9/11

This anniversary snuck up on me. I happened to mouse over the date/time display on my computer and noticed that midnight had passed and suddenly it was that awful date – 9/11.

Strange to think that such a day could sneak up on you. But see, even for the people whose loved ones and friends died in 2001, life goes on. Not much of a life, perhaps. A vastly changed one, certainly. But still, it goes on.

The world undoubtedly changed forever that day seven years ago, and not for the better. 9/11 is the day we began our walk through the valley of the shadow of death. Unlike the words of Psalm 23, however, we do not “fear no evil”, for we have entered into the Age of Fear. The world has become a fearful place. No more fearsome, I think, than it ever was, but we are more fearful. At least, some of us are.

Fear can manifest in many ways. Anger and aggression are common responses, and that's the way the US chose to respond. By a fatal twist of history (some might say a fraudulent theft of an election), it just so happened that the White House was populated by George W. Bush and his band of refugees from the first Gulf War. These men were quick to seize the circumstances and whip the fear of the Murrican people to feverish heights. That fever has not yet entirely abated and the worldwide psyche has suffered because of it.

As I think of it now, isn't it a little odd that a nation as God-smacked as the US purports to be could not "fear no evil" and be comforted by the knowledge that the Lord was with them and had his rod and staff. Unfortunately, the US did not spare the rod, and the staff turned out to be the General Staff.

Whether the actions of the Bush administration were truly sincere I can't begin to guess. But they certainly were wrong-headed. And here we are in 2008, a mere seven years since the atrocity of 9/11, and the real power and prestige of the US has never been lower. Not even Viet Nam brought the US into such disrepute.

And lest we forget...the Murricans were the victims! Sad to see that the recovery process has not gone well. But then again, I see hope in the kind of enthusiasm that has been engendered in this presidential election year. Maybe it was hard to think about recovery while Bush was still in office. Maybe a change of president will bring a change of heart.

On this day seven years ago, my heart went out to the Murrican people. Today too.

Give China Time...?

Predictably, since the spate of anti-Chinese Western media coverage following the Tibetan uprising, there has begun to be some push-back (both by the Chinese government and by Chinese media people and bloggers) and some more sober second thought.

It's true. Some of the Western media have distorted what coverage they were able to maintain, either deliberately or through ignorance. (And some of that ignorance can be blamed on the Chinese themselves...if you don't let people in to see what's going on, what do you expect?)

The first inkling I had of this was one of the early photos of a security officer chasing down a monk, about to hit him over the head from behind. I think I saw this from the Globe and Mail (or maybe National Post). Now, the caption to this photo stated that it was a Nepali police officer. In other words, this violence was not even taking place in Tibet, but in Nepal. But unless you paid attention to the caption, you saw a Tibetan monk about to be beaten by a policeman. And what would you assume, given all the news about riots in Tibet? That this was a Chinese policeman beating a Tibetan monk in Tibet. In fact, I heard a radio commentator mention this photo in precisely that context.

And there have been other instances.

So today, the LA Times has an article discussing this. And the cultural differences that make Westerners think of China as the demon (as opposed to the Dalai Lama), and that make the Chinese take these calls for restraint in Tibet very personally. We are given to understand that change cannot come all at once. That we must be sensitive to these cultural differences. That the Chinese government really are a bunch of good guys, but you have to understand, they are just as nationalistic as the next government. They don't want their country dismembered, and from their end, the Dalai Lama certainly looks like a splittist. They have no reason to trust his statements about non-violence, or his plea for autonomy not independence. He ain't no god-king to them. He looks like just another politician who's saying one thing but doing another.

At the end of the article, there is this quote:

"There's been significant improvement," said Xiao Gongqin, a history professor at Shanghai Normal University.

"Outsiders should avoid pressuring China too much or it will return to radicalism," Xiao said. "China will improve and enjoy more democratic rights, but it needs time."

OK. Let's say we go along with this. Never mind that this is the standard excuse in all cases of dictatorships trying to stave off the inevitable. Let's accept it for now.

How much longer did you think you might need, Chinese government? You've been in power since 1949, nearly sixty years now. Occupied Tibet for nearly fifty. In historical terms, I guess that's a blip.

But that fifty years in Tibet has been quite long enough to seriously endanger the cultural survival of Tibetans, not to mention ecological and economic survival (as Tibetans, not converted Chinese...)

So, do you think another sixty years might be enough to accomplish your democratic purposes? Is that enough time? Can we maybe sell you some guns to help with that? (Western countries are very good at selling guns...)

Here's my fear: that it is indeed just enough time to make things like the Tibetan problem just "go away".

