What The Fucks Going On Blog

"The Big Lie" Gang--Limbaugh, Fox News, Santorum, et al-- on "reconciliation"

EARL NASH,  WTFG    "Pants on Fire"    Correspondent      

>>>>>  “It’s news to you…”  <<<<<

The Republicans and their talk show shills have been repeating a lie about the Health Care bill:  they say that the use of "reconciliation" has rarely been used for "major legislation."

Rush Limbaugh:

When a caller tried to explain to Rush the difference between filibustering judicial nominations and filibustering legislation, Rush used it as an opportunity to launch into a criticism of reconciliation. He tried to explain that reconciliation is only meant to be used to pass budget bills and falsely claimed that it's never been used to pass bills like the health care reform bill. He said that the Democrats have to use reconciliation to govern against the will of the American people. [http://mediamatters.org/items/201002250057]

The Right-Wing media echoed this theme relentlessly (see list below following FACT article ).

And, these blatant liars, these ass clowns, accuse President Obama of using "The Big Lie."?

***********************************************************

Congress previously used reconciliation to pass major changes to health care law

Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform health care. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" passed via reconciliation. Additionally, during a February 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, correspondent Julie Rovner quoted George Washington University health policy professor Sara Rosenbaum saying: "In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process."

Congress used reconciliation to pass Medicare Advantage. As part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, enacted through the reconciliation process, Congress -- which was controlled by the Republicans at the time -- created the "Medicare+Choice Program," currently known as Medicare Advantage or Medicare Part C. The program allows seniors to enroll in HMO-type plans rather than the traditional Medicare fee-for-service plan.

Congress used reconciliation to pass COBRA. As stated on the Department of Labor website, as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Congress gave "workers and their families who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue group health benefits provided by their group health plan for limited periods of time under certain circumstances."

Congress used reconciliation to pass Patient Self-Determination Act. As part of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act, which requires hospitals, nursing homes, HMOs, and other organizations that participate in Medicare or Medicaid to provide information about advance directives and patients' decision-making rights.

Republicans repeatedly attempted to use reconciliation to pass increase in Medicare eligibility age. The version of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 introduced by then-Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) using the reconciliation procedure contained a section providing for raising the Medicare eligibility age. As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported, the provision was stricken from the bill during floor consideration on the basis of a point of order that the provision was "extraneous" to matters appropriate to reconciliation.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 -- also introduced through the reconciliation procedure -- also included a provision to raise the eligibility age. Fifty Republicans voted in favor of waiving a point of order against the provision that it was extraneous, allowing the provision to remain in the bill. The final version of the bill signed by Clinton did not contain this provision.

GOP used reconciliation to pass Bush tax cuts, welfare reform

GOP used reconciliation to pass Bush's tax cuts. Republicans used the reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 tax cut, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; Bush's 2003 tax cuts, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003; and Bush's 2005 tax cuts, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 2001 tax cuts would "reduce projected total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period"; that the 2003 tax cuts would "reduce projected total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period"; and that the 2005 tax cuts would "reduce federal revenues ... by $69.1 billion over the 2006-2015 period."

Republicans repeatedly voted to use reconciliation to pass components of welfare reform. Congress employed the reconciliation process to pass welfare reform in 1996 as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Senate Republicans previously included welfare reform provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which Clinton vetoed. As CRS reports, 46 provisions of the bill were deemed extraneous by the Senate's presiding officer. Fifty-three Republicans voted in favor of a motion to waive the point of order, but the motion -- which requires 60 votes -- failed on a 53-46 vote.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Republican politicians declare reconciliation an effort to "ram" health care reform through Congress

Kyl: "[T]hey're going to ram it through, whether we like it or whether the American people like it." Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) stated on the February 14 edition of CNN's State of the Union: "[I]t certainly would appear from the report -- as I said in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, the Democrats have already decided on this so-called nuclear option or reconciliation process. If that's the case, then, obviously, it's pointless to talk because they've made up their mind and they're going to ram it through whether we like it or whether the American people like it."

Boehner: Pelosi aide said Dems are working on plan "to bypass rules in the Senate and ram legislation through on a one-party vote." House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) stated in a February 19 press release that "the top health care aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently told the press that Democrats are working to develop a 'prenegotiated' agreement and preparing to employ a 'trick' to bypass rules in the Senate and ram legislation through on a one-party vote."

Alexander: "Ramming through a partisan bill" is like "going to war with out asking Congress's permission." During the September 6, 2009, edition of Fox News Sunday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said of reconciliation: "[T]humbing their nose at the American people by ramming through a partisan bill would be the same thing as going to war without asking Congress' permission. You might technically be able to do it, but you'd pay a terrible price in the next election."

Grassley, Barrasso, Pawlenty have also advanced this characterization in recent days. Roll Call reported on February 23 that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said, "Democratic leaders in Congress are preparing a partisan budget reconciliation plan to ram the legislation through." Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) stated on the February 23 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, "Unless he actually incorporates some of our ideas and if he's just going to ram through this -- what amounts to what was the Senate Democrat version of the health bill, that's not bipartisanship." And during the February 24 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) stated of the health care summit, "[F]or Harry Reid yesterday to say, well, I'm going to ram it through no matter what, that makes me wonder if there's an agenda behind this."

Media routinely characterize majority vote on health care as "ramming" it through

Will: "The summit's predictable failure will be a pretext for trying to ram health legislation through the Senate by misusing 'reconciliation.' " In his February 25 Washington Post column, George Will wrote, "The summit's predictable failure will be a pretext for trying to ram health legislation through the Senate by misusing 'reconciliation,' which prevents filibusters." Will similarly stated during the February 21 edition of ABC's This Week that "the president is not having this health care summit to woo Republicans. He's having it so that he can then go to Congress and say we're going to ram this through on reconciliation."

Hannity: "Now they're going to ram it down America's throat." Sean Hannity stated on the February 24 edition of his Fox News program, "Now here's the question. If they go ahead and use reconciliation -- now, Scott Brown ran as the 41^st vote against health care. Now they're going to ram it down America's throat. Politically, I just can't believe Democrats would be that stupid to walk the plank and end their careers, because that's what's going to happen."

Gingrich: "You can't, in a free society, ram through legislation" that Americans oppose. During the February 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich stated that Democrats are pursuing a "Chicago machine politics approach" and "kind of a Hugo Chavez majoritarian rule in the Senate." Gingrich added that "in the Public Opinion Strategies poll, among those who feel strongly, by 2 to 1, they want to drop the current comprehensive bill. They think it's a bad idea. Now, you can't, in a free society, ram through legislation when two-thirds of the people who feel strongly are opposed to you doing it."

Santorum: "[T]hey're going to go and try to ram this thing through." During the February 24 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Fox News contributor Rick Santorum discussed reconciliation and stated, "[T]hey're trying to jam this thing through. I think what the president wants to do is he wants to get Republicans in front of the cameras with him, showing that he's -- he's bigger than everybody else. He's being the unifier. He wants that visual. Once he gets that visual, then they're going to go and try to ram this thing through."

Van Susteren: It makes Obama look bad for Dems to say, "No matter what happens, we're going to ram it through." During the discussion with Santorum, On the Record host Greta Van Susteren said, "[I]t makes him look bad going into tomorrow to say that no -- basically say, no matter what happens, we're going to ram it through. It almost seems like Senator Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate never should have done it to the president."

