Global Warming

Among the dangerous threats facing our species (and in fact all species on this planet) today is the grave threat of climate change and global warming. The following article was posted on BBC News today.

Climate change 'hitting Africa'
Climate change is already affecting people across Africa and will wipe out efforts to tackle poverty there unless urgent action is taken, a report says.
Droughts are getting worse and climate uncertainty is growing, the research from a coalition of UK aid agencies and environmental groups says.

Climate change is an "unprecedented" threat to food security, it says.

It calls for a "climate-proof" model of development and massive emissions cuts to avoid "possibly cataclysmic change".

The report, Up In Smoke 2, updates previous research from the organisations - Oxfam, the New Economics Foundation and the Working Group on Climate Change and Development, an umbrella group of aid and green groups.


Global warming is set to make many of the problems which Africa already deals with, much, much worse
Andrew Simms
New Economics Foundation

It says that although climates across Africa have always been erratic, scientific research and the experience of the contributing groups "indicates new and dangerous extremes".

Arid or semi-arid areas in northern, western, eastern and parts of southern Africa are becoming drier, while equatorial Africa and other parts of southern Africa are getting wetter, the report says.

The continent is, on average, 0.5C warmer than it was 100 years ago, but temperatures have risen much higher in some areas - such as a part of Kenya which has become 3.5C hotter in the past 20 years, the agencies report.

Andrew Simms, from the New Economics Foundation, said: "Global warming is set to make many of the problems which Africa already deals with, much, much worse," he said.

"In the last year alone, 25 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa have faced food crisis.

"Global warming means that that many dry areas are going to get drier and wet areas are going to get wetter. They are going to be caught between the devil of drought and the deep blue seas of floods."

He added that the "great tragedy" was that Africa had played virtually no role in global warming, a problem he said was caused by economic activity of the rich, industrial countries.

Mr Simms said unless climate change was tackled all the "best efforts" to help Africa could come to nothing.

One of the biggest threats is growing climate unpredictability, which makes subsistence farming difficult, the report says.

The average number of food emergencies in Africa per year almost tripled since the mid 1980s, it points out.

But it says that better planning to reduce the risk from disasters, together with developing agricultural practices that can withstand changing climates, have been shown to work and could help mitigate the impact if used be more widely.

'Overwhelming'

Up in Smoke 2 also laments the failure of industrialised governments to help developing countries adapt to climate change.

Between $10bn (£5.2bn) and $40bn is needed annually, the report says, but industrialised countries have given only $43m - a tenth of the amount they have pledged - while rich country fossil fuel subsidies total $73bn a year.

The agencies say that greenhouse emissions cuts of 60% - 90% will ultimately be needed - way beyond the targets set in the Kyoto agreement.

"Climate change is overwhelming the situation in Africa... unless we take genuine steps now to reduce our emissions, people in the developed world will be condemning millions to hunger, starvation and death," said Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth.

The report comes two weeks before a key summit on climate change in Nairobi, where delegates will look at the progress made on the Kyoto agreement that requires industrial nations to cut their emissions by an average of 5.2% from 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012.

Delegates will also consider what system should be adopted when the current period ends.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/6092564.stm

Published: 2006/10/28 23:44:57 GMT

© BBC MMVI

One of the organisations behind the report has some additional information available here.

The actual report is available here.

-----------
Update: 31/10/2006

The British Treasury and Cambridge University have also produced a related report about the economic consequences of global warming.

The report is available through the official website of the British Treasury, accessable by clicking here.

Essentially the conclusions of the report (available most easily through the executive summary) are nothing new. For instance, one of the important assertions of the report is that it will cost less to stem pollution now than it will cost to deal with the warming effects later. Of course, a pure capitalist system does not really care about the future, for systematic reasons. The current Robber Barrons (masters of big business) view their position as being at the top of a democratic structure in which votes are cast in dollars (or foreign equivalent). The opinions of the public (as viewed by where the money is going) is of course of paramount importantce. However, in this system that is based strictly on the here and now, future generations are of no value as they cannot cast their dollar-votes today. As such, anything that would adversely affect the bottom line now is rejected.

