Stump Lane
in the dirt since history began

The Globe and Mail: Canada refuses further role in missile defence

Although Prime Minister Paul Martin said Canada would “insist” on maintaining control of its airspace, U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci warned that Washington would not be constrained.

“We will deploy. We will defend North America,” he said.

“We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty – its seat at the table – to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada.” [Emphasis mine.]

Wow. Hey, wait a minute, what does sovereignty mean now-a-days, anyway?

In Iraq, back in June of 04, there was much to-do about US turning over “sovereignty” to Iraqis, however, they were given no authority when it came to where our military would strike, or which city we would raze with napalm.

It would seem from this article, though, that Ambassador Cellucci has a different view of what sovereignty means. It would seem that he thinks it means having, at the very least, “a seat at the table” in deciding what the US military does on/over one’s soil.

Oh, I get it. (Somewhere a lightbulb turns on.) Iraqi’s were given a “seat at the table” back in June. But it’s just that: a seat at the table where we tell you what-the-fuck we are going to do, and you get to choose whether you want to go along and agree, or look weak and ineffectual in your objections.

We’re the Daddy, that’s why.

Here we go, new definition, as far as I can tell:

sov·er·eign·ty
n. pl. sov·er·eign·ties

1. Supremacy of authority or Acquiescence to U.S. rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power. (in the sense that “royalty” is impotent: a bygone institution of which now all that remains is the ceremonial and sentimental)
3. Complete Rhetorical independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent “independent” (in a rhetorical sense; within reason) state.

(Original definition found at dictionary.com)

For clarification, we should look to what Our Fearless Leader (OFL) has to say on the subject. We don’t want to rely only on some low-level diplomat assigned to Canada for our new definition. Here is what OFL had to say when asked about tribal sovereignty at the UNITY conference in Washington DC, August 6, 2004..

Tribal sovereignty means that, it’s sovereign. You’re a — you’re a — you have been given sovereignty and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.

Who’s your Daddy, tribes? You realize you still have to do what he says, right?
Canada?
Iraq?

I sure hope this clears everything up. Any questions?

Hunter S. Thompson Dies at 67 (washingtonpost.com)

Three of today’s headlines:
Syria and Iran Say to Build ‘Common Front’ – Reuters

Russia to Sell Advanced Missiles to Syria – Reuters Are we heading for a new ‘cold war’ here?

Stoking the fires: Iran Will Know How to Build Bomb in 6 Months -Israel – Reuters

The sabre rattling seems to be moving along much like it did in the months before Iraq. But wait..
Nuclear Folly – Znet There couldn’t possibly be a false premise at work here, could there?

As with Iraq, this is not really about the threat of an attack on the US.
It is about economic power in an economy powered by oil. Read this: Iran to take control of world’s oil trade in 2005 – GNN

Shall we let them do it again?

CIA leak reporters ‘must testify’ – BBC News

I don’t get it. I’m no expert at law. But the crime in the Plame case was ”..disclosing a covert agent’s name.. [Which is] punishable by up to 10 years in prison.” Robert Novak revealed Plame’s name in his column. Her name was disclosed to him by an ”executive branch official.” Apparently two journalists were also made privy to this information. However, at least one of them didn’t even do anything with it. (“Miller gathered material for a story but never wrote one.”) Why do these journalists face prison when Novak, who to my mind is an accomplice to the crime as he was the one who revealed Plame’s name to the world, doesn’t have to testify? It would seem to me that possessing the knowledge (i.e.: Plame’s name, and the identity of the source) cannot possibly be a crime. They simply possesed the ‘intellectual property.’ Whereas Novak, who had the knowledge and proceeded to publish it, fully aware of the statute against “disclosing a covert agent’s name,” made himself complicit in the ”executive branch official’s” crime.

I understand there are also issues here with regard to freedom of the press and the need for journalists to be able to protect confidential sources. But, if these journalists’ rights are to be jeopardized as they seem to be in this case, why the unequal treatment? Really, I don’t get it.

