on Tuesday.
"It is the longest list of issues I have ever seen," Mercedes Morales, a U.N. human rights officer who serves as secretary to the U.N. Committee against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, told reporters.
Washington is expected to send a delegation of 30 officials to defend its record at a meeting next month in Geneva of the committee, composed of 10 independent human rights experts.
The debate, set for May 5 and May 8, will focus on a report filed a year ago by the United States on its compliance with the Convention against Torture, which bans all forms of torture.
Washington said at the time it was abiding by the treaty and that any abuses of detainees in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were not systemic. Critics called the report a whitewash.
The U.N. committee has responded, asking firstly how memoranda from the U.S. Justice Department declaring that torture covers only extreme acts is compatible with the treaty.
It asked whether there had been any independent investigation into "the possible responsibility of high-ranking officials" for authorizing or consenting to acts of torture committed during interrogation of detainees.
-----
[Read more.]
Video: Terrorist training at Fort Benning
Most Americans have probably never heard of the School of the Americas (SOA), which was cleverly renamed to "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC)" to try to dodge the stigma surrounding the SOA's reputation.
Basically, the SOA is a U.S. military-run training center based at Fort Benning, Georgia, where Latin American warlords and dictators are taught the art of torture and repression. They then use their new skills to violate human rights in their home countries.
A wonderful organization called SOA Watch has created an excellent new video to educate people about this issue. [Check it out.]
Basically, the SOA is a U.S. military-run training center based at Fort Benning, Georgia, where Latin American warlords and dictators are taught the art of torture and repression. They then use their new skills to violate human rights in their home countries.
A wonderful organization called SOA Watch has created an excellent new video to educate people about this issue. [Check it out.]
19 April 2006
Iraqi women are worse off after American "liberation"
Bush keeps telling us how much better off the Iraqi people are now that we have "liberated" them from Saddam.
But some Iraqi women's rights groups disagree.
Who would you believe?
From Capitol Hill Blue:
-----
A new poll of leaders of Iraqi women's-rights groups finds that women were treated better and their civil rights were more secure under deposed President Saddam Hussein than under the faltering and increasingly sectarian U.S.-installed government.
This is doubly troubling. It's troubling first, because the Bush administration used the issue of women to justify its now widely criticized invasion of Iraq in part by promising to improve the situation of women.
It's troubling secondly, because the administration has issued news releases, held public meetings and tried to gain media attention (as well as U.S. public support) for all the "good" it's supposedly doing the women of Iraq via this invasion.
The poll was released last week by the Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), a U.N. news agency covering sub-Saharan Africa, eight countries in central Asia, and Iraq.
IRIN reports the survey findings as follows: "...women's basic rights under the Hussein regime were guaranteed in the constitution and more importantly respected, with women often occupying important government positions. Now, although their rights are still enshrined in the national constitution, activists complain that, in practice, they have lost almost all of their rights."
-----
[Read more.]
Way to go, Mr. President. Way to spread freedom. Not!
But some Iraqi women's rights groups disagree.
Who would you believe?
From Capitol Hill Blue:
-----
A new poll of leaders of Iraqi women's-rights groups finds that women were treated better and their civil rights were more secure under deposed President Saddam Hussein than under the faltering and increasingly sectarian U.S.-installed government.
This is doubly troubling. It's troubling first, because the Bush administration used the issue of women to justify its now widely criticized invasion of Iraq in part by promising to improve the situation of women.
It's troubling secondly, because the administration has issued news releases, held public meetings and tried to gain media attention (as well as U.S. public support) for all the "good" it's supposedly doing the women of Iraq via this invasion.
The poll was released last week by the Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), a U.N. news agency covering sub-Saharan Africa, eight countries in central Asia, and Iraq.
IRIN reports the survey findings as follows: "...women's basic rights under the Hussein regime were guaranteed in the constitution and more importantly respected, with women often occupying important government positions. Now, although their rights are still enshrined in the national constitution, activists complain that, in practice, they have lost almost all of their rights."
-----
[Read more.]
Way to go, Mr. President. Way to spread freedom. Not!
