Quote of the Day: Nick Clegg on opposition to AV

When the vested interests of the old, tired, establishment of politics and the media are so opposed to a reform – turning so personal about it – you know there is something worth fighting for. It is a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible – the old politics of tribalism backed by dinosaurs on all sides of the political spectrum. It is the attack on people working together for the national good that is so dismal.

- Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal-Democrats (UK); Guardian newspaper

It has been nearly a year since the coalition government was formed in Britain.  The Conservative Party, lead by David Cameron, and the Liberal Democrats, lead by Nick Clegg, formed a coalition to bridge the fact that no one political party had gained sufficient seats in Westminster to hold the confidence of parliament, after the 2010 elections.  Things have not gone well amongst the ranks of Liberal Democrat supporters, and the biggest challenge advocated  by the party -alternative voting mechanism- appears to be withering.

So few people in any line of politics are willing to say the obvious fact that our current political systems are badly broken and those who talk dismissively about change, are the same persons who exploit that existing system to their maximum political advantage.  I have spoken briefly on what I think are some of the impressive qualities of Nick Clegg in previous posts.  Unlike either the corrupt Labour Party or post-Thatcherite crony-capitalists of the Conservative Party, Mr. Clegg has denounced the Iraq war (here and here), embraced environmentalism (here), and made some of the largest changes to Britain's security-state apparatus, promoted by Labour, to make government accountable to the true sovereign; the people (here).

The fact that so many voters will act with such myopic thinking in opposing the alternative voting system, in order to simply punish the Liberal Democrats for aligning themselves with the Conservatives, only proves that most people are not only unable to think rationally, but are petty to the point of being sadomasochistic.

Peak Oil: The Germans and British Understand the Outcome

A series of recent reports have been released by both the German and UK governments on the implications of Peak oil.  Jeff Rubin, former chief economist of Canada's CIBC World Markets, discusses both reports in his Globe and Mail blog.  In it he summarizes that the emerging global consensus amongst policy makers and long term government planners is that deficiencies in accessing and utilizing petroleum will lead to severe economic disruptions, social instability, and a collapse of the current global trade arrangements.

Rubin disputes the reassurances made by governments and industry supporters that peak-oil is not a concern.  As I've outlined in previous blog entries (here and here), many persons who have had a close examination of the situation believe that we reached peak-oil in 2005.  The German study states that there is "some probability that peak oil will occur around the year 2010 and that the impact on security is expected to be felt 15 to 30 years later."  Rubin concedes that while we may not have reached "geological peak-oil" from the economic perspective we certainly have.  As global oil prices maxed out at near $150/bbl it became abundantly clear that our current economy and way of life is completely incapable of sustaining these costs.  Furthermore, it is only at these very high levels of crude that many of the untested extraction technologies and difficult to obtain reserves can be made to be profitable.  Hence, in reality, accessible global oil reserves are not growing any further.

Der Spiegel International, outlines a series of potential situations that may arise:

1. Oil will determine power
2. Increasing importance of oil exporters
3. Politics in place of the market
4. Global market failures
5. Relapse into planned economy
6. Global chain reaction
7. Crisis of political legitimacy

Altogether, the implications of this fact are severe.  Rubin summarizes:

The German study paints a bleak picture of the post-peak world: political power quickly shifts from major oil-consuming economies to major oil-producing economies. Less and less oil is traded on the open market, while more and more is traded between nation states, with national oil companies entering into long-term supply agreements that are tied to broader political and military considerations. And military alliances coalesce around the security of energy supply, rather than between countries with shared political or economic principles.

In the UK, the Guardian newspaper also heralds the dangers associated with a post-peak oil world in an article titled "Peak oil alarm revealed by secret official talks."  Previous estimates by the International Energy Agency indicated that there would be "sufficient reserves to meet demand till 2030 as long as investment in new reserves is maintained."  However, major industry players, economic skeptics, and government analysts believe the situation could be considerably less solvent.