MTT (Marginal Theory Time): Maybe there is more than one ‘source’ within the Administration. One less worthy of protection from exposure than whoever talked to Novak. Or, maybe this is whole thing is a ploy by the administration to limit reporting and stifle sources, in which case, Novak is the one most deserving of protection.

The Bad Boy is a luxury conversion of a tactical vehicle built for the U.S. Army by Stewart & Stevenson. The diesel-powered Bad Boy is 21 feet long, 10 feet tall and 8 feet wide, and has room for three adult passengers in the front seat. The all-wheel drive vehicle can run 72 mph, and it can carry a 5,000-pound payload. It offers 22-inch ground clearance, and it can ford water 30 to 60 inches deep. It can also climb grades as steep as 60 percent. The truck comes equipped with a Central Tire Inflation System that has settings for off road, mud and snow. The tire system can also keep the tire inflated even if it has a hole the size of a quarter in the sidewall. The truck comes with a 58-gallon tank and can carry passengers 400+ miles, depending upon the payload.

For adventure seekers who want the ultimate in security and protection as they travel abroad, the Bad Boy HMT can be equipped with a cabin filtration system to protect occupants against nuclear radiation, biological contaminants and chemical agents.

“The truck comes with a 58-gallon tank and can carry passengers 400+ miles” Let’s see: 400 miles/58 gallons = 6.9 MPG, but that looks like it’s for passengers only. You probably wouldn’t do as well if hauling a 5000 lb payload or towing a 21000 lb load.

Bad Boy Trucks – Specifications

Base price: $225,000
Fully loaded “NBC” (nuclear, biological and chemical) version: $750,000

[The "NBC" version can] detect and block out fallout from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons by over-pressurizing the cab with filtered, clean air..

New Bad Boy truck dwarfs the Hummer – Salon.com

Two gunmen shot U.S. missionary Dorothy Stang in an isolated jungle settlement of landless peasants 30 miles from the town of Anapu in the state of Para, police and fellow religious workers said.

“It was three shots at point-blank range,” said Sister Betsy Flynn of Stang’s order, the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. “She received so many threats; I just never thought it would happen.”

“Two hired gunmen have now been identified and there are other people involved. There are witnesses that will be protected,” Human Rights Minister Nilmario Miranda said in an interview on national television. He used the word “pistoleiro,” used in Brazil to describe a contract killer.

Brazil’s government compared the killing of the award-winning activist to that of legendary Amazon campaigner Chico Mendes, who was gunned down in 1988 and became a martyr in the fight to save the rain forest and protect its people.

Yahoo! News – American Nun Shot Dead in Brazil’s Amazon

Freedom of speech, along with University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, is under attack. The attack doesn’t only come from his employer, the media and the tides of public opinion, but also from the State.

“It’s amazing that the more we look at Ward Churchill, the more outrageous, treasonous statements we hear from Churchill,” says Colorado Governor Bill Owens who also writes this letter.

Without getting into a defense of Churchill’s views, I’d simply point out that in he has the right to express them whatever they are, and that rather than conducting a witch hunt in the media, by (I’m sure) taking his quotes out of context, it would be more useful to either present his case as he makes it and present a counterpoint, or not report on it at all. Persecuting him is just another form of the change subject and attack gambit, in that it changes the story from being about his comments, their meaning, and a potential discussion of their validity, and makes it a story about a traitor who must be silenced. This is simply wrong and unfair.

I get the feeling that taken within context, and understanding both the context and Churchill’s intended meaning, the two statements, while provocative, would probably not be considered treasonous. (Perhaps I will track down the speech and the subsequent interviews in order to examine these statements in their proper context.)

It is frightening that this attack on Freedom is happening. I fear there is more to come in the current political climate.

It’s happened before:
Sedition Act of 1798
Sedition Act of 1918

==UPDATE==
Here some sources to put this thing in context:

The 2001 essay, “Some People Push Back” On the Justice of Roosting Chickens in which Churchill makes the ‘little Eichmanns’ reference..

They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire – the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly.

The interview on Paula Zahn Now in which Churchill refuses to apologize for the 2001 essay, and asks..