However, this particular aspect of the system is in contrast with the general will of the populations of the world, the majority of whom would like to see governments sign and impliment the Kyoto Protocols on global warming.

The important question, which shouldn't even have to be brought up in "democratic" states, is will our governments do what we want?
---------------------------
Update: November 4, 2006

The AFP today reports on a demonstration in London 10,000 strong calling for urgent action on climate change.

On Monday, November 6, the second United Nations Climate Change conference for parties to the (1997) Kyoto Protocols on climate change will meet in Nairobi, Kenya. This event is likely to be overshadowed by coverage of the US elections set to take place on 7 November, and will not include a delegation from the United States as the US is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocols. However, as the US the worlds leading producer of CO2 (greenhouse gas) emissions which have been increasing at an alarming rate over the past few decades and are likely to continue to increase exponentially without immediate action being taken, such as pollution reduction to 2002 target levels, which still hadn't been reached by many industrialised nations by 2005, the time at which the target levels were set to decrease again. These are simple steps to take, and of the utmost importance for those who care about the world that we leave (or don't leave) our children.

-----------------

Update 07-11-06
Insects to Rule the Earth soon due to Global Warming. From Pravda.ru

A rise in the Earth’s temperature could lead to an increase in the number of insects worldwide, with potentially dire consequences for humans, a new study suggests.

New research shows that insect species living in warmer areas are more likely to undergo rapid population growth because they have higher metabolic rates and reproduce more frequently. The finding has scientists concerned that global warming could give rise to more fast-growing insect populations and that we could see a spike in the number of six-legged critters.

The consequences could be more serious than just a few extra bug bites each summer. “If they’re crop species, we could count on needing to use more pesticides and it could be very costly,” said Melanie Frazier, a doctoral student at the University of Washington and lead author of the study.

Insect-borne diseases are also a worry. Malaria, Lyme Disease and a host of others rely on insect vectors to spread among humans, and a swell in their populations could mean more infections.

Already, scientists have observed a widening of malarial zones with new cases appearing in previously unaffected areas. The change is thought to be due to rising temperatures and an expansion of areas habitable for mosquitoes. The new research, detailed in the October issue of The American Naturalist, shows rising temperatures would mean insects would not only spread out, but also multiply more quickly.

...it continues...

Hope

When confronted with harsh realities, human beings have an inherent nature to do one of two things: bury their heads in the sand and say "it can't be true," or give up hope along the lines of a pessimistic austrian writer who once wrote "A first sign of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die."

Grave predictions, uncertain futures, and a feeling of powerlessness can lead people to give up hope. I won't pretend to not understand why someone in Baghdad who has lost their family to american shells and sectarian bullets would want to give up hope. Or why someone in Michigan might sigh as they look back on 2 presidential elections that should have been won, the first that was stolen blatantly and the second that produced an unimaginable result based on what seemed to be an astounding turnout of young and opposition voters, and surrender to institutional structures that they believe will never change. Or how someone, after too long under the screw of an oppressive occupation, could be left so devoid of hope that they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the purpose of hurting their oppressors. I can understand these people.

But hope should never be abandoned. We as human beings have the capability to be so much more than we allow ourselves to be. I believe that human beings have the capability to forsake anger and hatred, vengence and violence, and overcome any challenge they are presented without having to sacrifice their dignity and morality. This power comes not only from our minds, but from our hearts as well.

A courageous leader once stated that "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." He also pointed out that "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

Leading scientists and intellectuals often proffer dire predictions and observations, and many of us pass along these statements without pointing out constructive solutions. It is painfully obvious that human beings have an unprecedented capability to destroy, but along with the ability to destroy comes an unprecedented ability to create, to nourish, and to improve.

We must never allow ourselves to become slaves to fear, hopelessness, vengence, or greed. We need not destroy ourselves and our environment to satisfy our primal urges, we have the capability to be so much better than that.