But an internal IEA source said: "Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible, but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources."

Coupled with climate change concerns, which includes the possibility of severe drought, famine, resource scarcity based conflict, and socio-economic collapse everywhere, we are not just talking about a realignment in global powers, but the possibility of wholesale disintegration of human civilization.

Nick Clegg, The Iraq Invasion was illegal!

During question period in the British House of Commons this week, Nick Clegg, the current Deputy Prime Minister of the UK coalition government, attacked the morally bankrupt and perennially dishonest Labour Party for its role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  He lashed out at Jack Straw by proclaiming, "We may have to wait for his memoirs, but perhaps one day he will account for his role in the most disastrous decision of all: the illegal invasion of Iraq."

No one outside the coterie of miserable propagandists who sold the lies advocating for the invasion of Iraq consider the facts in dispute.  Kofi Annan, as Secretary-General of the United Nations, told the BBC in 2004 that the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.  The egregious falsehoods, exaggerations, and manufactured evidence posited by Tony Blair's Labour Party, Bush's bipartisan fraud-fest, and the usual suspects in the media and military-industrial complex now lie tattered and recognized for what it actually was.  The new UK coalition government, unlike the cowards in the Obama administration, have created an Iraq War inquiry to understand the details surrounding the decision to go to war.  Already, some startling details have been exposed.  For example, former MI-5 intel chief Baroness Manningham-Buller stated that "we regarded the threat, the direct threat from Iraq as low."

Tom Ricks summarizes on his Foreign Policy blog,

As for al Qaeda and Iraq, she said, "there was no credible intelligence to suggest that connection and that was the judgment, I might say, of the CIA. It was not a judgment that found favour with some parts of the American machine, as you have also heard evidence on, which is why Donald Rumsfeld started an intelligence unit in the Pentagon to seek an alternative judgment."

Furthermore, Baroness Manningham-Buller elaborated that the invasion of Iraq, instead of diminishing the overall risk and likelihood of terrorism on British soil, in fact exacerbated the threat from indigenous Muslim radicals.  The blowback of the 7/7 London transit system was not unexpected.  Most damning of all was her stated opinion that the intelligence on Iraq's threat was not "substantial enough" to justify the action.  Of course, much of this is old news.  Opponents and skeptics of the institutional claims have long been aware of Blair's dodgy dossier consisting of "sexed-up" warnings and memos disclosed by whistle-blowers describing how Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush had predetermined the outcome of invasion.

However, the above revelations were not what caught the attention of the press.  Rather, as the Guardian newspaper outlines, was that others considered Clegg's statement in parliament to be a 'gaffe' with the potential that Britain may face charges in some future International court.  The government, more interested in covering their collective asses, distanced themselves by saying that Clegg was expressing his "long-held view" about the Iraq conflict as leader of the Liberal-Democrats.  Downing Street further stated that the government would await the findings of the Chilcot inquiry prior to reaching a view on the war.  It's an odd statement, since Tony Blair's own attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, prior to the war explicitly said, "I remain of the view that the correct legal interpretation of [UN security council] resolution 1441 is that it does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the security council."

That Strange Concept Called Accountability!

Something remarkable happened last month that the press seems to have thoroughly overlooked here in the Americas.  The newly formed Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition government in Britain told the country that they were going to reform civil liberties that had been badly diminished under Labour and equally, hold the previous government accountable their years of participating in the kidnapping, rendition, and torture of persons across the globe.

Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime-Minister, made a speech declaring that the coming changes would be the biggest shake-up in UK democracy since 1832.  He railed against a litany of previous Labour government policies that formed the basis of Britain's surveillance state:

• ID Card schemes
• national identity registers
• biometric passports
• the storing of Internet and email records
• DNA databases
• proliferating security cameras
• repressive restrictions on free speech and assembly rights

Mr. Clegg's party before the election didn't mince words.  The Liberal-Democrats stated in their party platform that, "The Government believes the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused fundamental human rights and historic civil liberties."  He further inveighed against the current criminal justice system which imprisons too many citizens without improving public safety, and "pledged radical reform to empower citizens" over entrenched and wealthy interests.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, announced that an independent judge will investigate whether the British government was complicit in the torture of terror suspects.  The Guardian summarizes:

The judicial inquiry announced by the foreign secretary into Britain's role in torture and rendition since September 2001 is poised to shed extraordinary light on one of the darkest episodes in the country's recent history.