The Dalai Lama's Anniversary Statement

The Statement of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on the Forty-Ninth Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day

On the occasion of the 49th anniversary of the Tibetan people's peaceful uprising in Lhasa on 10 March 1959, I offer my prayers and pay tribute to those brave men and women of Tibet who have endured untold hardships and sacrificed their lives for the cause of the Tibetan people and express my solidarity with those Tibetans presently undergoing repression and ill-treatment. I also extend my greetings to Tibetans in and outside Tibet, supporters of the Tibetan cause and all who cherish justice.

For nearly six decades, Tibetans in the whole of Tibet known as Cholkha-Sum (V-Tsang, Kham and Amdo) have had to live in a state of constant fear, intimidation and suspicion under Chinese repression. Nevertheless, in addition to maintaining their religious aim, a sense of nationalism and their unique culture, the Tibetan people have been able to keep alive their basic aspiration for freedom. I have great admiration for the special characteristics of the Tibetan people and their indomitable courage. I am extremely pleased and proud of them.

Many governments, non-governmental organizations and individuals across the world, because of their interest in peace and justice, have consistently supported the cause of Tibet. Particularly during the past year, governments and peoples of many countries made important gestures that clearly expressed their support to us. I would like to express my gratitude to every one of them.

The problem of Tibet is very complicated. It is intrinsically linked with many issues: politics, the nature of society, law, human rights, religion, culture, the identity of a people, the economy and the state of the natural environment. Consequently, a comprehensive approach must be adopted to resolve this problem that takes into account the benefits to all parties involved, rather than one party alone. Therefore, we have been firm in our commitment to a mutually beneficial policy, the Middle-Way approach, and have made sincere and persistent efforts towards achieving this for many years. Since 2002, my envoys have conducted six rounds of talks with concerned officials of the People's Republic of China to discuss relevant issues. These extensive discussions have helped to clear away some of their doubts and enabled us to explain our aspirations to them. However, on the fundamental issue, there has been no concrete result at all. And during the past few years, Tibet has witnessed increased repression and brutality. In spite of these unfortunate developments, my stand and determination to pursue the Middle-Way policy and to continue our dialogue with the Chinese government remain unchanged.

A major concern of the People's Republic of China is its lack of legitimacy in Tibet. The principal way to lend weight to their position is for the Chinese government to pursue a policy that satisfies the Tibetan people and gains their confidence. If we are able to achieve reconciliation by treading a path of mutual consent, then, as I have already stated many times, I will make every effort to win the support of the Tibetan people.

In Tibet today, due to the Chinese government's numerous actions, driven as they are by a lack of foresight, the natural environment has been severely damaged. And, as a result of their policy of population transfer the non-Tibetan population has increased many times, reducing native Tibetans to an insignificant minority in their own country. Moreover, the language, customs and traditions of Tibet, which reflect the true nature and identity of the Tibetan people, are gradually fading away. As a consequence, Tibetans are increasingly being assimilated into the larger Chinese population. In Tibet, repression continues to increase with numerous, unimaginable and gross violations of human rights, denial of religious freedom and the politicization of religious issues. All these take place as a result of the Chinese government's lack of respect for the Tibetan people. These are major obstacles the Chinese government deliberately puts in the way of its policy of unifying nationalities which discriminate between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. Therefore, I urge the Chinese government to bring an immediate halt to such policies.

Although the areas inhabited by Tibetan people are referred to by such different names as autonomous region autonomous prefectures and autonomous counties, they are autonomous in name only; they actually have no real autonomy. Instead, they are governed by people who are oblivious of the regional situation, and driven by what Mao Zedong called "Han chauvinism". As a result, this so-called autonomy has not brought the concerned nationalities any tangible benefit. Disingenuous policies that are not in tune with reality are causing enormous harm not only to the respective nationalities, but also to the unity and stability of the Chinese nation. It is important for the Chinese government, as advised by Deng Xiaoping, to "seek truth from facts" in the real sense of the term.

The Chinese government severely criticizes me when I raise questions about the welfare of the Tibetan people before the international community. Until we reach a mutually beneficial solution, I have a historical and moral responsibility to continue to speak out freely on their behalf. However, it is common knowledge that I have been in semi-retirement since the political leadership of the Tibetan Diaspora has been directly elected by the general Tibetan populace.

China is emerging as a powerful country due to her great economic progress. This is to be welcomed, but it has also provided China an opportunity to play an important role on the global stage. The world is eagerly waiting to see how the present Chinese leadership will put into effect its avowed concepts of "harmonious society" and "peaceful rise". For the realization of these concepts, economic progress alone will not suffice. There must be improvements in observance of the rule of law, transparency, and right to information, as well as freedom of speech. Since China is a country of many nationalities, they must all be given equality and freedom to protect their respective unique identities if the country is to remain stable.

