Wednesday, June 07, 2006
GREENPEACE - FILL IN ALARMIST FACTOID HERE
From the Washington Post c/o CCNet:
The environmental activist group Greenpeace wanted to be prepared to counter President Bush's visit last week to Pennsylvania to promote his nuclear energy policy.
"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet, decrying the "threat" posed by the reactors Bush visited in Limerick. But after that assertion, the Greenpeace authors were apparently stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.
"In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]," the sheet said.
The Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, told the Web site that a colleague was making a joke in a draft that was then mistakenly released.
The final version did not mention Armageddon; instead it warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns.
The environmental activist group Greenpeace wanted to be prepared to counter President Bush's visit last week to Pennsylvania to promote his nuclear energy policy.
"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet, decrying the "threat" posed by the reactors Bush visited in Limerick. But after that assertion, the Greenpeace authors were apparently stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.
"In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]," the sheet said.
The Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, told the Web site that a colleague was making a joke in a draft that was then mistakenly released.
The final version did not mention Armageddon; instead it warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
EUROPEAN UNION
This article suggests that the EU costs us directly £40 billion a year - £20 billion from EU regulatory costs, £15 billion for the Common Agricultural Policy & £5 billion our net cash payment. This is roughly 4% of GNP or £660 per head. Worth thinking about even though these figures come from a clearly committed source. The fact that the government refuses to give any contrary figures is indicative.
So should we stay.
Firstly the EU is often held up as having prevented war in Europe. I disagree. The reason FranGermanyrmany didn't go to war during the Cold war is that the USSR was the big player & anything else was irrelevant. To that extent the EU wbuttresstress to NATO rather than an opponent of conflict. Indeed the only war there has been in Europe is directly the EU's fault. The Yugoslav wars came about because Germany told the leaders of Slovenia, Croatia & Bosnia/Hercegovina that they would veto Yugoslav membership of the EU but support separatist states joining. There is however a serious military problem in Europe. The technological nature of war is now such that the relatively advanced nations of Europe could all produce & deliver their own WMDs. Since distances are so small this could give any one of about 30 countries a first strike capability against all the others. It may be inconceivable that anybody would ever do so but in war the inceivable happens. Thus we definitely need some restriction on our sovereignty.
Secondly, in my view, the thing that brought Europe to pre-eminence is its divisions. When Cheng Ho the Chinese explorer returned to China in the 1430s & found the Emperor's opinion had changed there was nobody else to supChinesehines exploration. When Christopher Columbus, 60 years later, found the king of Portugal would not support him he tried the king of France & then England & finally Spain because these options were open to him. A single dominating Eurogovernmentement able to control such things as GM & nuclear power destroys our greatest strength.
Thirdly the facts speak for themselves. The world's economy is growing at nearly 5%. Europe's at 2% per annum. We would be better to be tied to a rising rather than a falling region.
-
To go rather further on the question of how to bring this about I think it is worth saying that so long as we have our present electoral system whereby power lies, almost entirely, in whichever of 2 parties happens to have the larger vote, & within that among the party organisers it is (A) unlikely that the population will have the enthusiasm for British "democratic" institutions which would make them seriously more popular than Brussels & (B) people will have a serious chance to vote on these lines - currently anti-EU opinion sees their best chance as capturing the Tory party & using it as a vehicle for pulling out. I would suggest that they should, at least equally devote themselves to bringing about a proportional electroal system.This would producesome strange bedfellows (ie the Lib Dems & SNP0 but that is how majorities are built.
So should we stay.
Firstly the EU is often held up as having prevented war in Europe. I disagree. The reason FranGermanyrmany didn't go to war during the Cold war is that the USSR was the big player & anything else was irrelevant. To that extent the EU wbuttresstress to NATO rather than an opponent of conflict. Indeed the only war there has been in Europe is directly the EU's fault. The Yugoslav wars came about because Germany told the leaders of Slovenia, Croatia & Bosnia/Hercegovina that they would veto Yugoslav membership of the EU but support separatist states joining. There is however a serious military problem in Europe. The technological nature of war is now such that the relatively advanced nations of Europe could all produce & deliver their own WMDs. Since distances are so small this could give any one of about 30 countries a first strike capability against all the others. It may be inconceivable that anybody would ever do so but in war the inceivable happens. Thus we definitely need some restriction on our sovereignty.
Secondly, in my view, the thing that brought Europe to pre-eminence is its divisions. When Cheng Ho the Chinese explorer returned to China in the 1430s & found the Emperor's opinion had changed there was nobody else to supChinesehines exploration. When Christopher Columbus, 60 years later, found the king of Portugal would not support him he tried the king of France & then England & finally Spain because these options were open to him. A single dominating Eurogovernmentement able to control such things as GM & nuclear power destroys our greatest strength.