There are many things wrong with the world today. There is no other species that destroys its own with such ferocity and on such an immense scale. I would like to present you today with the words of unquestionably one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, Albert Einstein, with help from Bertrand Russell.

From the Russell - Einstein Manifesto:

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

...

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

...

"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them."

Now, I do not consider myself a pacifist. I believe that there are situations, as described in Article 51 of the UN Charter, in which military action is appropriate. However, military action as a first resort, rather than a last resort, is a danger to all of us, and a danger that can easily be avoided.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty demands that its signatories not only refrain from producing new nuclear weapons, but also take steps to dismantle existing nuclear arsenals. The Bush administration's continued simultaneous assertions to be against the proliferation of WMDs and intent development of "low yeild" "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons are not only hypocritical , but a danger to all of us. Their actions have already triggered the beginning of an arms race, and their constant war-like posturing is increasing the danger posed to all of us. Simultaneously they claim christian piety, and as such, to them and their supporters I say "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5).

On this page I had previously planned to illustrate the un-democratic nature of American governance, but not for the purpose of inspiring despair, or causing people to surrender to what they see as an unbreakable system for the "protection of the minority of the opulent," but rather because real change, for the better, is possible. In any event, a discussion of the American Republic form of government (republic, not democracy) and its implications for the world will be postponed.

Rather, at this point it is necessary to point out some key facts that are relevant to the world's current state of affairs.

The first is American Militarism. Most Americans are in fact not the militant "chicken hawks" that are so often highlighted in the media. The majority of Americans do not wish to go to war unless no other options are available. As we have seen with the collapse of all pretexts for the invasion of Iraq, those in power are not catering to the will of their people. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and "liberation," by any rational definition, does not entail 500,000 civilian deaths as a direct result. The only people who have reaped any positive benefit from the invasion are the small number of people who made a profit off of the $350billion in congressional budget appropriations for the conflict, and a profit from the redistribution of Iraq's wealth of natural resources to private companies. A well informed American would not have chosen such a course of action. A byproduct of this invasion, brought about by a militarism that is not in the wishes of a majority of the population, is an increase in support for organisations that assert their intentention to launch reprisals against what they perceive (rightly) as American Imperialism.

Another byproduct of this militarism, or resort-to-force-as-the-first-option, is that other countries are developing their own military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, as a deterrant to the American threat. This is evidenced by North Korea's recent Nuclear test. This increases a danger to us all, due to the fact that they increase the risk of provocation of a larger conflict, and as discussed by Russell and Einstein above, this would have disasterous effects for our species as a whole.

But how can this situation be changed? Because it is America that poses this threat, it is the American people who are in the best position to alleviate it. It is widely understood that the coming American election will have little or no effect on US government policy. Simultaneously, there is a pervailing sentiment (rarely articulated) that regardless of who is in charge (in the US), things will stay the same. This is partially right. Madeline Albright (Bill Clinton's Secretary of State) has intoned that every president over the past few decades has had a strategy like George Bush's in their back pocket, they just know better than to bash people over the head with said strategy. We need look no farther than the first months of the Clinton administration to see that he was more than willing to engage in military strikes as a first option, with disasterous consequences for hundreds of children holed up in a Baghdad childrens shelter.

However, a change in regime as far as the US congress is concerned could lead to additional positive moves. Most notably, the American public would likely be let in on the realities that have been so vehemently hidden from them for the past 6 years. As we all know, an ignorant population is easy to control, and the Bush administration has excersised this control to the fullest. Their unprecedented control over the flow of information to the population has allowed them to excersise unprecedented control over public discussion on major issues, many of which are not open for public discussion to begin with. A few examples:

The first that comes to mind is the recent "conflict" between Israel and the civilian populations of Lebanon and Palestine. The very limited discourse on the subject was limited to the scope of Israel's actions, proportedly against "terrorists" but realistically against civilians (in violation of the Geneva conventions), was evidenced both in the mainstream and so-called "fringe" media. I'm including in the "fringe" media blog sites and information websites, including the well known site "MyLeftWing." On that particular site I was directly threatened with expulsion from discussion by the site's owner for a comment regarding the fact that those who supported the Israeli military incursions that killed thousands of civilians, many of whom were children, was tantamount to support for murder. And this site is proportedly the epitome of "the left" in America, which it was observed to me by a source that I trust that there really is no "left" left in America, and "the right" committed political genocide against "the left" decades ago. Aprepo, though not entirely accurate. The fact of the matter is that most Americans, even those who consider themselves well versed in news and politics, and of a "liberal" bent, are inherently subject to the information control mechanisms of an overreaching Executive, which has the power to disseminate a very large volume of disinformation to the public so as to cloud any attempt at rational discourse. Supressed from the public was the fact that Israel's invasion plans were drawn up long before the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, that Israeli soldiers had kidnapped "suspected hizballah" members just days before, and the fact that the weapons used to flatten Lebanon were handed to the Israeli military with the costs deferred to the American taxpayers.

Another example that comes quickly to mind is of course the Iraq war, wherein civilian and military death tolls are surpressed to an unprecedented extent by the Bush administration. This has included going so far as to arrest Hospital personnell in Iraq for realeasing accurate but "too high" casualty figures, and barring the US media from covering the return of injured or dead American soldiers. Due to current disagreement in elite circles as to the effectiveness of the US's Iraq policy, some dissent has filtered through into the US Media (much the same as in later stages of the Vietnam conflict), and as such the issue is receiving a large amount of coverage. However, even policy makers on the democratic side of the aisle (including Chuch Schumer and Hilliary Clinton) do not disagree with the administrations stated goals, merely question the methods. Again, even a "regime change" in the US congress is unlikely to have any impact on policy.

However, that is not to say that people should give up hope in initiating change. One of the first steps for making changes is to be presented with the full picture, which influential analysts argue will increase in likelyhood with a change in those in charge (in congress) of overseeing the actions of the government as a whole, specifically the executive. It is pointed out that Democratic oversight committees would be able to share much needed information with the American public, and put them in a better position to make informed decisions, one of the most important aspects of reclaiming democracy in America.
From Unclaimed Territory:

A Democratic takeover of one or even both houses of Congress is unlikely to result in any new affirmative legislation or policies, since their control will be by only a small margin, dependent on conservative lawmakers in their majority, and subject to a presidential veto. With some exceptions (such as the power to control appropriations and cut off funding), the real power they will have will be to investigate and expose the conduct of the Bush administration and to reveal to Americans what has really been going on.

It is difficult to overstate how crucial that is for exposing what the Republican Party has become and undermining those who control it. The administration has been able to ward off even the most incriminating accusations and disclosures because they control the primary sources of information. They can deny anything, selectively release misleading exculpatory information, and operate in the darkest shadows and behind the highest walls of secrecy. As a result, disclosures about what they have done are always piecemeal and easily obscured.

Armed with a more realistic view of what's going on, Americans are put in a much better position to initiate the so-badly-needed changes that the rest of the world is screaming for. Hope for a better tomorrow always exists as long as there are those who are willing to work for it, and who are aware of the needs and opportunities involved.

Naturally, there are those whose vested interest in seeing that things continue as they are leads them to continue to take steps to quiet their opposition. The murders ("unintentional") of dozens of foreign journalists by US troops notwithstanding, the tactics employed are nothing new: maintaining claims that "everything is allright, trust us" or playing upon the most negative of emotions, fear and anger.

To give just a couple of examples, today the BBC published a report by the US Ambassador to Iraq that "success" by the US in Iraq was still possible. This was in response to the admittal by a US State Department official that the US was "arrogant" and "stupid" in Iraq, a statement claimed by the White House to have been mistranslated but verified by the BBC to have been accurate. It was also immediately following an analysis by Robert Dreyfuss, echoing the sentiments of many prominent analysists, that a coup was on the cards in Iraq.