On 6 March 2008, President Hu Jintao stated: "The stability in Tibet concerns the stability of the country, and the safety in Tibet concerns the safety of the country." He added that the Chinese leadership must ensure the well-being of Tibetans, improve the work related to religions and ethnic groups, and maintain social harmony and stability. President Hu's statement conforms to reality and we look forward to its implementation.

This year, the Chinese people are proudly and eagerly awaiting the opening of the Olympic Games. I have, from the very beginning, supported the idea that China should be granted the opportunity to host the Olympic Games. Since such international sporting events, and especially the Olympics, uphold the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, equality and friendship, China should prove herself a good host by providing these freedoms. Therefore, besides sending their athletes, the international community should remind the Chinese government of these issues. I have come to know that many parliaments, individuals and nongovernmental organizations around the globe are undertaking a number of activities in view of the opportunity that exists for China to make a positive change. I admire their sincerity; I would like to state emphatically that it will be very important to observe the period following the conclusion of the Games. The Olympic Games no doubt will greatly impact the minds of the Chinese people. The world should, therefore, explore ways of investing their collective energies in producing a continuous positive change inside China even after the Olympics have come to an end.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my pride in and appreciation for the sincerity, courage and determination of the Tibetan people inside Tibet. I urge them to continue to work peacefully and within the law to ensure that all the minority nationalities of the People's Republic of China, including the Tibetan people, enjoy their legitimate rights and benefits.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Government and people of India, in particular, for their continuing and unparalleled support for Tibetan refugees and the cause of Tibet, as well as expressing my gratitude to all those governments and peoples for their continued concern for the Tibetan cause.

With my prayers for the well-being of all sentient beings.

The Dalai Lama
10 March 2008

http://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/uprising2008.php

Remember the Maine!

Today is the anniversary of the day the USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbour in 1898. According to the Naval Historical Center, more than 260 sailors were killed.

I wonder how many Murricans now know that "Remember the Maine!" became the rallying cry of the Murricans in the subsequent Spanish-Murrican war. As a Canajun, I wonder how many Canajuns ever knew that. I remember hearing the expression as a kid, but I suspect it wasn't until much later that I learned anything at all about what it meant.

And only today did I decide to research it a little bit. But somehow, some of the details were familiar.

The Maine was sent into Cuba during the Cuban independence struggle with Spain to protect Murrican citizens. This is a (sometimes) legitimate (and often-used) rationale for establishing a military presence in trouble spots around the world. In this case, the US was not engaged in open hostilities with the Spanish, and the Spanish government had reluctantly agreed to the ship's presence in the harbour. Everyone was wary and working to avoid trouble.

But then the Maine blew up. In the immediate aftermath, Spanish officials were instrumental in the rescue operations, which led the captain of the Maine to believe that Spain might not be responsible for this disaster. However, a US Navy board of inquiry ultimately came to the conclusion that the Maine had been the victim of a mine. The board, however, did not assign blame to anyone.

Nevertheless,this conclusion inflamed Murrican public opinion, aided and abetted by the "yellow" press, and it wasn't long before the tension escalated into outright war.

But in fact, even at that first board of inquiry there was some doubt about the conclusion that a mine was responsible for the explosion. Some said it was spontaneous combustion of a coal bunker right next to an explosives magazine that caused it. Later studies also raised this possibility, perhaps even more strongly, but there has never been a definitive conclusion.

Now, US history is liberally sprinkled with iffy examples of so-called provocation, the latest one being Iran's putative nuclear program. (I shouldn't pick on the Murricans about this sort of thing, though. World history is full of this. Any excuse to go to war, it seems...) And somehow or other, elements of the mainstream media always seem to be available to fan the flames of nationalist outrage. It seems the rabble-rousing press played a large role in instigating and supporting the Spanish-Murrican war.

The more things change, eh? And who played a pivotal role in garnering support for the current Iraq war? The media, of course. Rather than doing their real job, they bowed and scraped before their political masters and misled the Murrican people. Who are the "yellow" journalists of today? Fox News, maybe? Who never let the facts interfere with ideology? But they were not the only offenders. Nearly all of the big media joined in.

Was the destruction of the Maine a deliberate act of war by the Spanish? Was it a phony provocation? Or an accident? It's hard to say. I don't think the Spanish did it. The Spanish-Murrican war lasted four months and ended with the downfall of the Spanish empire and the possession by the US of nearly all of Spain's colonies, including Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. It made Teddy Roosevelt famous. It set the course of history. Look at the names above. They are all still central to US policy. John Hay, who later became Secretary of State, called it "a splendid little war".

Alas, there is no such thing today as a splendid little war. Even the little wars, the six-week Mission Accomplished wars against relatively weak blow-hard regimes have a nasty habit of degenerating into interminable death traps. Fortunately, we still have the media to beat the jingo drums for us.