Wash. Times: "Democrats have agreed to a policy and how to ram it through Congress." From a February 24 Washington Times editorial on "Obama's deceptive health summit":

Republicans pretty much had to agree at least to meet to pretend to discuss options for a health care compromise, but that doesn't mean there is any real pretense to work together on either side of the aisle. Mr. Obama announced the summit on national TV, not in private consultations with Republicans, and he instructed them as to where, what time and under what rules the summit would occur. And the entire charade will take place after Democrats have agreed to a policy and how to ram it through Congress.

IBD: Obama "must pledge" that "Democrats won't misuse budget rules to ram through health reform." A February 23 Investor's Business Daily editorial stated, "Is it a 'summit' Republicans are about to take part in, or a 'setup'? President Obama must pledge to them that Democrats won't misuse budget rules to ram through health reform."

Baier: "Liberals continue to call for Democrats to ram through reform by reconciliation." Fox News host Bret Baier stated on the February 23 edition of Special Report, "[T]hey're supposed to get together to try to solve health care, but Democrats and Republicans continue to squabble ahead of Thursday's summit. Liberals continue to call for Democrats to ram through reform by reconciliation. We'll explain what that means and tell you if it can be done."

WSJ: "Democrats say they will ram through" reform "with or without Republican support." From a February 23 Wall Street Journal editorial titled, "ObamaCare at Ramming Speed":

A mere three days before President Obama's supposedly bipartisan health-care summit, the White House yesterday released a new blueprint that Democrats say they will ram through Congress with or without Republican support. So after election defeats in Virginia, New Jersey and even Massachusetts, and amid overwhelming public opposition, Democrats have decided to give the voters what they don't want anyway.

Mitchell: What would the reaction be if "the Democrats try to ram it down their throats in a 51-vote majority?" During the February 23 edition of her MSNBC program, Andrea Mitchell asked GOP strategist and Hill contributor John Feehery what the reaction would be "if the Republicans object and say they really do want to start over, that there isn't enough compromise in what the president proposed this week, and, in fact they do -- the Democrats try to ram it down their throats in a 51-vote majority through what they call reconciliation."

Feehery: Obama has "plan to jam it down your throats whether you like it or not." Responding to Mitchell on the February 23 edition of Andrea Mitchell Reports, Feehery said, "The president said, I'm going to invite you down and I'm going to listen to your ideas, but as I'm doing that, I'm going to craft a bill behind closed doors and I'm going to have a plan to jam it down your throats whether you like it or not." He added, "Doing 51 votes and jamming it down the throat of the Senate and the American people is politically very dangerous for the Democrats."

Varney: Dems "may use a controversial ploy to bypass a Republican filibuster and ram through the newly revised health care bill." On February 23, host Stuart Varney stated on Fox Business Network, "So much for bipartisanship. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress may use a controversial ploy to bypass a Republican filibuster and ram through the newly revised health care bill." He added, "The bill includes none of the things Republicans wanted, like tort reform. This could kill the bipartisan health summit scheduled for Thursday before it even starts."

Capehart: We'll see "the president and the Democrats decide to ram through what he's put out on the Internet." Jonathan Capehart stated during the February 23 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe: "We'll see what the Republicans come to the table with and then as we watch, you know, history unfold during the summit on Thursday, we'll see if we will come up with -- if they will come up with a bipartisan bill, or if the president and the Democrats decide to ram through what he's put out on the Internet."

Scarborough: Dems might not even have votes to "ram it though anymore." Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough stated on February 23, "I just don't think at this point even -- you talk to -- I talked to Mike Allen and some guys in Washington yesterday, and they say they can't ram it through anymore, that they don't even have the votes for reconciliation."

Thiessen: Democrats seek "to ram through their health-care legislation using extraordinary parliamentary procedures." Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen wrote on February 22: "The president's real objective is to paint GOP leaders as obstructionists -- so that Democrats have an excuse to ram through their health-care legislation using extraordinary parliamentary procedures. Obstructionism has been Obama's mantra ever since Massachusetts GOP Sen. Scott Brown's election."

Birnbaum: Not certain Dems can get 51 votes "to ram through health reform" under reconciliation. Fox News contributor and Washington Times columnist Jeffrey H. Birnbaum wrote on February 22, "To be sure, it's not certain Mr. Reid will be able to round up even the 51 votes he would need in the Senate to ram through health reform under the parliamentary protections of 'reconciliation' that he envisions. Many moderate Democrats are telling their leaders that they don't want to take any more votes on health care, except maybe on small measures that are wildly popular."

Lothian: "[T]hey could ram this through with 51 votes." CNN White House correspondent Dan Lothian stated on the February 22 edition of CNN's Rick's List: "Reconciliation is simply this procedural maneuver in which you can pass health care with a simple 51-majority vote. As you know, everyone was talking about how we have this supermajority here with the 60 votes, and then the big race in Massachusetts changed that. It was no longer filibuster-proof. And so therefore they could ram this through with 51 votes. The White House obviously saying this is an option, but not something that they're saying openly now that they're willing to support."

Dowd: "[T]he worst thing he could politically do is ram through a bill that everybody hates." ABC political contributor Matthew Dowd stated on the February 21 edition of This Week that Obama should "start over" on health care reform, adding, "The worst thing politically -- the worst thing he could politically do is ram through a bill that everybody hates."

Perino: "They want to ram it through on reconciliation." On the February 22 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dana Perino stated of Obama's proposal to create a board to review proposed insurance rate hikes, "You hear this other piece that they want to ram it through on reconciliation. Well, we -- nobody has even had a chance to debate this type of a board."

Halperin: "It sounds like" Democrats are "headed towards trying to cram something through -- ram something through." Mark Halperin stated on the February 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe: "It feels like what they're doing today is putting down a marker that says this is what we're trying to do, and if you listen to what Harry Reid is saying, it sounds like they're headed towards trying to cram something through -- ram something through with Democratic votes."

Kelly: Democrats threatening "to ram this through with 51 votes." Fox News host Megyn Kelly stated on the February 22 edition of America Live: "[I]t seems like some of the Democrats are holding up the stick, saying, we would like to come together, but if we don't, we are prepared to use this stick. Meaning, we are going to ram this through with 51 votes, and then you will be stuck with no Republican input onto the bill. And many people are saying, where -- how is that a bipartisan negotiation? How does that encourage bipartisanship?"

Cavuto: Gibbs hinting that Dems will use reconciliation "to ram this thing through." Fox News host Neil Cavuto stated on the February 22 edition of Your World: "Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, hinting that, if all else fails, the so-called nuclear option, where you can have reconciliation, in other words, a simple majority vote, rather than a filibuster-proof majority vote, to ram this thing through -- what do you make of that?"

US Wealth Disparities Near 1920s Levels: Class War--Rich 1% vs. Americans 90%

EARL NASH,  WTFG    "C L A S S   W A R"  Correspondent      

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  “It’s news to you…”  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The conservatives and right-wing talk show mouthpieces label President Obama a "Socialist" and define Socialism as a "redistribution of the nation's wealth."  

They hope that the vast majority of American voters will believe the Big Lie-- that their nation's wealth is being taken away from Joe Average in the Middle Class and being given to the poor, the welfare recipients, and social programs.

 

The reason the rich want the "middle class" to stay focused on this class war lie is to keep the 90% of the country that owns just 12% of the wealth from finding out that the richest 1% of the population own 68+% of the nation's wealth.  

Certainly, the "upper middle class," the "middle class," the "lower middle class," the "working poor" and the rest of the 90% who own only a measly 12% of the wealth of their country should be ready for a class war;  but that war should not be between the "middle class" and the poor, but rather,

         between the 90% and the 1%--

the American citizens vs. the ridiculously rich.