It is expected to expose not only details of the activities of the security and intelligence officials alleged to have colluded in torture since 9/11, but also the identities of the senior figures in government who authorised those activities. . . . Those who have been most bitterly resisting an inquiry -- including a number of senior figures in the last government -- may have been dismayed to see the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition formed, as this maximised the chances of a judicial inquiry being established.

Glenn Greenwald describes the mindset of Barack Obama, who claimed during the 2008 election that it was his desire to hold the Bush junta to account for their crimes.  To date the Obama administration has held none of the fiends who lied and took America to war on bogus premises, engaged in wholesale torture across the globe, and violated the Geneva conventions.  George W. Bush has already admitted that he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details of the CIA's use of torture.  Earlier this month, he further admitted that "Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded by the US, and said he would do it again 'to save lives'." This is consistent with Dick Cheney's bold statement to the world, back in February,where he announced that he was a "big supporter of waterboarding."

Andrew Sullivan and Scott Horton have both said that president Obama and his AG are now obligated to prosecute both Messrs Bush and Cheney.

[T]he attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.... Cheney himself just set in motion a chain of events that the civilized world must see to its conclusion or cease to be the civilized world. For such a high official to escape the clear letter of these treaties and conventions, and to openly brag of it, renders such treaties and conventions meaningless.

How far down the rabbit hole have we all gone, where the Conservatives of Britain are willing to hold their people to account, while the Obama administration gives the worst government in the history of the American republic another "get-out of jail" card and the press doesn't bother talking about any of it?

Quote of the Day: New Labour is a Parasite!

George Monbiot in yesterday's Guardian UK describes why Gordon Brown's new Labour cannot be trusted any longer:

There's a parasite called Toxoplasma gondii that colonises the brains of rats, altering their behaviour to attract them to the scent of their predators. The rats seek out cats and get eaten, allowing the parasite to keep circulating. This is New Labour. It has colonised a movement that fought for social justice, distribution and decency, rewired its brain and delivered it to the fat cats who were once its enemies.

He challenges the voters in the UK to admonish the most right-wing government in the UK since 1945.  The party that once claimed to support working class people, introduced legislation that criminalized public protest, eviscerated civil liberty laws, engaged in torture, subordinated national defense and international affairs to Washington's Imperial whims, and turned the nation into a quasi-police state, with more CCTV cameras than anywhere in the world and a 41% increase of prisoners since Labour took office.

UK Conservative Party Candidate Believes Gays are Possessed!

Today's Guardian newspaper has a story that speaks about the bizarre socio-political beliefs of Mrs. Philippa Stroud, who is "a high-flying prospective Conservative MP, credited with shaping many of the [Conservative] party's social policies, [and] founded a church that tried to 'cure' homosexuals by driving out their 'demons' through prayer."

As ridiculous as the claims appear, Ms. Stroud is not being misrepresented by the center-left newspaper.  In her book, God's Heart for the Poor, she discusses how to deal with people showing signs of "demonic activity". For example, an excerpt below should provide any rational person evidence of her enlightened state of mind:

One girl lived in the hostel for some time, became a Christian, then choked to death on her own vomit after a drinking bout. Her life had changed to some extent, but we wondered whether God knew that she hadn't the will to stick with it and was calling her home.

They wondered if an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent deity, who supposedly created this woman and for whatever reasons allowed her to become possessed, knew the girl was a "loser" to which they could not cure.