Rio '92

Here's a video sent to me by my friend, Even Ludvigsen, an environmentalist from Norway. Watch this. You can't help but be moved.

Black Day in Pakistan

I heard the news of Benazir Bhutto's assassination this morning with a heavy heart and a terrible sinking feeling. I don't suppose anyone was very surprised that this happened. And yet, it was quite a shock. I guess it demonstrates the difference between surprise and shock.

As far as I'm concerned, this should signal the end of Pervez Musharraf's regime. Was Musharraf directly responsible? We'll never know. The real truth of this will be buried in official bullshit. But everything that has occurred since Bhutto announced her decision to return to Pakistan points to his tacit approval, at the very least. His apparent inability to protect the nation's main opposition leader, a woman with a great deal of legitimate support, clearly demonstrates his incompetence. Or malice, whichever you prefer.

What's the point of marshal law, if it doesn't impose law and order? The fact that it was lawyers who first demonstrated against the government in this latest round of chaos in Pakistan is a telling point. Likewise Musharraf's dismissal and arrest of the Supreme Court judges. It shows that he is an outlaw. And if the leader of the country is a lawless scoundrel, how can you expect the citizens to behave any better?

It's time that the west, and the US in particular, stop coddling Musharraf. He has no control over his borders with Afghanistan. His efforts in the so-called war on terror have so far been ineffectual, and I'm not convinced that he doesn't prefer it that way. Ostensibly, his government's aid in the war on terror is the reason for the west's support of him. Once again we find ourselves supporting a miserable dictator because we think it's a better choice than the alternative. I wonder.

I suspect that Musharraf is actually thumbing his nose at the US. It was the Murricans who pressured him to come to some sort of agreement with Bhutto. It was the Murricans who pressured him to step down from his military position. I don't think he liked that too much, so he decided to show everybody who was boss. His condemnation of the assassination and appeal for calm ring hollow in our ears. No, not hollow...rather, brimful with hypocrisy.

As for Benazir Bhutto, I confess I have rather mixed feelings. In the last few months, especially, she skillfully positioned herself as the beacon of democracy in Pakistan. But let's not forget that she was ousted as Prime Minister...twice...for alleged corruption. Again, we'll never know the truth of that either. It's a sad comment on the state of Pakistan that such a person would be cast as the democratic alternative. This is it: her democracy would have been more legitimate than what is there now. And it's entirely possible that her handling of indigenous terrorists would have been more effective. This is what made her a target: she threatened the terrorists, and she threatened Musharraf's meal-ticket (sham-fighting terrorists...)

I am often perplexed by, or critical of, the US in this blog. I suppose I can be critical of the US now for propping up this jerkoff for so long. Another case of the US backing the wrong dictatorial horse. But I have to say, I believe the Bush administration really did try to set Musharraf on a more acceptable path this time around. And the jerkoff jerked them around.

I will say one more thing. I know the US has had its share of political assassinations, but the degree of domestic political terror has never reached the level seen in Pakistan. I'll be smug for a moment. In the western democracies we have learned, by and large, to share power, to transfer power, to distribute power, without the need to shoot people. (OK, relatively speaking...of course, we all know that the common people even in western countries are pretty much shut out of the real decision-making processes...) But we are also pretty much assured that George W. Bush will relinquish the presidency when the time comes without having to impose marshal law. Same for Canada. And Britain. And Germany. And France. Even the Ukraine!

Which makes me think that maybe Pakistan is nearly ripe for revolution. You know, no matter how loyal an army is to its ostensible political masters, it can be swayed by the determined opposition of citizens. Soldiers can think as well as anyone else. They have eyes to see. They know, ultimately, when they are being manipulated for evil purposes. And history shows that the army has been a powerful force in Pakistan. When it decides to vote for democracy, tinpots like Musharraf had better beware.

Iran & World War Three?

OK, I'm a little behind here, but I see by the NY Times of Oct.17/07 that President Bush warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III. Of course, Mr. Bush referred to wild and threatening statements made by Iran's Prime Minister Ahmadinejad. As if the Resident of the Excited States of Murrica hasn't ever made wild and threatening statements.

But let me get this straight. Which nation's leader is talking World War III? Which nation actually has nuclear weapons? Which nation's leader has adopted a policy of pre-emptive war? Which nation's leader only took the "nuclear option" in Iran off the strategy table at the insistence of his own military advisors?

Quoting the NY Times: "Mr. Bush sought in the news conference to make clear that his pressure tactics, including economic sanctions, were aimed at persuading the Iranian people to find new leadership."

Does this not sound eerily familiar? Is this not déjà vu all over again?

Ordinary Murricans wouldn't fall for this again, would they?