Will we soon see the kidnapping of CEOs and demands for ransom, but not for a cash bounty.  The kidnappers might demand that the company turn over its books and emails to the Justice Department and then release the rich bastards.

 

  "One-Percenter" CEOs    GLASSCOCK & BRADY

While companies like health care megalith Wellpoint's subsidiary,Anthem, increases profits 49% over last year, men, women, children, the aged from that 90% of America, who own just 12% of its wealth are suffering and dying without health care.

When will the 90% reject the lies of the 1% and their whores, shills and henchmen--Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck--and turn their righteous anger against their real class enemy:  the 1% who own 68+% of the Republic?

Q:  What time is it?

      

     A:        

                     "BEND OVER, MOTHER-FUCKERS !"

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

What a time to be an oligarch!

All I wanted to do was vomit when I saw this.

Folks, there is no way we can have economic prosperity in this country when the top 1% has all of the money. The middle class is basically being destroyed right in front of our very eyes. Consumption economies die when the consumers have no money to consume!

I see growing signs of desperation and anger as the wealth of this nation continues to get transferred to the elite of this nation.

People are starting to "lose" it as a result. This past week's airplane event in Austin was a disturbing development. I must admit that I really am not surprised. The government shouldn't be either.

Things are only going to get worse in the violence department as the taxpayers continue to get violated and more desperate as a result of this economic cataststrophe. The news media tried to downplay the actions in Austin.

I think Washington was both surprised and concerned about what took place in Texas.

I have to ask: Should the government really be surpised that an American flew a plane into an IRS building in a fit of rage as we all get repeatedly fleeced by the political and social elites of this country?

Let me preface all of this by saying violence is not the answer here. However, why shouldn't every American be infuriated by what has ocurred since this crisis began?

All the government has done is bail out Wall St. continuously since 2008. My guess is the disparity of wealth in this chart would look even worse if it included 2009. The rest of America has basically been ignored minus a few housing programs to help lower mortgage payments.

That's what's been so frustrating about this whole crisis and America is finally starting to get it. Just about ALL of the steps that have been taken by the government to help fix this crisis have involved throwing more and more money to the financial elites of this country. I mean, the examples are endless: TARP, AIG, Bank of America (BAC), Citi (C), Freddie (FRE), Fannie (FNM)....Need I say more?

The sheeple are finally realizing that the money is not trickling to them like Washington had promised when they threw billions to the banks. The people have only seen things get worse while Wall St. has prospered. They now want to know where their friggin' bailout is!

They are also realizing that the goverment's actions since this all started in 2007 have done nothing but drop the yields on their CD's to 0%. Gee thanks!

Let's not forget that the sheeple/middle class were also victimized by Wall St. as they were gamed into buying homes they couldn't afford. When this fantasy came crashing down they were again violated as they saw their 401k's get cut in half.

The people of this country can only take so much before they start going postal!

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/189649-wealth-disparities-in-u-s-approaching-1920s-levels?source=from_friend

"Afghanistan War will take years" says Gen. David Petraeus

Five Questions For The Afghan Surge

By Juan Cole

23 February, 2010
Juancole.com

Gen. David Petraeus, a straight shooter, admitted on Meet the Press Sunday that the Afghanistan War will take years and incur high casualties.. His implicit defense of President Obama from Dick Cheney
on the issues of torture and closing Guantanamo will make bigger headlines, but sooner or later the American public will notice the admission. The country is now evenly divided between those who think the US can and should restore a modicum of stability before getting out, and those who want a quick withdrawal. The Marjah Campaign, the centerpiece of the new counter-insurgency strategy, is over a week old, and some assessment of this new, visible push by the US military in violent Helmand Province is in order.

There was never any doubt that the US and NATO would win militarily, fairly easily occupying Marjah and nearby Nad Ali. Marjah at 85,000 or so is a city smaller than Ann Arbor, Michigan. The campaign is only significant in a larger social and political context. The questions are:

1. Can the stategy of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, of taking, clearing, holding and building be extended deep into the Pashtun regions? Marjah is only a stepping stone to the key southern city of Qandahar, which has a population of a million, more the size of Detroit.

This outcome has yet to be seen. But for rural Pashtuns to come to love foreign occupiers is an unlikely proposition. Even the WSJ admits that in Marjah, the Marines are not exactly feeling the love from the civilians they have supposedly just liberated.

Since the Taliban are typically not as corrupt as the warlords, in fact, to any extent that the US and NATO re-install corrupt warlord types in power, they may alienate the locals. And keeping civilian casualties low so as to win hearts and minds is key here. That task will become more difficult as the US inserts itself more deeply into Pashtun territory, since insurgent villages will have to be defeated.

The Soviet occupation produced 5 million externally displaced and 2 million internally displaced, along with hundreds of thousands dead. A campaign in Qandahar could easily displace half a million people, and they might mind. Meanwhile, on Monday, the governor of Dai Kundi asserted that a US airstrike killed 27 persons, mostly civilians. There is also the question, raised by Tom Englehardt, of whether the US is capable of good governance in Afghanistan when it is not in Washington, DC.

2. Can the demonstration of vitality and of a sense of progress mollify NATO publics long enough to fight a prolonged war and do intensive training of troops and police over several years?

No. Over the weekend, the center-right government of the Netherlands fell over whether to keep Dutch troops in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan war is universally unpopular in continental Europe, and governments have troops there mostly in the teeth of popular opposition, because NATO invoked article 5 of its charter, 'an attack on one is an attack on all' with regard to the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

It may take months after the next elections this spring for the Dutch to form a new government, in part because of the surging popularity of the far-right populist anti-Muslim 'Freedom Party' of Islamophobe Geert Wilders-- a smelly party the others will probably not want in their coalition. Holland's 2000 troops are likely to be withdrawn by late summer. Canada's military is also departing Afghanistan. Are these one-off situations, or are they the beginning of a NATO withdrawal over-all, which will leave Obama in the lurch?

Australia is already refusing to take up the Dutch slack, and its government is under public pressure to get out, itself. While it is entirely possible that scandal-plagued rightwing billionaire Silvio Berlusconi will survive the next elections in Italy, it is also possible that he will not, and his successor may well want out of the unpopular Afghanistan quagmire. Moreover, the Pashtun insurgents may smell blood in the water with the Dutch withdrawal from Uruzgan (the home province of Mullah Omar), and target the smaller NATO contingents (the deaths of 6 Italian troops last fall raised public ire against the war).

There are about 45,000 NATO and other allied troops in Afghanistan, and 74,000 American. Obama wanted to increase the European contingent by 10,000, but NATO generally declined that offer, and now the NATO contingent may begin to shrink just when more trainers in particular are desperatedly needed.

The Afghanistan National Army is supposedly nearly 100,000 strong, but many critics say the true number is half that, and that even that half is mostly illiterate, poorly trained, and often suffers from uncertain loyalties, drug use, or other debilitating considerations.

3. Can an Afghan army be stood up in short order that has the capacity to patrol independently and keep order after the US and NATO troops withdraw?

Unlikely. The answer to the question about Afghan military preparedness-- after nearly a decade of training and an investment of $1 billion that Afghan troops are not ready for prime time. In the Marjah campaign, they showed no initiative, no ability to fight independently. They are poorly served by their junior field officers, and they are 90% illiterate. (The NYT reporter expected to see them with maps out planning approaches!) The ethnic make-up of the particular Afghanistan National Army units sent into Marjah is also not clear.