I realize that this is election season in the UK and these outcropping of absurdity are bound to avail themselves.  However, these religious fanatics, election time or not, aren't doing anyone a favor by proselytizing this rubbish and engaging in what is clearly psychological abuse. 

The fact that this woman is not your average nutter, but a prominent member of the Conservative Party and a close confident of David Cameron, the Conservative party's leader, should convince everyone that these jackasses will never change and need to be permanently exiled to some Scottish island in the North Sea, where they can believe all the dogmatic malarkey they wish and practice their bizarro-land witchcraft preferably on their own rancid offspring or a stray local goat.

Religious frauds are a danger to us all.  And if 9-11 has taught anyone anything, it is the portentous evil that can be caused by zealots of all stripes advancing their religious objectives upon civilized people.

You should know Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems

For Americans, Nick Clegg, the leader of the UK"s Liberal Democratic Party, remains a nobody.  After all who in the land of rape and honey would know about the leader of a party which at the dissolvement of parliament held a meager 3rd place standing in Westminster?  However, something extraordinary has happened since the first television debate held between the three leading parties a couple of weeks ago to which all persons in the West should be aware of. 

The people of Britain, who to this day remain weary of the Thatcherites and the mealy-mouth platitudes of the Conservative party and have grown equally unsatisfied with the perennial deceit of New Labour, decided that maybe it was time to give someone else a chance at governing.  The Liberal Democrats in the past few weeks have rocketed in national polls from 3rd place standing  to overtake both the Conservatives and Labour at different times.

Unlike the twedledum and twedledee politics of Labour and the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats have embraced real ideas and proposed real changes to make the UK a better and different place.  As today's Observer newspaper states,

The Lib Dems have in recent years developed a habit of getting things right. They were first of the big three to embrace environmentalism, first to kick back against the assault on civil liberties, alone in opposing the Iraq war.

However, it is Mr. Clegg who has infused the imagination of those who dare to think that the lesser of two evils is no longer an acceptable choice.  Unlike the slick talking David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, and the woefully dour Mr. Brown of Labour, Mr. Clegg appeared during those debates to be a very rare type of politician: a man with principles who could generally be described as decent. The Observer editorial elaborates,

Mr Clegg's mettle cannot be fully tested until he is in office. But he did manage, in the televised leaders' debates, to articulate sensible, liberal positions on immigration and on European integration that many Labour ministers might share but would be afraid to express. He resisted the temptations of casual populism and stated his case with passion and clarity.

On this side of the Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan's blog has been providing us with many key quotes and analysis during the British election.  Yesterday, he posited a quote made by Mr. Clegg that I thought was beyond anything I have heard from any serious politician during an election:

Every time I go back to Beckett he seems more subversive, not less; his works make me feel more uncomfortable than they did before. The unsettling idea, most explicit in Godot, that life is habit – that it is all just a series of motions devoid of meaning – never gets any easier.

It's that willingness to question the things the rest of us take for granted that I admire most about Beckett; the courage to ask questions that are dangerous because, if the traditions and meanings we hold so dear turn out to be false, what do we do then?

But amid the bleakness, there is also humour, and it's no surprise that there are so many comedians among Beckett's fans. His appeal lies in his directness – the sparse, unembellished prose that can make his meticulous stage directions unexpected. He leaves you with a sense that you knew what he meant, even if explaining it back would leave you lost for words. Direct and disturbing – it is impossible to grow tired of Beckett.

Can you imagine George W. Bush and his armada of maladroits possibly contemplating Beckett, much less philosophizing on the inherent existential meanings of his work?  In America, politicians that don't spout prefabricated and dogmatic responses are feared as subversive elite who couldn't possibility understand the woes of self-absorbed fatties who blame the world for their ills!

The people of the UK have a once in a lifetime chance to simultaneously throw-the-bums-out and reform their government while embracing modernity, everyday environmentalism, and pro-Europeanism in a single vote.  I wish them and Nick Clegg much luck on Thursday.