politics 3
|
the
mad world of the ‘drugs war’—a reminder and a reality check
“The research into the global burden of disease attributable to
alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs found that in 2000, tobacco use was
responsible for 4.9 million deaths worldwide, equating to 71 percent
of all drug-related deaths. Around 1.8 million deaths were attributable
to the use of alcohol (26 percent of all drug-related deaths), and illicit
drugs (heroin, cocaine and amphetamines) caused approximately 223,000
deaths (3 percent of all drug-related deaths).”
The mass of the deaths from ‘illegal’ drugs is attributable
to their illegality.
The web address for this article was
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics3.htm#politics120303 |
12.03.2003 |
advertising
disclaimer
|
| |
scare
tactics for cash—media and lawyers
“Science — today and every day — is under assault. The assailants
are members of the media, trial lawyers, self-appointed consumer-activists
and environmentalists. The science being mutilated pertains to a wide
spectrum of health topics — including "facts" on the purported health
hazards around us, including acrylamide (a chemical formed in cooking
high-carbohydrate foods), breast implants, PCBs, phthalates (plasticizers),
aspartame (Nutrasweet), Olestra (Procter & Gamble's doomed fat substitute).
“In these instances — and so many more — outright blatant misrepresentations
of the available science are made, health hazards that do not exist
are claimed and picked up by the news media, and ultimately by lawyers
intoxicated with the possibility of a cash reward in court from a corporate
deep pocket.”
—
“Yet the Environmental Protection Agency, prodded by environmental
activists. is compelling General Electric to spend more than $500 million
to remove PCBs from the Hudson River. Why? EPA tells us it wants to
prevent cancer. But even the National Cancer Institute concedes it knows
of no evidence that eating fish from a PCB-contaminated river contributes
to the toll of cancer in the United States.”
And the item contains further comment on PCBs.
The writer, E. M. Whelan, is a high grade source
... ab
The web address for this article was
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics3.htm#politics050303 |
05.03.2003 |
| |
ethics
and war—assessing collateral effects of weapons
Item moved to ethics
and the ‘just war’ section
The web address for this article was
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics3.htm#politics020303 |
02.03.2003
|
|
| |
interesting
american poll on irak action
“Time and CNN, poll: 54 percent of Americans are pro, 38 percent
are against. Also, the poll notes, younger demographics are more pro-war
than their elders, 63 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds support military
action, while only 40 percent of those over 65 agree.”
Of particular interest is the fact that younger people are more
positive to removing Madsam. This is quite the reverse of the impression
I have been receiving from upm [UK politics misc newsnet newsgroup] and
other media, although it was notable that most speakers at rallies were
the old ded beat socialists. Maybe it is just the incredible immaturity
of those prattling in support of Madsam. Maybe they are in fact mostly
senile old farts in their second, or third, childhood J
One could of course see this as a form of ‘rational’ selfishness
although they’d likely claim ‘wisdom’! Clearly this action
is about the future, and the action is very pressing.
It is easy to see the old fogies not caring, as the long term problems
are hardly going to effect their remaining lives. The difference is very
marked and also gives hope the younger generation are, in the majority,
no fools.
It is a good job that the USA and Britain have young leaders—
Bliar 48, Bush 56, Aznar 49 (yesterday);
whereas across the English Channel, currently we have Schroeder 59, 60
next month, and a very old pensioner at 70.
And that fount of wisdom, Madsam? – nearly 66.
Note: there was some editorial debate as whether this item should be
in the fun section.
The web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics3.htm#politics260203-2 |
26.02.2003 |
|
| |
your government
is lying to you on a life and death issue—reply to mel
Mel
Rowing:
The Government claimed to have put tackling climate change at the heart
of its energy policy in a White Paper that focused on renewable sources
of power and efficiency and put off a decision to build new nuclear
power stations.
ab:
increasingly i believe they are deliberately lying, and that they are
using ‘global warming’ as code for depleting oil etc. It is
my view that the UK government are avoiding nuclear for merely cowardly
political reasons. See also below.
Mel:
The White Paper set out the “goal” of cutting Britain’s
fossil fuels emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, the amount needed eventually
to halt climate change, placing this for the first time above the traditional
goal of security of supply.
In the light of this it might be appropriate if we look at articles
like this.
Failing that note the quote:
“A doubling of greenhouse gases will probably cause a global
warming between 0.5 and 0.9°C. Since 60% of the warming should
have already have occurred, the remaining 40% of the warming will
be between 0.2 and 0.4°C, which will occur over the next 70 years.
This warming is equivalent to about 0.03 to 0.06°C/decade. The
rate of change is less than previous climate changes; its total magnitude
is small; and ecological systems can adapt as they have in the past.”