Almost no ANA troops hail from Helmand Province, and Tajiks (native speakers of Dari Persian, often from towns and cities) are vastly over-represented in the army. There is often bad blood between Tajiks and Pashtuns, the group that predominates in Marjah. The same skill set of the ANA most prized by the US Marines during the assault-- the ability to sniff out which households are Taliban-- may be a liability in the holding and building phase, since it stems from a decade and a half of Tajik Northern Alliance battles against the Taliban.

4. Can the Afghan public, which includes many groups (Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks) deeply harmed by Taliban rule, accept reconciliation, as well?

Unlikely. Former Northern Alliance leader popular among Tajiks, Abdullah Abdullah, warned Karzai against reconciling with the Taliban this weekend. Abdullah dropped out of last fall's presidential contest in protest against alleged ballot fraud in Karzai's favor. There is general hostility toward reconciliation with the Taliban among the parties representing northern, non-Pashtun ethnic groups.

5. Can so much pressure be put on the Taliban that at least their middle and lower ranks will accept reconciliation with the Karzai government?

So far, there is no sign that the Taliban leadership still at large is interested in negotiations. A Taliban spokesman replied to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's call for reconciliation with Kabul over the weekend with a resounding 'No!'. 

Qari Muhammad Yusuf Ahmadi told the Afghan Islamic Press in Pashto that the Taliban would cease fighting when there were not further foreign troops in his country. He said, according to the translation in The News:

“The entire world knows that foreign forces have invaded Afghanistan and occupied this country. They have also started the fighting. Taliban will neither lay down weapons nor will hold talks with Karzai administration even in the presence of a single foreign soldier in Afghanistan. . .”

“The ongoing war in Afghanistan is between Afghans and foreigners. The responsibility of the war lies on the foreigners and their slaves. They continue fighting in the populated areas and have sent 15000 troops to small area like Marja; and are killing civilians and trying to impose infidels on Afghans.”

“Karzai himself has no power. The foreigners control everything and the nation is fighting against them.”

Commenting on the deaths of 12 civilians in Marjah, Qari Muhammad said: “Karzai should have said who martyred the people. In fact neither Taliban kill the people and nor destroy their houses. These are foreigners who are bombing the houses and killing civilians everywhere as they have brought miseries to the people of Marja.”

On the other hand, those members of the Taliban shadow government now in Pakistani custody may be less categorical. A third Taliban commander, Maulvi Kabir (the shadow governor of Nangarhar Province) has been captured by the Pakistani military, allegedly based on information provided by Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. Baradar, the military chief of staff for the Old Taliban of Mullah Omar, was picked up recently in Karachi in a joint operation of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and US intelligence, which picked up signals from Baradar.

Serious inroads are being made by these arrests into the Taliban 'shadow government' of officials who plan out roadside bombings and other attacks in specific provinces of Afghanistan while hiding out in Pakistan.

Pakistan's Prime Minister, Riza Yusuf Gilani, and the military chief of state, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, appear to believe that capturing these high Afghan Taliban leaders will give Islamabad leverage in a negotiated settlement of the contest between the Karzai government and the Pashtun religious far right, which is in insurgency.

Obama's Afghanistan escalation among the sullen Pashtuns is a desperate policy, as dangerous as attempting to build a series of sand castles on the beach at low tide.

Ironically, his bigger success has come in Pakistan, where he appears to have convinced the Pakistani elite to intervene decisively against their own, Pakistani Taliban, and also now to begin arresting the Old Taliban shadow government that is hiding out on Pakistani soil. If he can go further and convince Islamabad that its support of the Afghan Taliban was all a long a key strategic error that has blown back on Pakistan proper, he will thereby come closer to victory than he could by any military measures inside Afghanistan itself.

You remember the unexpected, surprising, different things

Remember the last time that something a friend did caught you off guard? Probably—and that's because the human brain is specially tuned to remember things that are out of the ordinary.

But just how the brain treats those instances has remained uncertain. Some scientists had hypothesized that an unexpected stimulus would trigger a loop that involved both the hippocampus (responsible in part for long-term memory) and nucleus accumbens (involved in reward and pleasure) to make those memories super sticky. But without peering into these centers, researchers could not know for sure.

One research team, however, got just such an opportunity. They were able to implant electrodes in the hippocampus of eight willing patients who were undergoing treatment for epilepsy as well as in the nucleus accumbens of six patients who had volunteered for experimental deep brain stimulation for depression. These electroencephalogram (EEG) readings allow researchers to detect changes in the brain in "milliseconds versus seconds" compared to fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), Nikolai Axmacher, of the University of Bonn in Germany and lead author of the study, wrote in an email to ScientificAmerican.com.

When the subjects were shown a series of faces against a red background for several seconds and then a picture of a house on a green background, the EEG captured the time at which each of these spots activated when the brain reacted, down to the millisecond. Researchers logged these times and were able to construct the overall pattern of activity between the two groups of subjects.
Axmacher and his team found that in the instance of the unexpected stimulus (the house on the green background), the hippocampus activates twice and that the latter activation—which is closely preceded by activation of the rewarding nucleus accumbens—predicts memory formation. The findings are reported in a study published online February 24 in the journal Neuron.

Why is pinpointing these processes of such keen interest to scientists? "Learning is very selective," Axmacher wrote in the email. Though humans have huge brains, we certainly don't have the capacity to log every aspect of every experience. "Only relevant information receives a 'memory boost' by the reward system, which includes the nucleus accumbens," he noted, so people are more inclined to remember incidents from which they might learn something new.

But sometimes when we encounter something unexpected, we brush it aside because it will not jibe with our understanding of the world. Axmacher explained that in such a case, "suppression of unwanted memories appears to depend on inhibitory top-down control of hippocampal activity by the prefrontal cortex," rather than the rapid response of the hippocampus-nucleus accumbens loop he and his colleagues confirmed.

Electrode implantation has yielded new insights into the brain, including this finding on memory formation as well as previous work on language processing, but it has its drawbacks as well, Axmacher conceded. These sorts of intra-brain readings "can only be obtained from patient populations and only allow one to record from specific regions of the brain," so they provide small snapshots of the brain at work—and in brains that already have a dysfunction. But he and his colleagues note that at least in this study, it is unlikely that the patients' illnesses would change the pattern of these particular neural activations. And "these results could only be obtained in patient populations with implanted electrodes in these regions," Axmacher wrote.

Nevertheless, he and his colleagues noted in their study, their findings probably don't fully explain how and why these surprising instances get preferential memory treatment than humdrum happenings. "The occurrence of an unexpected event likely recruits a network of brain regions that extend well beyond" these two, they wrote. Just remember that next time your friend makes a scene—if it's unexpected, that is.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto/Fitzer

Barack Obama: Change We Can Deceive In --A critique from the Left

By Lori Price, www.legitgov.org

President Barack Obama is selling out the left wing of his party - those who contributed $750 million to his campaign for 'change' - quicker than a Blue Cross rate rise in August. Mr. Obama won the Democratic nomination -- and the presidency -- on a wave of anti-Bush sentiment and the promise of 'change we can believe in.'

But when the assertions and actions of the Obama Administration are critically examined, a conclusion can be drawn that the key difference -- thus far -- between Barack Obama and George W. Bush is their choice in breed of White House pet. 'Bipartisanship,' the bane of Obama's first eight months as president, is providing the groundwork for an extended (albeit educated, charming) Bush-light Administration. Those of us on the left are fearing a Bush-ultra Administration, wrapped in populist rhetoric, and disguised as everything but the same.