Facing such grim news, the Bush administration reverts to its classic strategy of playing upon the fears of the American population. The latest of a virtual plethora of examples is a video recently published on the Republican party's website RNC.org designed to scare the American public into obedience (much the same as Mao scared his population into obedience). The video is below:


The Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad had some thoughts and observations on this very subject in his letter to George Bush a few months back:

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

I think the answer is obvious. To constantly push the buttons of the population and use their fear as a tool of manipulation is an intense disservice not only to the American population, but to those against whom the fear is used to mobilise militant action. But I have hope. I have hope that Americans are as fed up with the situation as the rest of the world is. I have hope that the "elites" in the american business world are not right in their assessment that the candidate with the largest campaign war chest [must have] superior grass-roots support, the war chest referring to the amount of money they have left for their campaign. I have hope that Americans are intelligent enough to realise that the Dow Jones' record performance recently does not represent the economic welfare of their nation or themselves as individuals.

I think Americans are at a breaking point, that the situation is bad enough at this stage (domestically, for americans, and internationally) that many are coming to realise that major changes are needed, of which making a showing at their election next month is an important first step.

I have hope that the strength of morality and human decency will overpower the will of those whose greed, arrogance, and or fear have monopolised their decision making processes. I have hope for the future.

We have the power, we must only choose to use it.

Chomsky Speech on Latin America

"The United States is Terrified"
- Noam Chomsky on Latin America's Move Towards "Independence and Integration"

From Democracy Now

exerpt below:

NOAM CHOMSKY: Now remember, the U.S. is a global power, so you can't just look at one region. You have to look at what's going on everywhere. So if we go back, say, to the last intelligence projection of the Clinton administration, National Intelligence Council, year 2000, their projection for the next 15 years, they -- just keeping to energy, but there's a lot more. They took it as a matter of course that the United States would control Middle East oil. They don't discuss that much. And then they say the United States, though it will control Middle East oil, because that’s a lever of world control, nevertheless it, itself, will rely on what were called more stable Atlantic Basin resources, meaning West African dictatorships and the western hemisphere. That's what the U.S. will rely on.

Well, what's been going on in Latin America since then significantly threatens that. For the first time in its history, first time since the Spanish colonization, Latin America is moving towards a degree of independence and also a degree of integration

...it continues...


Special Thanks to The Brent Report for the heads up.

From the Asia Times story
Why all is quiet on the American home front
By Sreeram Chaulia

" Aware of the media's capability and propensity to expose the ugliness of the Iraq war, the Bush administration left no stone unturned to co-opt and muzzle it. US citizens are being kept in an uninformed Orwellian condition through such mechanisms as "embedded journalists", the "code of conduct" on reportage imposed by the former US administrator in Iraq, L Paul Bremer, and the Department of Defense's censorship of print and audiovisual media.

As the Cable News Network's Christiane Amanpour confessed, media powerhouses went along with draconian state encroachments on their freedom and even practiced shameful "self-censorship" to please political masters.

Unless the true face of the US occupation of Iraq is unveiled to the larger American public (Abu Ghraib being the tip of the iceberg), the passion and relentlessness of the anti-Vietnam War era cannot be realized. To say that new-age technologies such as the Internet are enough to overcome weaknesses in the traditional media misses the point that common Americans do not search for critical stories on the war on Iraq without being initially prodded and startled by newspapers, radio stations and television. In a media-saturated environment, the Internet is merely a secondary tool when it comes to politics and news. "





-------------------------
This story was not written by the Blog Author, but rather by Sreeram Chaulia, a writer for The Asia Times. The Blog Author cannot claim any responsibility for the content of the article. Its presentation here is strictly to bring attention to it from people who do not normally frequent the website of The Asia Times. I (the blog author) sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding.

Sanctions Regime

I recently read on the blog by Baghdad Treasure some obviously ignorant individual claiming that the US/EU withdrawl of support for Palestine was the West saying that they would not support the murder of innocents. That's asinine. First of all, withdrawl of aid coupled with a complete trade block on Palestine by Israel results in a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions, which is THE MURDER OF INNOCENTS. Secondly, America and Britain have been giving aid to Israel since 1948, and America especially has been providing huge amounts of military equipment, technology, and funding to the Israeli Defence Forces, which slaughter Palestinian civilians on a daily basis. Just last week, as described in my "even the BBC" entry, I briefly mentioned how, in the week prior to the recent bombing in tel aviv that took 9 lives, more than 20 civilians had been killed by the IDF in palestine in raids. That was just in the week before the Tel Aviv bombing, NOT INCLUDING Israel's military reaction to the bombing (more dead civilians). Yet people honestly believe in the richeousness of withdrawing much needed aid to Palestine, while their governments are STILL giving aid to Israel that is used to assist in the slaughter of Palestinian men, women, and children.
There have also been recent threats of Economic Sanctions against Iran and Syria, in addition to the de-facto sanctions in place that have a stranglehold on everyday life in palestine. It has been proven time and time again that sanctions destroy the population and do nothing to hurt those in power. We need only look as far as Iraq to see the devastating effect that the US/UK sanctions regime had on the population.
Don't believe me? Check the words of Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, the chief UN Humanitarian Coordinators for Iraq who resigned in protest to the "genocidal" nature of the Economic Sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s up until 2003. Or just read the moving description by Baghdad Treasure as a first hand account of the suffering. Or have a look at Human Rights watch's statements regarding the sanctions that cost countless lives. Yet it's a threat that won't be taken off the table. Do human beings really care so little about the lives of their fellow man?

Recent Noam Chomsky Article

New Noam Chomsky article that is not yet available on
.

Important Points:

"Here are a few simple suggestions for the US:

1. Accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court and the World Court;

2. Sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols;

3. Let the UN take the lead in international crises;

4. Rely on diplomatic and economic measures
rather than military ones in confronting the grave threats of terror;

5. Keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter:
The use of force is legitimate only when ordered
by the Security Council or when the country is
under imminent threat of attack, in accord with Article 51;

6. Give up the Security Council veto, and have
"a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as the
Declaration of Independence advises,
even if power centres disagree;

7. Cut back sharply on military spending and sharply
increase social spending: health, education,
renewable energy and so on.

For people who believe in democracy,
these are very conservative suggestions:
They appear to be the opinions of the majority
of the US population, in most cases the
overwhelming majority. They are in radical
opposition to public policy; in most cases,
to a bipartisan consensus. "


See? It's not just about pointing out problems,
we bloggers offer solutions as well.