And CNN no less than any other network before the buildings came down was already describing this as being senseless. And I’m saying to myself how can they know that? Senseless means with no purpose. How do we know [the terrorists] had no purpose? We can agree with it, we can disagree with it, but that’s an absolute misrepresentation of the reality. What is the purpose and why?

The Rocky Mountain News article/interview Churchill defiant in face of outcry in which Churchill cautions..

It’s been announced in pretty clear terms by both David Horowitz and Newt Gingrich that I am just the kickoff for a general purge they have in mind.. Academia is to be a cheering section for red, white and blue, as they define it, and it has no other function.

..and attempts to clarify his original thesis..

The only way to resolve the problem symbolized in 9/11 is for the United States government and its citizens to acknowledge the fact that they actually have to obey the law like everybody else and not just treat it as guidelines for its own convenience.

Interview with Satya Magazine in which Chruchill is asked..

What are some of the solutions? Extreme events, like 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, have mobilized people out of such complacency, albeit temporarily.

..and he answers..

I don’t have a ready answer for that. One of the things I’ve suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary. This seems like such a no-brainer that I hate to frame it in terms of actual transformation of consciousness. ‘Hey those brown-skinned folks dying in the millions in order to maintain this way of life, they can wait forever for those who purport to be the opposition here to find some personally comfortable and pure manner of affecting the kind of transformation that brings not just lethal but genocidal processes to a halt.’ They have no obligation—moral, ethical, legal or otherwise—to sit on their thumbs while the opposition here dithers about doing anything to change the system. So it’s removing the sense of—and right to—impunity from the American opposition.

I am just curious why this is all coming to a head now, since it seems to stem from an article he wrote over 3 years ago. Is this really the beginning of “a general purge” of dissenting intellectuals?

Blockbuster has ended late fees. Great news, right? Now you don’t have to worry about it if you can’t make it to the movie store the day they are “due.” If you need a couple of extra days, take ‘em. If the weather’s lousy and you don’t want to venture out, wait. This is fantastic! So convenient. No more embarrassment at checkout when the clerk announces that you have a balance on your account for bringing back Gigli a day late. Hey, instead of making a mid-week trip to Blockbuster just to drop off rentals, I can just wait ’till the next time I go in, right? Yes, so convenient! I could get used to this.

But, alas, there is a kicker. After a certain amount of time elapses from the “due date,” Blockbuster will hit you with a “restocking fee.” I knew this because I am always looking for the ‘catch’ when someone is trying to sell me on something, and they really are selling this “no more late fees” campaign.

So, I’m in Blockbuster today and it’s right around dinner time and the place is packed with folks renting. I know the last movies I rented were returned well past the “due” date. I get to the front and hand the fellow my card and the movies I am renting. He says “You have a $2.50 fee on your account.”

I play dumb, I smile. “A late fee?” I ask.

“No it’s not a late fee. It’s a re-stocking fee.” See, after a certain amount of time elapses, they just assume you’re keeping the movies and will charge you for them next time you come in. Unless you return the movies, then they hit you with a restocking fee.

Nonetheless, I act incredulous, “But it’s a late fee, you just have a different name for it.”

“It’s not a late fee. It just costs us $1.25 when we have to enter it back into the system.”

What?! It costs $1.25 to enter it back into the system? Right, I’m sure the process is as complicated as scanning a bar code. Whatever, fair is fair, I know the score. I said, “I’ll pay it.”

I kept heckling him though, just for grins. He kept repeating “It’s not a late fee.”

A guy in the line behind me heard this and laughed incredulously and repeated the mantra chuckling, “it’s not a late fee.” So it was funny.. sorta.

But it isn’t funny to draw the connections as I always seem to do. They put out a message via a massive PR campaign, (“No More Late Fees.”) In order to create a certain perception or belief, (that there are no more late fees.) But through semantics, if not outright dishonesty, they still get their pound of flesh. ($1.25)

The same strategy can be used in other areas. For instance, get all of your loudmouthpieces talking about “prisoner abuse” in a massive PR campaign to downplay what happened, (it was like fraternity hazing, it was like cheerleaders making a pyramid.) This will create the perception or belief, (“We don’t torture.”) But we can, through semantics and outright dishonesty, along with a healthy dose of denial and delusion, still get our pound of flesh: (“soften” prisoners for interrogation, deny prisoners POW status so the Geneva Conventions don’t apply, contrive a favorable definition of torture to suit the situation.)