Barack Obama: Meteorological Nightmare

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate By Mike McIntire 03 Feb 2008 When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause. Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed...” A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill... Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

Sound familiar? Just replace the words 'Exelon Corporation' with 'insurance companies' and the words 'Senator Obama' with President Obama' and here we are. 'Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction,' we learned in 2008, regarding Obama's reaction to the undisclosed radioactive leaks. In 2009, the president condemned the insurance companies for their record-breaking profits and role in the U.S. health care situation: Obama says insurance companies holding U.S. hostage,' Reuters, 14 August. In 2006, the Obama admonishment preceded the sellout, just as it likely will in 2009. Yup, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

The Exelon incident should have set off alarms in every progressive's brain from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine. The corporate-owned media, determined to see the 'better' liberal -- Hillary Clinton -- lose the Democratic primary, waged a Hillary-bashing campaign, 24-7. This media bias was couched and defended in the enthralling possibility of the election of the first African-American U.S. president.

And so, the Exelon incident passed as insignificant -- the unnoticed fluffy cloud on a bright summer day. But to those of us in the meteorological know, we're aware of the path that a singular cumulus cloud can take. More cumulus clouds appear, then populate the horizon. Soon, cumulonimbus clouds form -- which lead to thunder, lightning and a nightmarish end to the day.

My Exelon-Obama umbrella has been with me since February of 2008, when New York Senator Hillary Clinton co-sponsored legislation to boot Blackwater and other mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan. Candidate Obama remained silent. Under President Obama, the mercenary industry is flourishing.

President Obama: They're toting assault rifles and you're toting 'bipartisanship.'

All of this pandering to the GOP, and the elusive quest for 'bipartisanship,' is not entirely the fault of Barack Obama. As soon as a Democrat is elected, the corporate-owned media begins the 'bipartisanship' brainwashing of the public, to elevate the GOP. Indeed, Obama was 'conditioned' to select a political moderate to the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the lack of political balance on the Court clamored for a left-leaning Justice. Even though George W. Bush stole two elections, the media never chided Bush for not acting in a bipartisan fashion. Apparently, Obama the Conciliator chooses to live and breathe to please everyone --well, every Republican.

How did Bush force his pharma-terrorist giveaway aka Medicare Modernization Act through Congress in 2003?

Drug Industry and HMOs Deployed an Army of Nearly 1,000 Lobbyists to Push Medicare Bill, Report Finds --Study Shows Special Interests Spent $141 Million in 2003, Hired 431 Lobbyists With "Revolving Door" Connections to Congress and the White House 23 Jun 2004 In the final push for Medicare prescription drug legislation, the pharmaceutical industry, HMOs and related interests spent more money and hired more lobbyists in 2003 than ever before, according to a report issued today by Public Citizen.

The bill came to a vote at 3 a.m. on November 22. After 45 minutes, the bill was losing, 219-215. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay sought to convince some of dissenting Republicans to switch their votes, as they had in June... In a highly unusual move, the House leadership held the vote open for hours as they sought two more votes. Then-Representative Nick Smith (R-MI) claimed he was offered campaign funds for his son, who was running to replace him, in return for a change in his vote from "nay" to "yea."

I can just see the Fox heads exploding -- and more AR-15s waving -- if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pulled such a stunt! In 2003, the mainstream media -- owned by the same corporations who financially benefit from corporate profits -- did not demand that the White House 'work with the Democrats' on the 'Patriot' Act, Medicare, Iraq or any other Bush-Cheney disaster forced upon the United States.

True, the day after his Inauguration, President Obama signed legislation to close the U.S. detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, by January 2010. He has also pushed for some popular programs, such as 'Cash for Clunkers.' Although his rhetoric is with the left, his actions are serving the rightwing. Obama is allowing his detractors to call the shots. The Obama Administration's acts of appeasement merely serve to embolden the gun-toting critics and snarly Congresscritters who would do anything to destroy the Obama presidency.

Herewith is the running list of Barack Obama's supplications and fabrications. After having endured eight months of an Obama presidency, a case can be made that Barack Obama was 'allowed' to win the election so that he would provide the relief valve for the rising anger over predatory capitalism in the U.S.

Thus far, Obama has out-Bushed Bush. This list is under construction!

War funding we can believe in: Obama seeks $205 billion for Iraq, Afghan wars 26 Feb 2009 Occupations we can believe in: 50,000 US troops to remain in Iraq under Obama 'withdrawal' plan 25 Feb 2009
Bagram black hole we can believe in: Obama denies terror suspects right to trial --Human rights groups [but not CLG] shocked by refusal to reverse Bush policy in Afghanistan 22 Feb 2009
Budget secrecy we can believe in: W. House: DoD Officials Must Vow Secrecy on Budget 19 Feb 2009
CIA sites we can believe in: US president allows short-term CIA sites --Officials say temporary facilities around the world can be used for number of reasons 29 Jan 2009
Still more renditions we can believe in: Barack Obama grants CIA permission to retain right to carry out renditions 02 Feb 2009
Still more Republicans we can believe in: Obama names third Republican to cabinet --A further bow to the right By Barry Grey 04 Feb 2009
Extraordinary rendition we can believe in: Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit 09 Feb 2009
State secrets we can believe in: Obama Administration Backs Bush Secrecy Policy in Terror Case 10 Feb 2009
Mercenaries we can believe in: KBR Awarded Convoy Support Center Contract by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 28 Jan 2009
Torture architects we can believe in: Obama lawyers set to defend Yoo 28 Jan 2009
Air strikes we can believe in: Obama ordered Waziristan airstrikes --Guardian report says US commanders consulted president before Friday's missile attacks 25 Jan 2009
Loopholes we can believe in: A Loophole In the Rules --In a national-security crisis, Obama could deviate from his own rules. 24 Jan 2009
Eavesdropping we can believe in: Obama Sides With Bush in Spy Case --'President Barack Obama adopted the same position as his predecessor.' 22 Jan 2009
Defense lobbyists we can believe in: Obama Picks Lobbyist as Pentagon No. 2 09 Jan 2009
Mission creep we can believe in: The Pentagon is muscling in everywhere. It's time to stop the mission creep. By Thomas A. Schweich 21 Dec 2008
Warmongers we can believe in: Obama wants Bush war team to stay 23 Dec 2008
Silence we can believe in: Obama's silence on Israeli airstrikes disappoints many 29 Dec 2008
Spies we can believe in: President-Elect Obama May Keep Mike Hayden as Director of the CIA 05 Dec 2008
War criminals we can believe in: Obama Plans to Retain Gates at Defense Department 26 Nov 2008
Bailout critters we can believe in: Obama's Bailout Bunch Brings Us More of the Same By Jonathan Weil 11 Nov 2008
Bush trolls we can believe in: Obama Wants Lieberman to Stay With Dem Caucus 11 Nov 2008
Republicans we can believe in: Obama advisers signal Republican roles in administration 10 Nov 2008
Surges we can believe in: British troops 'cannot bear brunt of Barack Obama's Afghanistan surge' 09 Nov 2008
Big business we can believe in: Obama reassures big business on economic policy By Patrick Martin 8 Nov 2008

Are Obama's most virulent critics open to 'bipartisanship?' Well, they would have to drop their assault rifles, first. Obama should simply jettison them, and abandon his 'Bush-light' agenda. If he doesn't, leftists and liberals need to back an actual progressive candidate for the 2012 presidential elections. Now, that would be 'change we can believe in.'

*Essay title attributed to Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.
Lori Price is Managing Editor of Citizens For Legitimate Government.