If you are into heavier reading then
Note at least the list of signatories which accompanies this project.
ab:
you will be aware that there is still suspicion that such climate changes
can set up severe
local changes, and possible feedbacks.
the
current evasion of the nuclear option shows deep lack of
courage and honesty in the government; and
see this.
building new nuclear power stations “would damage the prospects
of the country's renewable energy industry” because nuclear-generated
electricity is much cheaper. Renewable sources are uncompetitive, as
well as relatively inefficient.
from this
article:
“The Government makes the pursuit of a "low carbon" economy
Britain's priority in energy policy and sets out an "ambition" to
double the share of electricity generation accounted for by renewables
from 10 per cent in 2010 to 20 per cent in 2020.”
this reporting is entirely innumerate and, in my view, the government
is being intentionally misleading/dishonest.
- it is a ‘target’, and we all know what a newoldlabour ‘target’
means—another damned lie.
- 10% of electricity production
is about 3% of current energy inputs (usage) to the UK. Therefore the
claim for an increase in renewables is, in fact, a claim for merely
3.3% of total UK energy needs. (My approximate figures give 2.3% for
current renewables-sourced electricity production, so the claim is probably
another porky.)
- the time scale is utterly unrealistic in the face of the problems.
- to produce oil or oil substitutes from subsidiary sources will take
far greater inputs than the present mere piping it
out of the rapidly depleting oil fields.
- if it is through using coal, i doubt the resulting
production of transportable fuel would be better than half or one-third
the energy input with fossil oil;
- if through using electricity, the production would
probably be one quarter of the energy input. Thus, these methods
of producing oil/oil substitutes would require increases
in current production of energy inputs of two,
three or four-fold.
- UK coal reserves are down to less than 50 years, even
at current usage rates. Therefore, the British will become dependent
on imports in the foreseeable future.
- there is no possibility at present of meeting these numbers outside
of nuclear generation.
- part of what is driving the imperative to remove madsam [Saddam Hussein]
is the fact that the overwhelming remaining and rapidly
shrinking supplies of oil are in the Middle East.
related material
World
recoverable coal resources
is nuclear
power really really dangerous?
replacing
fossil fuels: the scale of the problem
The web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics3.htm#politics260203 |
26.02.2003
related material
World
recoverable coal resources
is nuclear power
really really dangerous?
replacing
fossil fuels: the scale of the problem |
|
| |
now
wouldn't you just know it: iran flies unsafe aircraft—blame it on
america!
An interesting report when you look under the carpet.
“A military plane crash in mountainous southern Iran killed 302
of the nation's elite Revolutionary Guards. The crash was the deadliest
in a string of plane accidents that the government has blamed on US
sanctions preventing the country from repairing and replacing its aging
fleet.”
Of course, every serious idiot knows those beastly Americans are to blame
for everything.
It is probably an American (Joooish for the really dedicated!) fault
for making ’planes in the first place. If Allah had meant us to fly....
If these people invented, developed and built their own ’planes,
and then stopped flying them when unsafe.... Why then, how could they
blame the United States?!
The USA should not tempt these poor people so.
In the same article:
“The hard-line evening daily Kayhan reported today that security
forces had confiscated three surface-to-air missiles from drug smugglers
in southeastern Iran. It did not say when the operation took place.”
So is this a hint?
Notice that—
“The Revolutionary Guards, under the direct control of Khamenei,
are seen as the defenders of Iran's Islamic regime. The guards protect
Iran's borders and defend ruling hard-liners in this ultraconservative
society.”
Of course, just to put icing on the cake, apparently it was a Russian-built
’plane, with Russian-supplied spare parts and maintenance!
The web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics3.htm#politics210203-2 |
21.02.2003 |
|
| |
more
eu shenanigans
You need to follow the thread of the game somewhat in order to appreciate
the full impact of this crookery.
- Britain currently has the lowest national debt in the European Union.
But Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown is in the process of driving
up borrowing.
“In a co-ordinated attack, Spain, Denmark and Belgium voted
at a meeting of EU finance ministers in Brussels to declare Britain's
projected deficit "significantly above" target. It was also in breach
of its EU obligations, they said.“
“Efforts to make the report more critical of Britain were
initially spearheaded by the Netherlands, and Sauli Niinisto, the
Finnish Finance Minister...”
Belgium has one of the largest debt levels in the European Union.
Now I become suspicious of the other countries mentioned above, whose
debt levels I do not have to hand.
- “But Mr Brown won the backing of larger member states including
France and Germany, which have fallen foul of the strict rules laid
down for membership of the euro.”
What!! France and Germany courting the UK?
Hang on.....
- EMU (European Monetary Union) is deliberately designed to
push up inflation, that is its central raison d’être.
Inherent in this design is an extremely strong motivation
for countries to send their national debt as high as they possibly can.
In plain English, “fallen foul of the strict rules” means
France and Germany are doing just that—pushing up their national
debt—while daring anyone to stop them according to those so-called
“strict rules”.