18 April 2006
More fun with indefinite detention of innocent people
If you're detained by the U.S. government in the "war on terror" and then they discover that you have no ties to terrorism after all, they can keep you locked up anyway, just for fun.
Or so the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
[Read story.]
How long will the Statue of Liberty remain standing?
Or so the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
[Read story.]
How long will the Statue of Liberty remain standing?
More tax dollars wasted
Last night at midnight was the deadline for filing 2005 income tax returns in the U.S.
And how are our tax dollars being spent?
Among other atrocities, our tax dollars are being spent paying performance bonuses to weapons contractors for projects that are years late, millions over budget, and often entirely non-functional.
[Read story.]
Again the Bush administration rewards the incompetent.
Yet, at the same time, they don't want to raise the minimum wage (currently $5.15 per hour) by a dollar or two.
God bless America. Yes, indeed.
And how are our tax dollars being spent?
Among other atrocities, our tax dollars are being spent paying performance bonuses to weapons contractors for projects that are years late, millions over budget, and often entirely non-functional.
[Read story.]
Again the Bush administration rewards the incompetent.
Yet, at the same time, they don't want to raise the minimum wage (currently $5.15 per hour) by a dollar or two.
God bless America. Yes, indeed.
17 April 2006
Kucinich demands answers from administration about US troops in Iran
Is the U.S. already involved in military actin in Iran, without any Congressional debate or oversight?
There is growing evidence that this is the case.
CommonDreams.org today published a letter sent by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) to George W. Bush, demanding an explanation. Kucinich is the Ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations.
Below is the text of Kucinich's letter:
-----
Dear President Bush:
Recently, it has been reported that U.S. troops are conducting military operations in Iran. If true, it appears that you have already made the decision to commit U.S. military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct or indirect negotiations with the government of Iran had been attempted, without UN support and without authorization from the U.S. Congress.
The presence of U.S. troops in Iran constitutes a hostile act against that country. At a time when diplomacy is urgently needed, it escalates an international crisis. It undermines any attempt to negotiate with the government of Iran. And it will undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.
Furthermore, it places U.S. troops occupying neighboring Iraq in greater danger. The achievement of stability and a transition to Iraqi security control will be compromised, reversing any progress that has been cited by the Administration.
It would be hard to believe that such an imprudent decision had been taken, but for the number and variety of sources confirming it. In the last week, the national media have reported that you have in fact commenced a military operation in Iran. Today, retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner related on CNN that the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, reported to him that the Iranians have captured dissident forces who have confessed to working with U.S. troops in Iran. Earlier in the week, Seymour Hersh reported that a U.S. source had told him that U.S. marines were operating in the Baluchi, Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran.
Any military deployment to Iran would constitute an urgent matter of national significance. I urge you to report immediately to Congress on all activities involving American forces in Iran. I look forward to a prompt response.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress
-----
[Read it on the Common Dreams site.]
There is growing evidence that this is the case.
CommonDreams.org today published a letter sent by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) to George W. Bush, demanding an explanation. Kucinich is the Ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations.
Below is the text of Kucinich's letter:
-----
Dear President Bush:
Recently, it has been reported that U.S. troops are conducting military operations in Iran. If true, it appears that you have already made the decision to commit U.S. military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct or indirect negotiations with the government of Iran had been attempted, without UN support and without authorization from the U.S. Congress.
The presence of U.S. troops in Iran constitutes a hostile act against that country. At a time when diplomacy is urgently needed, it escalates an international crisis. It undermines any attempt to negotiate with the government of Iran. And it will undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.
Furthermore, it places U.S. troops occupying neighboring Iraq in greater danger. The achievement of stability and a transition to Iraqi security control will be compromised, reversing any progress that has been cited by the Administration.
It would be hard to believe that such an imprudent decision had been taken, but for the number and variety of sources confirming it. In the last week, the national media have reported that you have in fact commenced a military operation in Iran. Today, retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner related on CNN that the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, reported to him that the Iranians have captured dissident forces who have confessed to working with U.S. troops in Iran. Earlier in the week, Seymour Hersh reported that a U.S. source had told him that U.S. marines were operating in the Baluchi, Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran.