Climate Change nears tipping point from feedback cycles, extinction history

CO2 Mass Extinction Of Species And Climate Change

When the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rises above a critical threshold, climate shifts to a different state. Any significant increase in the level of carbon gases triggers powerful feedbacks. These include ice melt/warm water interaction, decline of ice reflection (albedo) and increase in infrared absorption by exposed water. Further release of CO2 from the oceans and from drying and burning vegetation shifts global climate zones toward the poles, warms the oceans and induces ocean acidification [5].

The polar regions, acting as the “thermostats” of the Earth, are the source of the cold air current vortices and the cold ocean currents, such as the Humboldt and California current,

which keep the Earth's overall temperature balance, much as the blood stream regulates the body's temperature and the supply of oxygen. At 4 degrees Celsius advanced to total melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

leads to sea levels tens of meters

(about 30 ft.) higher than at present.

The release of more than 370 billion tons of carbon (GtC) from buried early biospheres, adding more than one half of the original carbon inventory of the atmosphere (~590 GtC), as well as the depletion of vegetation, have triggered a fundamental shift in the state of the atmosphere [1]. Raising atmospheric CO2 level at a rate of 2 ppm/year, a pace unprecedented in the geological record, with the exception of the effects of CO2 released from craters excavated by large asteroid impacts, the deleterious effects of pollution and deforestation have reached a geological dimension, tracking toward conditions which existed on Earth in the mid-Pliocene, about 2.8 million years ago [2].

Lost all too often in the climate debate is an appreciation of the delicate balance between the physical and chemical state of the atmosphere-ocean-land system and the evolving biosphere, which controls the emergence, survival and demise of species, including humans. By contrast to Venus, with its thick blanket of CO2 and sulphur dioxide greenhouse atmosphere, exerting extreme pressure (90 bars) at the surface, or Mars with its thin (0.01 bar) CO2 atmosphere, the presence in the Earth's atmosphere of trace concentrations of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, nitric oxides, ozone) modulates surface temperatures in the range of -89 and +57.7 degrees Celsius and a mean of 14 degrees Celsius, allowing the presence of liquid water and thereby of life [3].

Forming a thin breathable veneer only slightly more than one thousand the diameter of Earth, and evolving both gradually as well as through major perturbations with time, the Earth's atmosphere acts as a lungs of the biosphere, allowing an exchange of carbon gases and oxygen with plants and animals, which in turn affect the atmosphere, for example through release of methane and photosynthetic oxygen (Figure 1).

CO2 is 28 times more soluble in water than is oxygen. Above critical threshold CO2 becomes toxic for certain organisms. Marine organisms are more sensitive to changes in CO2 levels than are terrestrial organisms. Excess CO2 reduces the ability of respiratory pigments to oxygenate tissues, and makes body fluids more acidic, thereby hampering the production of carbonate hard parts like shells. Relatively modest but sustained increases in CO2 concentrations hamper the synthesis of proteins, reduce fertilization rates, and produce deformities in calcareous hard parts. The observed pattern of marine extinctions is consistent with hypercapnia (excessive levels of CO2), with related extinction events [4].

When the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rises above a critical threshold, climate shifts to a different state. Any significant increase in the level of carbon gases triggers powerful feedbacks. These include ice melt/warm water interaction, decline of ice reflection (albedo) and increase in infrared absorption by exposed water. Further release of CO2 from the oceans and from drying and burning vegetation shifts global climate zones toward the poles, warms the oceans and induces ocean acidification [5].

The essential physics of the infrared absorption/emission resonance of greenhouse molecules is indicated by observations in nature and laboratory studies, as portrayed in the relations between atmospheric CO2 and mean global temperature projections (Figure 2).

During most of Earth history the oxygen-poor composition of the atmosphere resulted in dominance of reduced carbon species in the air and the oceans, including methane and carbon monoxide, allowing mainly algae and bacteria to exist in the oceans (Figure 3). It is commonly held that, about 0.7 billion years ago, in the wake of the Marinoan glaciation (so-called “Snowball Earth”), oxygenation of low-temperature water allowed development of new oxygen-binding proteins and thereby of multicellular animals, followed by development of a rich variety of organisms - the “Cambrian explosion” [6].

The present state of the biosphere, allowing survival of large mammals and of humans on the continents, developed when CO2 levels fell below about 500 ppm some 34 million years ago (end Eocene) [7]. At this stage, as well as following warm periods in the Oligocene (c. 25 million years ago) and mid-Miocene (about 15 million years ago), development of the Antarctic ice sheet led to a fundamental change in the global climate regime. About 2.8 million years ago (mid-Pliocene) the Greenland ice sheet and the Arctic Sea ice began to form, with further decline in global temperatures expressed through glacial-interglacial cycles regulated by orbital forcing (Milankovic cycles), with atmospheric CO2 levels oscillating between 180 and 280 ppm CO2 (Figure 4). These conditions allowed the emergence of humans in Africa and their migration all over the world (Figure 5) [8].

Recent paleoclimate studies, using multiple proxies (soil carbonate d13C, alkenones, boron/calcium, stomata leaf pores), indicate that the current CO2 level of 388 ppm and CO2-equivalent level of 460 ppm (which includes the methane factor), commit warming above pre-industrial levels to 3 to 4 degrees C in the tropics and 10 degrees C in polar regions, tracking toward an ice-free Earth [2].

Small human clans post-3 million years-ago responded to changing climates through migration within and out of Africa . Homo sapiens emerged during the glacial period preceding the 124 thousand years-old Emian interglacial, when temperatures rose by about 1 degree C and sea levels by 6-8 meters relative to pre-industrial [5].  The development of agriculture and thereby human civilization had to wait until climate stabilized about 8000 years ago, when large scale irrigation along the great river valleys (the Nile , Euphrates , Hindus and Yellow River ) became possible. 

Since the 18 th century mean global temperature has risen by about 0.8 degrees C. Another 0.5 degrees C is masked by industrial-emitted aerosols (SO2), and further rise ensues from current melting of the ice sheets and sea ice. The polar regions, acting as the “thermostats” of the Earth, are the source of the cold air current vortices and the cold ocean currents, such as the Humboldt and California current, which keep the Earth's overall temperature balance, much as the blood stream regulates the body's temperature and the supply of oxygen.

At 4 degrees Celsius advanced to total melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets leads to sea levels tens of meters higher than at present. Further rise of CO2-e above 500 ppm and mean global temperatures above 4 degrees C can only lead toward greenhouse Earth conditions such as existed during the Cretaceous and early Cainozoic (Figure 4) [5, 7].

A rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration triggers feedback effects due to warming, desiccation and burning of vegetation, releasing more CO2. The onset of methane release from polar bogs and sediments is of major concern. Ice/melt water interaction proceeds as melt water melts more ice, ice loss results in albedo loss and exposed water absorb infrared heat, resulting in an amplified feedback cycle. Because CO2 is cumulative, with atmospheric residence time on the scale of centuries to millennia, stabilization of the climate through small incremental reduction in emission may not be sufficient to avoid runaway climate change and possible tipping points.

Climate change is appropriately described as a global oxygenation event affecting geological carbon deposits as well as the present biosphere. At 2 ppm/year the pace of carbon oxidation exceeds the highest recorded geological rate of 0.4 ppm/year at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary at 55 Ma, when about 2000 GtC were burnt, triggering an extinction of species [7].

Sea level rise constitutes a critical parameter which reflects all other components of climate change. Since the early 20 th century the rate of sea level rise increased from about 1 mm/year to about 3.5 mm/year (1993 – 2009 mean rate 3.2+/-0.4 mm/year), representing a nearly 4 fold increase since the onset of the industrial age (Figure 6).