[Aside: by the way, why is it ok to change the traditional dictionary definition of "torture," when the definition of "marriage" must remain sacrosanct? But this is another topic.]

Well, reader, you get the point. You see what these “people” (read: institutions,) are up to. Blockbuster’s roll in this is that they make this kind of duplicity more acceptable, or at least more conventional for the complacent propaganda consumer. Whether Blockbuster is complicit in this effort, or is merely capitalizing on the current climate, they are trying to railroad the gullible.

Watch yourself, my friend, for they will try to get you too. We are bombarded with this stuff

all

the

time.

===UPDATE===
Blockbuster Settles ‘No Late Fees’ Case (washingtonpost.com)

Blockbuster Inc. said yesterday that it would change how it promotes its “No Late Fees” policy to make sure customers know they may incur some charges if they keep videotapes, DVDs or games seven days beyond their due dates.

In a settlement with 47 states and the District of Columbia, the nation’s largest movie-rental chain also said it would offer refunds to aggrieved customers who were charged fees under the policy that went into effect on Jan. 1.

Without admitting wrongdoing, the company also agreed to pay the states a total of $630,000 to cover investigative costs and lawyer fees.

These are the Senators who have confirmed Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General:

Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Allen (R-VA), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chafee (R-RI), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), DeWine (R-OH), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Frist (R-TN), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Roberts (R-KS), Salazar (D-CO), Santorum (R-PA), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Smith (R-OR), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA), Stevens (R-AK), Sununu (R-NH), Talent (R-MO), Thomas (R-WY), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH), Warner (R-VA)

U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote

In the past I have maintained a distaste for using nuclear energy for the following reasons:

• Nuclear waste remains dangerous for thousands of years and we don’t have
  a proven safe method of handling/storing it.
• There is the potential for accidents like 3 mile island, or Chernobyl.
• The enrichment process, if not carefully and strictly regulated, will certainly lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons.

There are a few other factors to look at that would seem to favor nuclear power:

• Nuclear plants do not produce air pollution or acid rain as coal plants do.
• Nuclear energy can be used to make hydrogen for use in fuel cell motors, and reduce our dependence on, and the pollution from, petroleum use.
• Both of the above lead to less carbon dioxide production and global warming.

There is an article in the February issue of Wired magazine that deals with all of this. Nuclear Now! – Wired

After reading the article and learning of the prospect of using advanced breeder reactors to make the process renewable, solving the waste problem, perhaps with a space-race type program, seems quite possible. Also, with the advent of pebble bed reactors it would seem that advances have already been made in respect to the safety problem, and again, with a space-race type program, further advances could surely be made.

Problem 3, and to some extent the first two items, are down to regulation. And the inevitable politics of regulation. Is there a common sense compromise to be reached in the area of the necessary regulation/oversight that must be inherent in a broad nuclear policy?

Would a heavy tax on nuclear waste be acceptable? A tax heavy enough to eventually make anything less than a 100% renewable process undesirable, and less than, say, 95% cost prohibitive? Will stringent safety regulations be acceptable? What about the proposal regarding the enrichment process put forward in the Wired piece to “..create a global nuclear fuel company, possibly under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency [that] would collect, reprocess, and distribute fuel to every nation in the world, thus keeping potential bomb fixings out of circulation”?

I can already hear the shouts of ‘big government’ and ‘regulation kills innovation’ and ‘why would we give up sovereignty to the IAEA (read: the hated UN)?’ However, I sincerely don’t think these issues should be left to an unbridaled, and opportunistic (read: dishonest), market to handle. The solution, I think it could be agreed, is to foster the innovation that the US is capable of driving, by leveraging our intellectual and financial resources. We just have to do this in a responsible way.

Investment in this area, with the goal of reducing pollution, CO2 emmissions, and our costly dependence on oil, is worthwhile and morally justifiable. Much moreso than selling what remains of our souls in the interest of maintaining our oil-thirsty economy.