Any military deployment to Iran would constitute an urgent matter of national significance. I urge you to report immediately to Congress on all activities involving American forces in Iran. I look forward to a prompt response.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress
-----
[Read it on the Common Dreams site.]
Scientists say they're being gagged by Bush
If the facts are inconvenient to one's corporate fascist agenda, then all you have to do is suppress those facts. At least that's the way the Bush administration likes to do business. Corporate interests trump the truth every time. Planet be damned.
From yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle:
-----
Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.
Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.
These scientists -- working nationwide in research centers in such places as Princeton, N.J., and Boulder, Colo. -- say they are required to clear all media requests with administration officials, something they did not have to do until the summer of 2004. Before then, climate researchers -- unlike staff members in the Justice or State departments, which have long-standing policies restricting access to reporters -- were relatively free to discuss their findings without strict agency oversight.
"There has been a change in how we're expected to interact with the press," said Pieter Tans, who measures greenhouse gases linked to global warming and has worked at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder for two decades. He said that although he often "ignores the rules" the administration has instituted, when it comes to his colleagues, "some people feel intimidated -- I see that."
Christopher Milly, a hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, said he had problems twice while drafting news releases on scientific papers describing how climate change would affect the nation's water supply.
-----
[Read more.]
From yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle:
-----
Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.
Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.
These scientists -- working nationwide in research centers in such places as Princeton, N.J., and Boulder, Colo. -- say they are required to clear all media requests with administration officials, something they did not have to do until the summer of 2004. Before then, climate researchers -- unlike staff members in the Justice or State departments, which have long-standing policies restricting access to reporters -- were relatively free to discuss their findings without strict agency oversight.
"There has been a change in how we're expected to interact with the press," said Pieter Tans, who measures greenhouse gases linked to global warming and has worked at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder for two decades. He said that although he often "ignores the rules" the administration has instituted, when it comes to his colleagues, "some people feel intimidated -- I see that."
Christopher Milly, a hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, said he had problems twice while drafting news releases on scientific papers describing how climate change would affect the nation's water supply.
-----
[Read more.]
Another stark warning over climate change
Computer predictions in the UK are raising some dire warnings over the impending effects of climate change.
From BBC news:
-----
The Earth is likely to experience a temperature rise of at least 3C, the UK government's chief scientist says.
Professor Sir David King warned this would happen because world governments were failing to agree on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases.
He told the BBC that nations had to act now to tackle the warming expected to happen over the next 100 years.
And he said even if a global agreement could be reached on limiting emissions, climate change was inevitable.
The UK government and the EU want to try to stabilise the climate at an increase of no more than 2C, but the US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising quickly.
A recent report called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, produced by the Hadley Centre, one of the top world centres for projecting future climate, modelled the likely effects of a 3C rise.
It warned the situation could wreck half the world's wildlife reserves, destroy major forest systems, and put 400 million more people at risk of hunger.
-----
[Read more.]
And yet Bush continues to give the issue only some lame and useless lip service and absolutely no action. He doesn't want to inconvenience his corporate buddies by having them take measures to reduce their carbon emissions.
From BBC news:
-----
The Earth is likely to experience a temperature rise of at least 3C, the UK government's chief scientist says.
Professor Sir David King warned this would happen because world governments were failing to agree on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases.
He told the BBC that nations had to act now to tackle the warming expected to happen over the next 100 years.
And he said even if a global agreement could be reached on limiting emissions, climate change was inevitable.
The UK government and the EU want to try to stabilise the climate at an increase of no more than 2C, but the US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising quickly.
A recent report called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, produced by the Hadley Centre, one of the top world centres for projecting future climate, modelled the likely effects of a 3C rise.
It warned the situation could wreck half the world's wildlife reserves, destroy major forest systems, and put 400 million more people at risk of hunger.
-----
[Read more.]
And yet Bush continues to give the issue only some lame and useless lip service and absolutely no action. He doesn't want to inconvenience his corporate buddies by having them take measures to reduce their carbon emissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)