Germany and France have not just “fallen foul” of the “strict
rules”, they have breached them, they have ignored
them, they continue to ignore them blatantly.
Next data point:
- Keep in mind the Independent newspaper is
fanatically pro-EMU, and it has the rabid Euro-loon, jolly Ken Clarke
(you know, the ciggie dealer whom every Socialist dreams of being ruler
of the Tory Party) as one of its ‘directors’.
Thus, you can always rely on the good old Independent for
thoroughly ‘independent’ ‘reporting’ on the subject!
(For further information, remember that the English newspaper of choice
for that bastion of European television reporting, EuroNews, is ....
yes, the Independent.)
- So (remember n° 3) French and German politicians do not want any
signals that may bring attention to their breach of the rules. Such
‘breaches’ are supposed to engender enormous
fines to stop countries driving up national debt, and
thus stealing a march on their neighbours.
For, you see, the higher your national debt, the more you stand to gain
from your neighbours.
- Now, the EMU mechanism drives vast transfers
of wealth from low-debt countries towards high-debt countries.
So, of course, this bunch of ‘chancers’ will move heaven and
earth to have Britain join the EMU, whereby they may milk Britain of
huge new transfers of wealth. (Britain is already one of the two big
contributors.)
- And, remember, Belgium is one of the major beneficiaries of this game.
Hence, the last thing Belgium wants is Britain having a higher debt
level, for that would spoil the game for them.
Good to see all this neighbourly concern.
If you wish to understand the EMU/debt game in more detail, see
The mechanics of inflation.
And then there is that other EMU maniac, Tony Bliar, the worthy Prime
Minister of Britain.
- Now, if Bliar could drive the UK national debt up high enough,
the costs to the UK would be somewhat lessened, even though it would
cause a variety of other ill-effects to the UK and also to the EU.
Then, just maybe, the Bliar could
find it more easy to force a too intelligent and reluctant UK public
into the idiotic EMU confidence trick.
And, of course, few, of the generally innumerate and politically illiterate,
British citizens and voters can follow all this. The dream of a European
Socialist super-state critically depends upon an easily manipulated and
ignorant population. Ask why serious civics courses are not standard fare
in British schools.
The web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics3.htm#politics210203 |
21.02.2003 |
|
| |
new
religion—anarchism—get out of my face, 390,000 brits tell government
If enough people do not accept government intrusion, government becomes
helpless. Government-controlled media attempts to play down the real message
and significance.
[lead from aoiko]
The web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics3.htm#politics150203 |
15.02.2003 |
|
| |
legislating for a global commons—poverty,
carbon and fossil fuel rationing
The notion of ownership is central to solving the problem of the tragedy
of the commons. No-one owns the globe. Therefore, international commons
problems fester until they cause resource wars, or environmental degradation.
Only by assigning property rights to fossil fuels and carbon, on an international
foundation, can the pollution and pressure on fossil fuels be resolved.
Likewise, fisheries and other goods will be destroyed without appropriate
spans of ownership.
This does not, and should not, encourage ambitions of world governments,
but where planetary (or other large cross-border) commons problems exist,
only international administrations can cope.
Only through giving each person a tradable ration can
the various objectives of conservation, market efficiency with its freedom
enhancement, and alleviation of poverty be achieved, without
giving governments dangerous and untoward powers.
Hernando
de Soto identifies lack of legal title in informal economies
as a major reason for poverty in countries where capitalism exists without
strong formal ‘laws’. The greatest problem with joining the
formal legal system is predatory government, which attempts to steal ever
more of the GDP. (Incidentally, these governments also force ever more
of the country’s economy into a monetarised form which they can then
control and tax).
Meanwhile, corporations attempt to buy governments and pressure them
to introduce ‘laws’ (such as ridiculous recent extensions of
copyright) which restrict competition, in order that the corporations
may establish near monopolies and thus keep out rivals.
‘Global
stalemate’
“ There are two contending methods of dividing the carbon cake.
The first proposes a "carbon aristocracy" of inherited natural resource
wealth, in which the basis for talks is the greenhouse gas emissions,
per person, that each country has today. The second, and a starting
position for countries such as China, India and Brazil, is that the
atmosphere is a global commons that we all need. So entitlements to
emit, they argue, should be shared on a per capita basis.”
Allowing some primitive loon to use oil revenues to obtain powerful weapons,
with which to take control of the resources developed by Western nations,
is not acceptable if you desire a better and more advanced society.
related material
The link
between ethics and the ‘Tragedy of the commons’
‘tragedy
of the commons’ (archived news item)
The web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/politics3.htm#politics100203 |
10.02.2003
related material
The link between
ethics and the ‘Tragedy of the commons’
‘tragedy
of the commons’ (archived news item) |
|
politics
archive:
