23. februar 2004

The end of the world, Real Soon Now! When I first read the recent Observer article on a secret Pentagon report predicting that climate change would cause massive disaster within 20 years, I just wondered what the hell those journalists had been smoking. The Observer article said: A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.' This is so far out it is laughable, yet of course some leftist bloggers take it seriously. Environmentalism has unfortunately become such a joke that people are used to such extreme alarmism. I guess environmentalist gloom & doom has become the left's substitute for the absense of proper fire and brimstone apocalyptics from marxist theology (heh). So what is the "report" really about? Well, the report is not very "secret" (doc) - not even for being in a newspaper, I mean - but the real story is, according to this blog, .that this was the science fiction fantasies of a group of imaginative philosophers. InstaPundit has more. I have been rubbing doomsayers' noses in decades old environmentalist nonsense earlier, so I am glad to see we have more nonsense to rub their noses in 20 years into the future. 11:20:18 PM    comment []  trackback []

$8bn down the drain Pentagon has decided to cancel the Comanche helicopter programme, probably the most controversial big budget defense project initiated in the Clinton era. $8 billion has already been invested in the project, but no helicopter has been produced. Or will be. Different times, different threats. 10:16:01 PM    comment []  trackback []

Powell's fall from greatness? Fred Kaplan makes the case that the Bush presidency has been a tragedy for Secretary of State Colin Powell. The one victory he had, persuading Bush to bring the Iraq conflict to the United Nations, ended up publicly humiliating him to the world while doing little to endear him to the hawks. Rumsfeld and Cheney had Powell outflanked and outgunned on almost every important policy issue. Kaplan is convinced Powell will not be in the post after the election, even if Bush wins. 8:02:51 PM    comment []  trackback []

What went wrong part 2 The Washington Post has printed part 2 of the interesting series about what went wrong in the CIA's hunt for Bin Laden before 9/11-01. This article concentrates on the CIA's attempt to get support for the northern alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, who at that time was fighting against the Taliban. The Clinton administration had a policy of neutrality in Afghanistan's civil war, not realising that al-Qaeda and Taliban become more and more two parts of the same murderous case. To get Bin Laden, the CIA argued, they had to support Massoud's war against the Taliban. The agency tried in vain to get support for more support for Massoud, but the outgoing "lame duck" Clinton administration didn't do anything. Neither did the incoming Bush administration, which used the next fateful months trying to formulate a policy on the terror network. The Bush administration finally approved a plan to aid Massoud in the early days of September 2001. At the same time his ally Karzai was planning an armed uprising against the Taliban with or without US support. A few days later, Massoud had a meeting with some Arab journalists, without knowing they were an al-Qaeda suicide squad. The Bush administration learned that Massoud was dead on September 10, 2001, as CIA's counterterrorism group frantically worked to prop up support before the Northern Alliance collapsed.. We know what happened next. 5:43:14 PM    comment []  trackback []

Serious questions around Lancet MMR study A study published in the prestigious journal Lancet in 1998, linking the MMR vaccine with autism in children, is under scrutiny over conflict of interest. Lancet's editor Dr Richard Horton now considers the published research "entirely flawed." The study caused a serious drop in vaccinations and deep concern among parents, but later studes have failed to confirm the original findings. Now allegations have been made that there was a conflict of interest because the researchers was paid for by Legal Aid to look into the possibility that parents could have grounds for compensation if they had been harmed by MMR. Dr Andrew Wakefield still insists the study was sound, and says he welcomes inquiry. I have earlier reported in this blog that there has been both a decrease in MMR vaccinations and an increase in measles in the UK after the study was reported. 5:15:51 PM    comment []  trackback []

Wishing Nader away Ralph Nader is running for president, but this time not as a representative of the green party, but as an independent. Democrats have tried to convince the consumer advocate to not run, and aren't happy about the announcement. Talking Points Memo says it is a waste of time to beg him to not run: Certainly, this latter-day political narcissist has already made up his mind what he's going to announce. So there's no point waiting to call him what he is: an enemy of progressive change in this country and a cat's paw of the Republican party. If anything, calling him a 'cat's paw' is too generous since a dupe at least doesn't know he's being used. CalPundit knows it is bad news, but wishes he'll just go away I  know that the mainstream press has to cover the fact that Ralph Nader has decided to run for president. After all, it's news. But can the rest of us make a pact to just ignore him? He's not even worth criticizing or mocking anymore, and we've all got more important things to do than giving him the attention he craves. Like unelecting our current president, for example. OK? Well, Kevin, I think the only interest most people will have in the Nader story will be the angle that he increases Bush's chances of winning. 7:59:15 AM    comment []  trackback []

© Copyright 2004 Jan Haugland. Last update: 01.03.2004; 14:42:27.