America, Britain, Iraq, and Ireland

Just a quick observation.
If I were someone whom the religious leaders in Iraq (the ones who, at the end of the day, are the only ones with the possibility of controlling the violent militias) actually listened to, I would IMPLORE them to think about what's more important: wether one is a Sunni or Shia muslim, or wether or not one would like to see Iraq have any sort of viable future for its citizens for the next 200 years. It's only fair that I bring this up today on the 90th anniversary of the Sinn Fein rebellion in Ireland.
Even the people who consider themselves quite familiar with Irish history and the IRA and the 1916 rebellion often times know very little about the rebellion that happened more than one hundred years before that (more than 200 years ago) that was called the United Irishmen rebellion. In fact, one of the leaders from that rebellion has gained quite a bit of notoriety as his name, Wolfe Tone, is also the name of a very well know irish traditional rock band that plays a large repetoire of what are referred to as "Irish Rebel Songs." What is often not known about him, and indeed not known about half of the people who took part in the 1798 United Irishmen rebellion, was that he was protestant. Yes, PROTESTANT.
MOST people who are somewhat familiar with the situation in Ireland as a whole before 1922 and in the North ever since are well aware of the division of alligence along religious lines: Protestants generally favor remaining a part of the United Kingdom, while Catholics generally favor (re-)uniting with the southern 26 counties of Ireland.
News Flash: PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS ARE ALL CHRISTIANS. Brothers and Sisters, like. Yet there are factions (still to this day) among both parties that would think nothing of killing each other. Sound familiar to anyone who's heard about the civil war brewing in Iraq between Shia and Sunni?
News Flash: SUNNI AND SHIA ARE ALL MUSLIMS. Brothers and Sisters, like. Are Sunni Iraqis and Shia Iraqis not ALL IRAQI?!?!? Why must we always turn on each other? Lets have a look at what happened in Ireland following the 1798 Rebellion wherin Protestant AND Catholic alike fought side by side against oppression.
1798: Protestants and Catholics in Ireland are United.
::::THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT::::
The British occupying force realized that Ireland could be quite a troublesome possession, so they devised a brilliant plan of Divide and Conquer. They went out of their way to foster divisions between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, and as such worked it out so that the Irish were SO FUCKING BUSY FIGHTING EACH OTHER that, come 1840-1860 (generally known as THE IRISH FAMINE) when England was hit (MUCH MUCH WORSE THAN IRELAND WAS!) by a blight that killed off alot of their agricultural products and as such were having difficulty feeding their populations, the irish were too pre-occupied with the STUPID protestant/catholic fight to notice or be able to do anything about the fact that the british occupying forces were TAKING ALL OF THEIR FOOD and shipping it off to england, leaving them with NO FOOD ON WHICH TO SURVIVE.
*Takes deep breath and goes out for a quick cigarette.*
*Returns*
During that time Ireland's population dropped from 8 million to around 3 million.
*Takes another cigarette*
YES THATS FIVE MILLION FUCKING PEOPLE.
Numbers are vague and differ depending on your source, but roughly 3 million DIED and roughly 2 million made their way to America. (and boy they were busy when they got there, today 44 million americans claim irish descent).
All for the sake of what The Proclamation of The Irish Provisional Government said To The People Of Ireland EXACTLY NINETY YEARS AGO TODAY was "differences carefully fostered by an alien government."
118 years passed between the time of the United Irishmen rebellion and "The Irish Rebellion" that eventually led to a divided, torn, and (for a long long time) awfully poor land, a state that remained right up until EU funds saved the Republic in the 1990s. Thats TWO HUNDRED YEARS.
If things continue as they are going in Iraq, NONE OF US will live to see the day when Iraq can become anything other than a decimated torn and broken land.

The Rich Get Richer

This was on bloomberg.com today:
"The Cheneys had $2.47 million withheld from his salary and by their investment managers and are claiming a tax refund of $1.94 million, according to their return, released three days before Monday's filing deadline."
Ok, now correct me if I'm wrong, but I coulda swore that there were roughly 36 Million people living BELOW the "Poverty Line" in america. And these people pay MORE TAX than dick cheney pays. Millionare former and future Oil Tycoon dick (his name doesn't deserve capitalization) cheney gets tax back AND, on stock dividends (for the un-initiated, most major companies hide large percentages of the salaries they pay to their corporate executives as "stock options" or as company held dividends) pays a measley 15% tax, while the Average Joe pays roughly 30% tax (see Tax Freedom Day report on Tax Foundation's website as the only referance I could find about american tax percentages). This brings us to topic #2: Trickle Down Economics (a.k.a. Reaganomics in honor of their creator).
Giving loads of money to the rich and expecting that money to slowly filter down to the masses (George Orwell called them/us "The Proles") DOES NOT WORK. We learned this during the huge economic slump (RECESSION) of the 1980s when Reagan/Bush1 tried it the first time. But whaddya know, the SAME PEOPLE are in power again, and those SAME PEOPLE are the ones who have the most to gain from tax cuts for the rich, because, whaddya know, they ARE the rich. Unscrupulous greedy short-sighted evil little trolls that are going to try to send as many working class people off to war as they possibly can because they figure working class people won't vote for them, and so they might as well just go off and die.
Ain't america grand?