HHDL Rocks Hawgtown

Security measures at the Yoni School are similar to those found at airports. They are porous and whimsical. It is, after all, not a maximum security reform school, but rather a halfway house of sorts. Halfway between po-tic anarchy and grammatical orthodoxy. The electronic arches at the Yoni school invariably let pass anyone carrying a fountain pen. A volume of Charles Bukowski, however, sends alarums through the system that register several points on the Richter scale as far away as Ottawar, that paragon of political connivance. Do you understand me? Probably not. I scarcely understand myself.

However, what I am trying to convey here is that under certain circumstances, one may leave the environs of the Yoni School, with a pass authorized by Nurse Ratchet and various under-secretaries of literary health, and partake of the doings of society at large. Therefore, I was permitted to go and pay homage to the modern-day Chenresig, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama yesterday in Hawgtown.

He started off by saying that altho he's visited Canada several times, this is the first time he has come to this country as an honourary citizen. That drew an appreciative round of applause.

Here are a few of the themes on which he spoke:

We must realize that the world is not composed of isolated, more or less self-sufficient villages anymore. Everyone is dependent on everyone else now...for food, for energy, for clothing, for shelter. Therefore, we must begin to develop a concern for the welfare of people all around the world. The kind of concern we must develop is like the feeling of love and affection that a mother feels for her child.

If we think of the 20th century as an age of violence and bloodshed, we should work to make the 21st a century of dialogue.

NATO should move its headquarters to Moscow to help bring Russia into the community of European nations, in a unified force.

We treat our animals little better than vegetables. So, in addition to developing concern for the 6 billion humans on our planet, we must begin to change our attitudes towards the animals.

It is time to begin teaching our children in a way that develops not only their brain power, but the power of warm-heartedness.

He praised the US as a beacon of democracy, but strongly suggested that the billions spent in Iraq would have been more useful educating, training, and feeding Iraqis. The money spent on armaments, he said, was a complete waste.

When all is said, His Holiness is an optimistic kind of guy. Where I, for example, often see the world going to hell in a handbasket, he sees progress being made. In fact, he said that the 21st century, so far, has been less violent than the previous century...in spite of Iraq, in spite of Darfur, in spite of terrorism.

And when he uses the word "dialogue" you can be sure he is thinking of China.

White House Press Conference References the Dalai Lama

It's been a long time since I posted. Busy. But I noticed this in my surfing. The first part is a discussion of the award to be presented to the Dalai Lama by the US Congress, and the President's intention to attend this presentation over Chinese objections.

Online Petition Re: Climate Change

I suppose I take a rather un-nuanced view of environment and global warming or climate change or whatever the heck it's called. There are a lot of people coming out of the woodwork these days to criticize David Suzuki and even my dark-horse saviour of the Democrats Al Gore. Junk science, they say. A bunch of bureaucrats pushing an agenda, they say. A con job, they say.

I don't really know. Here's what I know. It doesn't seem right that we can keep pulling shit out of the earth's bowels and then burning it and pouring it into the earth's lungs at the rate we've been doing, and expecting to increase this besides. Is man affecting the environment? Hell yes! So we probably need to be doing something about it.

Having said that, I get emails. Yes, Larry doesn't have much to do with online petitions. But he's pushed this group before. So one more time...

Dear friends,

Last week, Avaaz campaigners hand-delivered our 100,000-signature climate change petition to the environment ministers of the world's most polluting countries. It worked. The chair of the meeting waved the petition in the air, calling on his fellow ministers to act--and they agreed that climate change would be the #1 issue at the G8 summit in June.

The momentum is on our side. Let's build on it. Next Tuesday, another high-level group will meet to move forward with G8 planning -- and we can keep the focus on the climate issue by showing that the call for action is growing. Can you help us reach our ambitious goal of 150,000 signatures by Tuesday by forwarding this email to ten friends? Your friends can sign the petition here:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/climate_action_g8

Here's how our campaigner Iain Keith, who presented the petition, describes his experience:

When my turn came to speak to the Environment ministers, I was so nervous that I thought my voice would quiver. But I wasn't just speaking for myself--I was there on behalf of 100,000 Avaaz members, and I couldn't let them down. I walked to the microphone, took a deep breath, and said, "Dear Ministers, ladies and gentlemen, m y name is Iain Keith and I'm here on behalf of the 1 Million members of Avaaz. Avaaz is a new online community where global citizens can go to take action on the biggest issues facing our world. I have here, in my hands, a petition from our members who would like to tell you that they are scared of climate change, and the lack of action being taken. The countries represented in this room are responsible for the majority of global greenhouse gas emissions. As ministers of the environment you are in an excellent position to persuade your leaders to make tackling climate change the number one priority for the next G8 summit. Our members humbly request that you accept this petition as a reminder of your responsibilities, and to help persuade your leaders."

I handed the petition to the German environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel. The meeting continued, with speeches on other issues from other organizations. I wondered if all of the work had been worth it.

And then came Minister Gabriel's closing speech.

I could hardly believe it: he was saying that climate change must be the number one priority at the G8 summit. And he was holding our petition.

"Thanks to increased pressure from people around the world," he said, "the tide is turning. When an international NGO can gather this many signatures" (here he holds up the petition), "we cannot ignore this problem anymore... As Environmental ministers, we have a responsibility both to the environment and our voters to make sure our heads of state act!"

And a few days later, German Chancellor and G8 President Angela Merkel vowed to put climate change at the top of the agenda for the G8 Leaders Summit.

We did it!!

Iain's right. And we can do even more. Can you forward this email to ten friends, and help us reach our goal of 150,000 signatures by Tuesday?

http://www.avaaz.org/en/climate_action_g8

It's amazing what can happen when we work together. Thanks for all that you do.

With hope,

Ben, Iain, Ricken, Lee-Sean, Galit, Graziela, and the rest of the Avaaz team

P.S. For a more detailed report of the meeting, including photos, visit the Avaaz blog

Google: Everything That's Safe to Print?

I offer this little tidbit of content from Slashdot: Politics for Nerds (which probably describes me to a Tea)(shall we have Tea?)(lemon or milk?)(one sugar or two?)(oh, do have a crumpet my dear while we watch the whirring satellites and wonder will the sky fall up on us)

Google Blurring Sensitive Map Information

Posted by kdawson on Sunday January 28, @04:27PM
from the blurring-the-nukes dept.

Cyphoid writes "While viewing my school (the University of Massachusetts Lowell) with Google Maps, I noticed that a select portion of the campus was pixelated: the operational nuclear research facility on campus. Curious, I attempted to view the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts. It too was pixelated. What or who is compelling Google to smudge out these images selectively? Will all satellite images of facilities that the government deems 'sensitive' soon be subject to censoring?" Not surprisingly, the same areas are blurred in Google Earth. But how about images from satellites operated by other nations, such as SPOT or Sovinformsputnik?

Just so you know, I browsed thru some of the comments on this piece, and most seem to say that Google is not responsible for this blurring. So there.

Global Good Neighbour Flash Video

Click on title. Enjoy.

Addendum to the Doomsday Clock

New York Times Editorial

Busywork for Nuclear Scientists
Published: January 15, 2007

The Bush administration is eager to start work on a new nuclear warhead with all sorts of admirable qualities: sturdy, reliable and secure from terrorists. To sweeten the deal, officials say that if they can replace the current arsenal with Reliable Replacement Warheads (what could sound more comforting?), they probably won’t have to keep so many extra warheads to hedge against technical failure. If you’re still not sold, the warhead comes with something of a guarantee — that scientists can build the new bombs without ever testing them.

Let the buyer beware. While the program has gotten very little attention here, it is a public-relations disaster in the making overseas. Suspicions that the United States is actually trying to build up its nuclear capabilities are undercutting Washington’s arguments for restraining the nuclear appetites of Iran and North Korea.

Then there’s the tens of billions it is likely to cost. And the most important question: Nearly two decades after the country stopped building nuclear weapons, does it really need a new one? The answer, emphatically, is no. This is a make-work program championed by the weapons laboratories and belatedly by the Pentagon, which hasn’t been able to get Congress to pay for its other nuclear fantasies.

The Rumsfeld team’s first choice was for a nuclear “bunker buster” to go after deeply buried targets. The Pentagon got concerned about “aging” warheads only after it was clear that even the Republican-led Congress, or at least one intrepid House subcommittee chairman, considered the bunker buster too Strangelovian to finance.

One crucial argument for the new program took a major hit in November when the Jason — a prestigious panel of scientists that advises the government on weapons — reported that most of the plutonium triggers in the current arsenal can be expected to last for 100 years. Since the oldest weapons are less than 50 years old, supporters of the new warhead have fallen back on warnings that other bomb components are also aging, and that the nuclear labs need the work to attract and train the best scientists. But the labs are already spending billions on studying and preserving the current arsenal.

Then there’s that guarantee that there will be no need for testing — one of the few arms-control taboos President Bush hasn’t broken yet. While experts debate whether the labs can really build a weapon without testing it, the more important question is whether any president would stake America’s security on an untested arsenal.

America would be much safer if the president focused on reducing the number of old nuclear weapons still deployed by the United States and the other nuclear powers. The new Congress should stop this program before any more dollars are wasted, or more damage is done to America’s credibility.

Follow-Up on the Doomsday Clock

In case you missed it, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the clock today from 7 minutes to midnight to 5. Five is where the clock started in 1947. The closest it has ever been is 2 minutes to midnight in 1953.

Paul Tillich's Take On It

Forgive the long quote, but this passage from Paul Tillich's series of sermons entitled The Eternal Now published in 1963 just seems so apropos. (Or a propos if yer a stickler...) This is from the sermon called Salvation.

In the ancient world, great political leaders were called saviours. They liberated nations and groups within them from misery, enslavement, and war. This is another kind of healing, reminiscent of the words of the last book of the Bible, which says in poetic language that "the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations." How can nations be healed? One may say: They can be liberated from external conquerors or internal oppressors. But can they be healed? Can they be saved? The prophets give the answer: Nations are saved if there is a small minority, a group of people, who represent what the nation is called to be. They may be defeated, but their spirit will be a power of resistance against the evil spirits who are detrimental to the nation. The question of saving power in the nation is the question of whether there is a minority, even a small one, which is willing to resist the anxiety produced by propaganda, the conformity enforced by threat, the hatred stimulated by ignorance. The future of this country and its spiritual values is not dependent as much on atomic defense as on the influence such groups will have on the spirit in which the nation will think and act.

And this is true of mankind as a whole. Its future will be dependent on a saving group, embodied in one nation or crossing through all nations. There is saving power in mankind, but there is also the hidden will to self-destruction. It depends on every one of us which side will prevail. There is no divine promise that humanity will survive this or the next year. But it may depend on the saving power effective in you or me, whether it will survive. (It may depend on the amount of healing and liberating grace which works through any of us with respect to social justice, racial equality, and political wisdom.) Unless many of say to ourselves: Through the saving power working in me, mankind may be saved or lost -- it will be lost.

United Democratic Nations

In my post about the Doomsday Clock I received a comment from Gary about an organization he is promoting called United Democratic Nations. Click on the title to go there. (This, by the way, is not any Gary I know.) I don't know how these things happen, but he responded very quickly to that post. Interesting.

I went to the website to have a look. It's an organization that doesn't exist. Even though it has a sort of charter and a mission statement and a working definition and a goal. In fact, it's a dream. A big one.

As I say, I don't know this Gary. But I admire him in a way. He has this dream. A big one...and he believes in it enough to post a comment on an obscure Mental Blog that, presumably, he just happened to come across while surfing. Or maybe his surfing is more focused, looking for items that pop up related to the thing he's dreaming about. It is possible to do that now. Anyway, good for him.

As for the dream, I think that's admirable too, although I have lingering doubts, as yet too nebulous to articulate fully.

He wants either a reformed United Nations, or a new United Democratic Nations. That's all very well. And exclusive, which gives me pause. The definition excludes most of the nations on the planet, I think. Which makes me wonder how effective it could be.

Confining yourself to "democratic" nations is, perhaps, a moral choice. It assumes that democracy is some sort of panacea. Or the best form of government. Or the most equitable. Or the most likely to respond to the needs of its citizens. But I've long had doubts about the "democratic state" of most democratic states in the world. Is it possible to have a one-party democratic state? Is a two-party state democratic? What if those two parties clandestinely conspire to shut out other rising movements, a proposition which is not far-fetched in the US?

Does the fact that one may vote make a nation democratic? Or is it a multiple choice that makes the democracy? That would apply to Canada, I suppose. Except that most everyone already knows that one choice or the other hardly makes any difference, except at the margins. A little left, a little right, a mosh pit in the centre. But the common voice, or rather, the voice of the commoner, still is unheard. (The Reform Party of Canada was one of those prairie populist movements, much like Social Credit. Vox Populi! The West wants In! And when it folded itself into the Conservative Party of Canada, it spawned a Prime Minister who doesn't even let his Cabinet Ministers speak for themselves! Not to mention making and announcing policies without consulting them.)

Canadians have long been advocates (in the international arena) of quiet engagement. ie. You engage those oppositionist elements, those difficult nations, those non-democratic players, in dialogue and slowly but surely bring them around to your point of view. Sometimes you have to be tougher, sometimes not. South Africa comes to mind. I don't know whether this really works. Would it work with China? Has it ever? Perhaps we've not been tough enough? But the United Democratic Nations would not include China.

It might be good to remember that the failure of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, was largely due to the refusal of the United States to participate. If the major players are not involved, then it seems like a UDN standing on the outside shouting at the others.

I tend to agree with Gary, that the existence of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, each with an absolute veto, is a flaw and a recipe for deadlock. At the formation of the UN, those were the big players, the winners of a recently fought big war, and that was the price they exacted in order to play. In geopolitics, every nation wants its edge. So now, it's 60 years later. Has the US changed so much that it is willing to relinquish that edge? I think not. Even the "democratic nations" have not become so altruistic.

Nevertheless, change begins with a dream. And we know that Gary is not the only one who thinks it is time for a change in the international regime.

"DOOMSDAY CLOCK" HAND TO BE MOVED, REFLECTING WORSENING NUCLEAR, CLIMATE THREATS TO WORLD

-- Washington, D.C. and London News Advisory for January 17, 2007 --

Simultaneous Announcement to be Made from Washington, D.C. and London; Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to Underscore "Most Perilous Period Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

NEWS ADVISORY//January 17, 2006///The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) will move the minute hand of the "Doomsday Clock" on January 17, 2007, the first such change to the Clock since February 2002. The major new step reflects growing concerns about a "Second Nuclear Age" marked by grave threats, including: nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea, unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing "launch-ready" status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the
U.S. and Russia, escalating terrorism, and new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks.

The BAS news event will take place simultaneously on January 17th at 9:30 a.m. ET at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., and at 2:30 p.m. GMT in London at The Royal Society.

News event speakers will include:

- Stephen Hawking, professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of The Royal Society;

- Kennette Benedict, executive director, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists;

- Sir Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, and professor of cosmology and astrophysics and master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge;

- Lawrence M. Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University; and

- Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a BAS director and co-chair of the International Crisis Group.

A live, two-way satellite feed (with full Q&A) will connect the Washington, D.C., and London news events.


TO PARTICIPATE IN PERSON: You can join us for the simultaneous, two-site news event taking place on January 17, 2007 -- 9:30 a.m. ET, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Auditorium, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.; and 2:30 p.m. GMT, The Royal Society, Wellcome Trust Lecture Hall, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London. Please RSVP in advance by contacting Patrick Mitchell, (703) 276-3266, or pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com.


CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN PERSON?: In the U.S., reporters can join this live, phone-based global news conference at 9:30 a.m. ET on January 17, 2007 by dialing 1 (800) 860-2442. (Media in and around London should dial 0800-028-0531. All other reporters outside of the U.S. and the London area should dial 001-412-858-4600, which is not a toll-free line.) Ask for the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock" news event. A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on the Web at
http://www.thebulletin.org as of 6 p.m. ET/11 p.m. GMT on January 17, 2007.

CONTACT: Patrick Mitchell, (703) 276-3266 or pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com.

Was It Worth It?

I picked this photo off the Internet five years ago. It always made me uneasy somehow, and I'm not sure why. Too glib? Too irreverent? Too morbid?

I don't know. But I kept it. Now I know why. Because, five years later, it's the question I ask the perpetrators of 911. Leaving aside the myriad conspiracy theories, let's assume the official story (Osama bin Laden & al Qaeda) is the truth. How many Muslim deaths have resulted from that one outrageous act? Tens of thousands, we're told. Was it worth it? Has the situation of any Muslims throughout the world changed for the better because of it? Is death really a victory?

But meanwhile, I have a question for the US and the rest of the west too. Was/Is our response really the correct one? The number of American soldiers killed in Iraq has already exceeded the number of those who were killed in the World Trade Center.

I remember saying to many people at the time that I thought that the American people were essentially good-hearted, open-hearted, generous people. They didn't deserve this. And yet, somehow they (or their governments) lacked skilfull means. Even before 911, I thought that so many actions of the government with respect to foreign policy were wrong-headed. Not just Bush. Or Clinton. Or Reagan. Or Whoever. Historically wrong-headed is what I mean. So that what often presented itself was US support of brutality and dictatorship, rather than the fine spirit of the American people.

So what happened after 911? Two countries were invaded, one of which didn't really have anything to do with 911. And the other has been a pit of quicksand for successive invaders over decades. And occupiers are rarely popular.

911 shut me up for a long time. There was nothing to say when compared to the insanity of it, the hatred, and the subsequent rage for revenge. Really, it's a sadder, more constrained world we live in now. Perhaps that was the goal. Nothing succeeds like excess.

Dalai Lama a Naturalized Canadian!

In one of its last acts before summer recess, the House of Uncommons voted to make the Dalai Lama an honourary Canadian citizen. How cool is that? Only two others have been so named...Nelson Mandela and I forget the other one. (Stompin' Tom?)

That must just frost the Chinese chicken balls. They should respond by naming the Chairman of Bombardier an honourary Chinese citizen.

Dangerous Agents of Peaceful Regime Change

That's a comment I heard on the Mothercorp yesterday.

It was in a piece about China's treatment of NGOs. The Chinese government is suspicious of NGOs, especially in the wake of Ukraine's Orange Revolution and also the (presumed) tendency of American NGOs to proselytize (for whatever their agendas might be -- democratic, social, political).

I quote this phrase because for me it's an indication of how twisted we can get in our thinking merely through the use of words.

Think about what this phrase is saying: Dangerous agents of peaceful change.

It just goes to show that Bush et al have no monopoly on the creation of Doublespeak.