The Earth poles are warming at rates 3 to 4 times faster than low latitudes (Figure 7) [9]. The most detailed satellite information available shows that ice sheets in Greenland and western Antarctica are shrinking and in some places are already in runaway melt mode [10]. 

A new study, using 50 million laser readings from a NASA satellite, calculates changes in the height of the vulnerable but massive ice sheets and found them especially worse at their edges, where warmer water eats away from below. In some parts of Antarctica , ice sheets have been losing 30 feet a year in thickness since 2003 [10].

The consequences of open ended rise in atmospheric CO2 are manifest in the geological record (Frontispiece). The world is in a lag period, when increasing atmospheric energy is expressed by intense hurricanes, increased pressure at mid-latitude high pressure zones and shift of climate zones toward the poles. With ensuing desertification of temperate zones, i.e. southern Europe , southern Australia , southern Africa , the desiccated forests become prey to firestorms, such as in Victoria and California .

There is nowhere the 6.5 billion of contemporary humans can go, not even the barren planets into the study of which space agencies have been pouring more funding than governments allocate for environmental mitigation to date. At 460 ppm CO2-equivalent, the climate is tracking close to the upper stability limit of the Antarctic ice sheet, defined at approximately 500 ppm [5,7]. Once transcended, mitigation measures would hardly be able to re-form the cryosphere.

According to Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute and advisor to the German government:

“ We're simply talking about the very life support system of this planet ”.

Humans can not argue with the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere. What is needed are urgent measures including

•  Deep cuts in carbon emissions.

•  Parallel Fast track transformation to non-polluting energy utilities – solar, solar-thermal, wind, tide, geothermal, hot rocks.

•  Global reforestation and re-vegetation campaigns, including application of biochar.

The alternative does not bear contemplation.

Andrew Glikson is Earth and paleoclimate scientist, Australian National University

[1] After Peter Ward, Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future (HarperCollins, NY 2007, p 135).

[2] Pagani M. et al. 2010. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo724.html

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Weather_and_climate

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

[5] Hansen et al. 2008. Target CO2: Where Should humanity aim? http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

[6] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

[7] Zachos J.C. et al. 2008 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06588.html

[8] deMenocal, P.B. 2004. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Publications/deMenocal.2004.pdf

[9] http://wwfblogs.org/climate/content/looking-above-normal-temperatures-they-are-arctic

[10] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/full/nature08471.html

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/26/nature-dynamic-thinning-of-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-glacier/

By Andrew Glikson

22 February, 2010
Countercurrents.org

Methane, more than CO2, retains heat, causes rapid increase in Climate Change

Methane Levels May See 'Runaway' Rise

Atmospheric levels of methane, the greenhouse gas which is much more powerful than carbon dioxide, have risen significantly for the last three years running, scientists will disclose today – leading to fears that a major global-warming "feedback" is beginning to kick in.

methane (CH4) is even more effective at retaining the Sun's heat in the atmosphere than CO2

For some time there has been concern that the vast amounts of methane, or "natural gas", locked up in the frozen tundra of the Arctic could be released as the permafrost is melted by global warming. This would give a huge further impetus to climate change, an effect sometimes referred to as "the methane time bomb".

This is because methane (CH4) is even more effective at retaining the Sun's heat in the atmosphere than CO2, the main focus of international climate concern for the last two decades. Over a relatively short period, such as 20 years, CH4 has a global warming potential more than 60 times as powerful as CO2, although it decays more quickly.

Now comes the first news that levels of methane in the atmosphere, which began rising in 2007 when an unprecedented heatwave in the Arctic caused a record shrinking of the sea ice, have continued to rise significantly through 2008 and 2009.

Although researchers cannot yet be certain, and there may be non-threatening explanations, there is a fear that rising temperatures may have started to activate the positive feedback mechanism. This would see higher atmospheric levels of the gas producing more warming, which in turn would release more methane, which would produce even further warming, and so on into an uncontrollable "runaway" warming effect. This is believed to have happened at the end of the last Ice Age, causing a very rapid temperature rise in a matter of decades.

The new figures will be revealed this morning at a major two-day conference on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, taking place at the Royal Society in London. They will be disclosed in a presentation by Professor Euan Nisbet, of Royal Holloway College of the University of London, and Dr Ed Dlugokencky of the Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, which is run by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Both men are leading experts on CH4 in the atmosphere, and Dr Dlugokencky in particular, who is in charge of NOAA's global network of methane monitoring stations, is sometimes referred to as "the keeper of the world's methane". In a presentation on "Global atmospheric methane in 2010: budget, changes and dangers", the two scientists will reveal that, after a decade of near-zero growth, "globally averaged atmospheric methane increased by [approximately] 7ppb (parts per billion) per year during 2007 and 2008."

They go on: "During the first half of 2009, globally averaged atmospheric CH4 was [approximately] 7ppb greater than it was in 2008, suggesting that the increase will continue in 2009. There is the potential for increased CH4 emissions from strong positive climate feedbacks in the Arctic where there are unstable stores of carbon in permafrost ... so the causes of these recent increases must be understood."

Professor Nisbet said at the weekend that the new figures did not necessarily mark a new excursion from the trend. "It may just be a couple of years of high growth, and it may drop back to what it was," he said. "But there is a concern that things are beginning to change towards renewed growth from feedbacks."

The product of biological activity by microbes, usually in decaying vegetation or other organic matter, "natural gas" is emitted from natural sources and human activities. Wetlands may give off up to a third of the total amount produced. But large amounts are also released from the production of gas for fuel, and also from agriculture, including the production of rice in paddy fields and the belches of cows as they chew the cud (which is known as "bovine eructation"). However, methane breaks down and disappears from the atmosphere quite quickly, and until recently it was thought that the Earth's methane "budget" was more or less in balance.

Global atmospheric levels of the gas now stand at about 1,790 parts per billion. They began to be measured in 1984, when they stood at about 1,630ppb, and were steadily rising. It was thought that this was due to the Russian gas industry, which before the collapse of the Soviet Union was affected by enormous leaks.

After 1991, substantial amounts were invested in stopping the leaks by a privatised Russian gas industry, and the methane rise slowed.

Methane in the atmosphere: The recent rise

Many climate scientists think that frozen Arctic tundra, like this at Sermermiut in Greenland, is a ticking time bomb in terms of global warming, because it holds vast amounts of methane, an immensely potent greenhouse gas. Over thousands of years the methane has accumulated under the ground at northern latitudes all around the world, and has effectively been taken out of circulation by the permafrost acting as an impermeable lid. But as the permafrost begins to melt in rising temperatures, the lid may open – with potentially catastrophic results.

By Michael McCarthy

22 February, 2010
Independent.co.uk

©independent.co.uk

Bill Gates $10 Billion Vaccine Scam

The “richest man in the world”, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, recently announced that he was making a $10 billion donation towards finding vaccines to prevent some of the worlds worst diseases.

So “donating” a billion dollars to develop a malaria “vaccine” could turn into 10’s of billions of dollars in drug sales in Africa alone, and Bill Gates, through his drug company investments, will quietly pocket more African blood money.

Malaria is the number one killer in Africa. From what I’m hearing about $1 billion of BIll Gates donation/tax write-off is for research to find a vaccine to prevent malaria.

The African country of Eritrea, where I live, has reduced malaria mortality by 85% in the last 7 years. How? By using basic public health methods. By distributing pesticide treated mosquito nets and organizing the pesticide retreatment every three months of mosquito nets. By habitat eradication. And by community medical clinics for immediate treatment.

Malaria is a parasite based disease noted for its variety and quick development of resistance to medication. Any “vaccine”, if even a billion dollars is able to produce such, would have a limited lifetime and new, patented medications would have to be bought by Africa’s poor every few years.

So “donating” a billion dollars to develop a malaria “vaccine” could turn into 10’s of billions of dollars in drug sales in Africa alone, and Bill Gates, through his drug company investments, will quietly pocket more African blood money.

All the while a very successful malaria mortality reduction program in operating, effective, safe, and affordable, in Eritrea.

Why isn't this being publicized internationally? Could it be that such a program is not going to put billions into the pockets of the drug lords of western finance?

Bill Gates and other assorted financial terrorists through their control of the western media and “aid” organizations are suppressing implementation of a successful malaria mortality program while investing in a malaria drug addiction for Africa’s people.

These financial terrorists are perfectly willing to see millions die in Africa while they search for their next highly profitable “wonder drug” to cure malaria, all the while deliberately ignoring, worse, engineering a white out/cover up of what could prevent millions of deaths, let alone uncounted suffering.

And HIV/AIDS, Africa’s No.2 killer? Bill Gates is said to be providing over a billion dollars for research into developing an AIDS vaccine. AIDS, a virus based disease, has already shown to have varieties and to have developed resistance to the medications developed to treat it. Like the flue vaccine, a new AIDS vaccine would most likely have to be developed every few years to combat the latest strain of the AIDS virus, another gold mine of new, patented medications for sale to Africa’s sick.

Eritrea has reduced HIV/AIDS infection rates by 40%, according to Physicians for Peace, and is the only country in Africa to reduce HIV/AIDS. How? By using public health education promoting condom use everywhere in the country. Over a billion for a “vaccine” that may never work while an effective program that can reduce HIV/AIDS infection by 40%, safely and affordably can be immediately implemented?

Remember, western billionaires didn't get that way by being out to really help anyone. Millions die in Africa as the western drug lords and their financial terrorist stock holders reap their billions in blood money. All the while real hero’s in the Eritrean public health service struggle to save peoples lives.

So don't believe that BIll Gates is up to any good when he donates $10 billion to vaccine research, just the opposite. And don't forget that as far at the USA is concerned in Africa, no good deed goes unpunished, and once again Eritrea is subject to UN Security Council Sanctions.

Thomas C. Mountain lives in Asmara, Eritrea, is an independent journalist and in a previous life was the Publisher of the Ambedkar Journal and a founding member of the Phoolan Devi International Defense Committee

thomascmountain at yahoo dot com

How to keep future Torture Lawyers under control, Yes, Prof. John, that means Yoo !

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

By Bruce Ackerman

During the long years that the Justice Department was investigating Jay S. Bybee and John C. Yoo, it was tempting to view the torture memos as if they were momentary aberrations in the life of the modern presidency. 

U.C. BOYCOTT:  No students, no classes = Fuck Yoo !

But in clearing the Bush administration lawyers who authored the memos of all charges of unprofessional conduct, the department invites future John Yoos to rubber-stamp future presidential abuses at moments of (real or imagined) crisis.

The torture memos are an entirely predictable product of an institutional set-up that puts the meaning of national security law at the mercy of a politicized Office of Legal Counsel and a super-politicized legal staff in the White House.

There is a compelling need to reform that structure.

Forty years ago, the Office of Legal Counsel was dominated by career lawyers. But by the time George W. Bush was elected, the office had only a handful of seasoned professionals, and all the leading positions were held by political appointees who, like Bybee and Yoo, were predisposed to support their president.

Given this political transformation, the exoneration of Bybee and Yoo creates a dangerous precedent. Consider the department's discussion of the torture memo's claim that the president, as commander in chief, can defy Congress's statutory prohibition on torture and order the military or CIA to engage in any and all forms of abuse. The department concedes that Bybee and Yoo presented an "incomplete and one-sided" argument in support of this remarkable legal conclusion and that the next head of the OLC, Jack Goldsmith, found that this claim had "no foundation in prior OLC opinions, or in judicial decisions, or in any other source of law."


 Nevertheless, the department found that Bybee and Yoo acted professionally in writing their defense of unchecked presidential power. In reaching this conclusion, it relied principally on two facts: first, that other political appointees in the Bush OLC also believed that presidential torture raised "complicated questions," and, second, that the White House was demanding a quick decision.

Future Yoos will take notice and perhaps line up a few office mates to agree with extremist legal positions before issuing their memos during the next crisis.

Sometimes the OLC will resist presidential overreaching. But James Madison warned us that "enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." And it is not at all certain whether OLC lawyers may resist unreasonable claims down the line.

The Constitution requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He is not free to create a system in which his lawyers have powerful incentives to subordinate the law to short-term political imperatives. Since this is precisely the current situation, the president and Congress have a constitutional obligation to establish an institutional framework that will keep future John Yoos under control.

In coming weeks, Congress should do more than call Bybee and Yoo to testify. Lawmakers should work with President Obama to create an executive tribunal that will ensure the integrity of the rule of law. Members of the tribunal will operate as judges for the executive branch, not as lawyers for the sitting president. There will be nine judges on the panel, each serving staggered 12-year terms, giving the president the chance to nominate three judges during a four-year period. Nominees must gain Senate confirmation -- which will encourage the president to nominate candidates with reputations as fair-minded professionals, not legal ideologues.

Committees of the House or Senate would have the right to challenge presidential actions before the tribunal. And after hearing both sides of an argument, the nine-judge panel would lay down the law for the executive branch.

At a later point, a private party might also gain standing to challenge the same presidential action before the Supreme Court -- and if it decides to take the case, as the nation's highest arbiter, the court would be free to overrule the tribunal. But if history is any guide, the Supreme Court will intervene on national security matters only rarely. In the meantime, the executive tribunal will assure Americans that their freedoms are no longer at the tender mercies of the Yoos of the world.

The writer is a professor of law at Yale University.

Inflated sense of your Self-Control makes you fall prey to temptation

"If I ever go out and get married again,

 I'll never leave my wife at home."

               --John Prine

By David DiSalvo   

If you have ever lost weight on a diet only to gain it all back, you were probably as perplexed as you were disappointed. You felt certain that you had conquered bad eating habits—so what caused the backslide?

New research suggests that you may have succumbed to a cognitive distortion called restraint bias. Bolstered by an inflated sense of impulse control, we overexpose ourselves to temptation and fall prey to impulsiveness.

Northwestern University psychologists first asked a group of smokers to take a self-control test. Unknown to the par­ticipants, the test was a pretense to randomly label half the group as having high self-control and half as having low self-control. 

 



After hearing their supposed result, participants played a game that involved watch­ing the 2003 movie Coffee and Cigarettes while challenging themselves with one of four levels of temptation, each with its own cash reward. They could keep a cigarette unlit in their mouths (for the most money), unlit in their hand, on a nearby desk or (for the lowest reward) in another room. Participants earned a prize only if they avoided smoking for the entire 95-minute film.

Smokers told that they had high self-control exposed themselves to significantly more temp­tation than their counterparts—opting on average to watch the movie while holding a cigarette—and they failed to resist lighting up three times as often as those told they had low self-control.

“Restraint bias offers insight into how our erroneous beliefs about self-restraint promote impulsive behavior,” says lead author Loran F. Nordgren of Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. “It helps us to understand puzzles in addiction research such as why recovered addicts often relapse after they have broken free of withdrawal symptoms.” The lesson? When you’ve made progress avoiding your indulgences and that little voice in your head tells you it’s okay to start exposing yourself to temptation again­—ignore it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-we-return-to-bad-habits