Thirdly the facts speak for themselves. The world's economy is growing at nearly 5%. Europe's at 2% per annum. We would be better to be tied to a rising rather than a falling region.
-
To go rather further on the question of how to bring this about I think it is worth saying that so long as we have our present electoral system whereby power lies, almost entirely, in whichever of 2 parties happens to have the larger vote, & within that among the party organisers it is (A) unlikely that the population will have the enthusiasm for British "democratic" institutions which would make them seriously more popular than Brussels & (B) people will have a serious chance to vote on these lines - currently anti-EU opinion sees their best chance as capturing the Tory party & using it as a vehicle for pulling out. I would suggest that they should, at least equally devote themselves to bringing about a proportional electroal system.This would producesome strange bedfellows (ie the Lib Dems & SNP0 but that is how majorities are built.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
HERALD LETTER ON THE GREEN'S & SLD'S NUCLEAR LUNACY
In Friday's Herald (I haven't linked it because the Herald is subscrption after the first day):
John Stewart argues that the approaching blackouts due to lack of electricity-generating capacity can be postponed by a 10-year extension of the life of Hunterston (Letters, May 30). Robin Harper, Green MSP, in reply (June 1) says that because we use power in other forms (cars, aircraft, etc) we will not notice when what he acknowledges as "only" one-third of our electricity is cut off.
I believe that a new reactor would be cheaper in anything but the short term and safer and would certainly produce less reactor waste than running the current one so far beyond its design life. Whatever the technical case for such an extension, your readers should be informed that at their recent conference the LibDems not only opposed new generators but specifically rejected an amendment which would have allowed such an extension for Hunterston. In which case Hunterston will close in 2011 and blackouts can be expected shortly thereafter.
This is in accord with the policy of Nicol Stephen who declared, during a recent BBC debate, that "nuclear is the easy answer" and went on to explain that it must thus be avoided at all costs since if it were allowed to work the electorate would never accept all the massive subsidies for wind, etc. Personally, I do not consider that position can reasonably be called "liberal".
Perhaps Scotland deserves some political leaders who do not believe that uncomfortable facts will go away if they bury their heads in the sand.
Neil Craig, 27 Woodlands Drive, Glasgow.
Perhaps Mr Stephen will write to clarify his remarks & explain exactly where the electricity to replace Hunterston in 2011 is to come from. Since he has not exactly been highly visible I suspect not.
(no response today - I will add here if they feel able to respond)
John Stewart argues that the approaching blackouts due to lack of electricity-generating capacity can be postponed by a 10-year extension of the life of Hunterston (Letters, May 30). Robin Harper, Green MSP, in reply (June 1) says that because we use power in other forms (cars, aircraft, etc) we will not notice when what he acknowledges as "only" one-third of our electricity is cut off.
I believe that a new reactor would be cheaper in anything but the short term and safer and would certainly produce less reactor waste than running the current one so far beyond its design life. Whatever the technical case for such an extension, your readers should be informed that at their recent conference the LibDems not only opposed new generators but specifically rejected an amendment which would have allowed such an extension for Hunterston. In which case Hunterston will close in 2011 and blackouts can be expected shortly thereafter.
This is in accord with the policy of Nicol Stephen who declared, during a recent BBC debate, that "nuclear is the easy answer" and went on to explain that it must thus be avoided at all costs since if it were allowed to work the electorate would never accept all the massive subsidies for wind, etc. Personally, I do not consider that position can reasonably be called "liberal".
Perhaps Scotland deserves some political leaders who do not believe that uncomfortable facts will go away if they bury their heads in the sand.
Neil Craig, 27 Woodlands Drive, Glasgow.
Perhaps Mr Stephen will write to clarify his remarks & explain exactly where the electricity to replace Hunterston in 2011 is to come from. Since he has not exactly been highly visible I suspect not.
(no response today - I will add here if they feel able to respond)
Friday, June 02, 2006
THE MURDER OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
I am reprinting here an article by Pete North on the murder of Milosevic
-----------------------------
by Pete North
June 1, 2006
Based on the evidence provided by the ICTY themselves (some of it clearly inadvertant as a result of their clumsy coverup in the immediate aftermath of his death) i.e., public statements from ICTY officials (doctors/toxicologists) that they performed blood tests on January 12 which revealed the presence of the Leprosy drug 'Rifampicine' in Milosevic's blood but kept it secret from Milosevic,his doctors,lawyers and the entire world for TWO MONTHS until March 7, is clear evidence of foul play on the part of officials in the ICTY.
The fact that the ICTY had to change their story repeatedly resulting in numerous self- contradictory and inconsistent statements also points to a clear coverup.
For example, once the Dutch NOS TV station revealed certain facts soon after Milosevic's death - especially that Milosevic had a blood test on January 12 - which the ICTY doctors themselves admitted was performed in order to find out why Milosevic's heart medication wasn't working - and yet failed to tell anyone in the world including Milosevic himself until March 7 - and yet he dies three short days after writing a letter to the Russian embassy complaining of being poisoned.
The constantly changing stories by ICTY officials - all contradictory of one another - given for his death were also highly suspicious.
They first said it was "natural causes", then said "possibly suicide", then they said he took the "wrong medicine" - without explaining how he could have possibly taken the medicine without them knowing - since he was always closely watched and was ONLY given medicine by the prison dispensary in the presence of armed guards.
Then they changed their story yet again by claiming that he must have been "poisoning himself in secret" in a "complex plot to escape to Russia" - even though this necessitated the involvement of his lawyers,doctors, the Russian government and even the ICTY ITSELF (since it was known Milosevic was under strict 24/7 Video surveillance & ALL medicine as indicated previously had to be taken from the prison dispensary in the presence of armed prison guards then how on earth could he be "poisoning himself" in secret?!)
The "poisoning himself in secret" story just didn't make any sense; realizing the absurdity, the ICTY offials simply changed their story yet again and LIED by making the ludicrous claim that he WASN'T monitored 24/7 and that "alcohol and other drugs" were being "smuggled in" to the prison for months before his death!!
But since this necessitated knowing involvement on the part of ICTY officials/guards, they had to change their story yet again by claiming that though the prison guards knew about this alleged smuggling of alcohol and drugs for months,somehow,because of sheer "incompetence", nothing was done about it by the higher ups (i.e the judges/prosecutors) and Milosevic was happily able to poison himself for months on end (and presumably also get drunk)!
The fact that soon after Milosevic's death the Dutch NOS TV station revealed that the ICTY ADMITTED that they KNEW about the presence of the Leprosy drug in his blood since January 12 - but supposedly did nothing about it for two entire months really threw a spanner in the works. This is where the cover up simply fell apart and blew a massive hole in the ICTY's initial "we didn't know he was poisoning himself so couldn't do anything about it" story.
Someone INSIDE the ICTY had to administering the Leprosy drug to Milosevic covertly without his knowledge and that was clearly revealed in the complaint letter that Milosevic wrote to the Russian embassy on March 8 after he received the blood test report -the day before - on March 7 -TWO MONTHS late.
Since in this letter Milosevic makes clear that the ICTY has repeatedly refused to let him go to Russia for heart surgery (even as late as his last appeal of February 24,2006 his request for medical treatment was denied)Milosevic pointed out that Russian specialists would quickly detect the Leprosy drug in a routine blood test - and thus clearly PROVE his poisoning by the ICTY - is it any surprise that the letter doesn't get delivered until AFTER his death?
Then they changed their story yet again and said that Milosevic WASN'T poisoned because they found no PRESCRIBED drugs in "toxic concentrations". How cute. Meaning he wasn't poisoned by the medicines he was SUPPOSED to be taking.
Even though ICTY officials admit that the Leprosy drug, 'Rifampicine', is an UNPRESCRIBED drug which apart from interfering with (i.e., blocking) heart medication - in effect acting as a POISON - it also quickly dissipates from the body leaving no trace of its presence (which they themselves admit) they still had the audacity to attempt to mislead the public by twisting the facts to make it sound as if he just simply wasn't poisoned in any way at all.
The fact that the ICTY blood test report of January 12 did not get delivered to Milosevic until March 7 - two months late - causing him to write his very concerned letter on March 8, outlining his grave fears about being poisoned, and the fact that his MArch 8 lettr did not get delivered to the Russian embassy until well AFTER Milosevic's death speaks volumes about who the only murderer could possibly be: NATO.
Since NATO have on numerous occasions publically admitted that they own - and ipso facto - control the ICTY, it can also be proved by the fact that Clinton's former "peace envoy", Richard Holbrooke was even able to intervene recently directly with the president of the ICTY on behalf of an ICTY-indicted KLA mass murderer, Mr.Ramush Haradinaj, to have Mr. Haradinaj released from The Hague prison without him having to even face trial - let alone be convicted for his crimes - also speaks volumes about what kind of "court" the ICTY truly is.
-----------------------------------
I think this is a pretty definitive dissection. Anybody who wants to claim to believe the ICTY didn't murder him has to explain why they had 8 (count 'em) separate versions of the "truth".
-----------------------------
by Pete North
June 1, 2006
Based on the evidence provided by the ICTY themselves (some of it clearly inadvertant as a result of their clumsy coverup in the immediate aftermath of his death) i.e., public statements from ICTY officials (doctors/toxicologists) that they performed blood tests on January 12 which revealed the presence of the Leprosy drug 'Rifampicine' in Milosevic's blood but kept it secret from Milosevic,his doctors,lawyers and the entire world for TWO MONTHS until March 7, is clear evidence of foul play on the part of officials in the ICTY.
The fact that the ICTY had to change their story repeatedly resulting in numerous self- contradictory and inconsistent statements also points to a clear coverup.
For example, once the Dutch NOS TV station revealed certain facts soon after Milosevic's death - especially that Milosevic had a blood test on January 12 - which the ICTY doctors themselves admitted was performed in order to find out why Milosevic's heart medication wasn't working - and yet failed to tell anyone in the world including Milosevic himself until March 7 - and yet he dies three short days after writing a letter to the Russian embassy complaining of being poisoned.
The constantly changing stories by ICTY officials - all contradictory of one another - given for his death were also highly suspicious.
They first said it was "natural causes", then said "possibly suicide", then they said he took the "wrong medicine" - without explaining how he could have possibly taken the medicine without them knowing - since he was always closely watched and was ONLY given medicine by the prison dispensary in the presence of armed guards.
Then they changed their story yet again by claiming that he must have been "poisoning himself in secret" in a "complex plot to escape to Russia" - even though this necessitated the involvement of his lawyers,doctors, the Russian government and even the ICTY ITSELF (since it was known Milosevic was under strict 24/7 Video surveillance & ALL medicine as indicated previously had to be taken from the prison dispensary in the presence of armed prison guards then how on earth could he be "poisoning himself" in secret?!)
The "poisoning himself in secret" story just didn't make any sense; realizing the absurdity, the ICTY offials simply changed their story yet again and LIED by making the ludicrous claim that he WASN'T monitored 24/7 and that "alcohol and other drugs" were being "smuggled in" to the prison for months before his death!!
But since this necessitated knowing involvement on the part of ICTY officials/guards, they had to change their story yet again by claiming that though the prison guards knew about this alleged smuggling of alcohol and drugs for months,somehow,because of sheer "incompetence", nothing was done about it by the higher ups (i.e the judges/prosecutors) and Milosevic was happily able to poison himself for months on end (and presumably also get drunk)!
The fact that soon after Milosevic's death the Dutch NOS TV station revealed that the ICTY ADMITTED that they KNEW about the presence of the Leprosy drug in his blood since January 12 - but supposedly did nothing about it for two entire months really threw a spanner in the works. This is where the cover up simply fell apart and blew a massive hole in the ICTY's initial "we didn't know he was poisoning himself so couldn't do anything about it" story.
Someone INSIDE the ICTY had to administering the Leprosy drug to Milosevic covertly without his knowledge and that was clearly revealed in the complaint letter that Milosevic wrote to the Russian embassy on March 8 after he received the blood test report -the day before - on March 7 -TWO MONTHS late.
Since in this letter Milosevic makes clear that the ICTY has repeatedly refused to let him go to Russia for heart surgery (even as late as his last appeal of February 24,2006 his request for medical treatment was denied)Milosevic pointed out that Russian specialists would quickly detect the Leprosy drug in a routine blood test - and thus clearly PROVE his poisoning by the ICTY - is it any surprise that the letter doesn't get delivered until AFTER his death?
Then they changed their story yet again and said that Milosevic WASN'T poisoned because they found no PRESCRIBED drugs in "toxic concentrations". How cute. Meaning he wasn't poisoned by the medicines he was SUPPOSED to be taking.
Even though ICTY officials admit that the Leprosy drug, 'Rifampicine', is an UNPRESCRIBED drug which apart from interfering with (i.e., blocking) heart medication - in effect acting as a POISON - it also quickly dissipates from the body leaving no trace of its presence (which they themselves admit) they still had the audacity to attempt to mislead the public by twisting the facts to make it sound as if he just simply wasn't poisoned in any way at all.
The fact that the ICTY blood test report of January 12 did not get delivered to Milosevic until March 7 - two months late - causing him to write his very concerned letter on March 8, outlining his grave fears about being poisoned, and the fact that his MArch 8 lettr did not get delivered to the Russian embassy until well AFTER Milosevic's death speaks volumes about who the only murderer could possibly be: NATO.
Since NATO have on numerous occasions publically admitted that they own - and ipso facto - control the ICTY, it can also be proved by the fact that Clinton's former "peace envoy", Richard Holbrooke was even able to intervene recently directly with the president of the ICTY on behalf of an ICTY-indicted KLA mass murderer, Mr.Ramush Haradinaj, to have Mr. Haradinaj released from The Hague prison without him having to even face trial - let alone be convicted for his crimes - also speaks volumes about what kind of "court" the ICTY truly is.
-----------------------------------
I think this is a pretty definitive dissection. Anybody who wants to claim to believe the ICTY didn't murder him has to explain why they had 8 (count 'em) separate versions of the "truth".
