Sun, Feb 24 2008
WE MAY NEED THIS SOONER THAN WE THINK
At the pace we are destroying the planet, we may have to make a withdrawal from this bank in my lifetime...
Biodiversity 'doomsday vault' comes to life in Arctic
LONGYEARBYEN, Norway (AFP) - Aimed at providing mankind with a Noah's Ark of food in the event of a global catastrophe, an Arctic "doomsday vault" filled with samples of the world's most important seeds will be inaugurated here Tuesday.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Nobel Peace Prize winning environmentalist Wangari Matai will be among the personalities present at the inauguration of the vault, which has been carved into the permafrost of a remote Arctic mountain, just some 1,000 kilometres (620 miles) from the North Pole.
The vault, made up of three spacious cold chambers each measuring 27 x 10 metres (89 x 33 feet), create a long trident-shaped tunnel bored into the sandstone and limestone.
It has the capacity to hold up to 4.5 million batches of seeds from all known varieties of the planet's main food crops, making it possible to re-establish plants if they disappear from their natural environment or are obliterated by major disasters.
"The facility is built to hold twice as many varieties of agricultural crops as we think exist," explained Cary Fowler, executive director of the Global Crop Diversity Trust and project mastermind.
"It will not be filled up in my lifetime, nor in my grandchildren's lifetime," he predicted in a phone interview with AFP.
Norway has assumed the six million euro (8.9 million dollar) charge for building the vault in its Arctic archipelago of Svalbard, where ironically no crops grow.
Secured behind an airlock door, the three airtight chambers have the capacity to house duplicates of samples from all the world's more than 1,400 existing seed banks.
Many of the more vulnerable seed banks have begun contributing to the "doomsday vault" collection, but some of the world's biodiversity has already disappeared, with gene vaults in both Iraq and Afghanistan destroyed by war and a seed bank in the Philippines annihilated by a typhoon.
By the time of the inauguration on Tuesday, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault should hold some 250,000 samples, which will remain the property of their countries of origin.
Pakistan and Kenya, both undergoing periods of serious unrest, have sent seed collections, while samples sent from Colombia have been closely scrutinised by police to avoid the project becoming a vehicle for drug trafficking.
"I've been working in this field for 30 years and I thought I knew at least all the crops," Fowler said.
After receiving a list of all the different seeds in the vault, however, "I must admit there are a number of crops I've never heard of before," he said.
That's a spectacular amount of diversity for Svalbard, where no trees can grow due to the permafrost and where the mercury plummets to an average 14 degrees Celsius below zero (6.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in winter.
The Norwegian archipelago, which is home to some 2,300 people, was selected not despite but because of its inhospitable climate, as well as its remote location far from civil strife.
The seeds of wheat, maize, oats and other crops will be stored at a constant temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius, and even if the freezer system fails the permafrost will ensure that temperatures never rise above 3.5 degrees Celsius below freezing.
"Svalbard really met all the criteria," Fowler said.
Protected by high walls of fortified concrete, an armoured door, a sensor alarm and the native polar bears that roam the region, the "doomsday vault" has been built 130 metres (425 feet) above current sea level -- high enough that it would not flood if the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melt entirely due to global warming.
The concrete cocoon has also been built to withstand nuclear missile attacks or a plunging plane, something that could come in handy in light of the 6.4-scale tremor -- the biggest earthquake in Norway's history -- registered near the archipelago on Thursday.Sun, Feb 24 2008
WHAT KIND OF AMERICAN ARE *YOU*?
Sun, Feb 24 2008
YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT
We have become completely disconnected from our food. And most of this company's madcow meat goes to schools and cheap burger joints like Jack-in-the-Box and In-and-Out...
USDA Orders Largest Meat Recall in U.S. History
Washington Post - The Agriculture Department has ordered the largest meat recall in its history -- 143 million pounds of beef, a California meatpacker's entire production for the past two years -- because the company did not prevent ailing animals from entering the U.S. food supply, officials said yesterday.
Despite the breadth of the sanction, USDA officials underscored their belief that the meat, distributed by Westland Meat, poses little or no hazard to consumers, and that most of it was eaten long ago.
The recall comes less than three weeks after the release of a videotape showing what the USDA later called "egregious violations" of federal animal care regulations by employees of a Westland partner, Hallmark Meat Packing in Chino.
Hallmark did not consistently bring in federal veterinarians to examine cattle headed for slaughter that were too sick or weak to stand on their own, Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said. "Because the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection, [the USDA] has determined them to be unfit for human food, and the company is conducting a recall," he said in a statement.
About 37 million pounds of the meat -- cuts, ground beef and prepared products such as meatballs and burrito filling -- went to school lunch and other public nutrition programs, and "almost all of this product is likely to have been consumed," said Ron Vogel, a USDA administrator.
Some larger purchasers, though, may keep meat for as long as a year. Company and government officials will try to trace the meat to notify the purchasers not to use it.
The USDA issued 20 meat recalls last year, including one of more than 20 million pounds, and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, called on the agency to toughen its inspection requirements. "How much longer will we continue to test our luck with weak enforcement of federal food safety regulations?" Harkin asked.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association "support[s] USDA's recall as a precautionary measure. At the same time, we can say with confidence that the beef supply is safe. . . . There are multiple safety hurdles before it arrives at our grocery stores or restaurants," said James O. Reagan, who chairs the organization's Beef Industry Food Safety Council.
About 150 school districts and two fast-food chains, Jack in the Box and In-N-Out, have announced they will no longer use ground beef from Westland. The company has been closed since Feb. 4, when the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service withdrew inspectors from the Hallmark slaughterhouse after verifying the mistreatment of cattle shown on the videotape and discovering other problems.
The tape, made secretly by a slaughterhouse worker and provided to the Humane Society of the United States, showed electric shocks and high-intensity water sprays administered to cows too sick or weak to stand on their own, and the use of forklifts to roll such animals. Government regulations prohibit slaughtering for food cattle that cannot stand or walk on their own.
An inspecting veterinarian had said the cattle in question were healthy enough to be used for food, but they subsequently collapsed. Under federal regulations, such animals must be reexamined by a veterinarian and slaughtered separately. That apparently was not done.
One worry when an animal collapses is that it may have bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the infection known as "mad cow disease." A small number of people who have eaten meat from such animals have developed a fatal brain infection, but cattle with BSE have very rarely turned up in government inspections. Richard Raymond, the USDA's undersecretary for food safety, discounted the chance of BSE in any of the Hallmark/Westland cattle.
"We are very confident in the safety of the food supply," he said.
Hallmark fired two workers seen on the tape, and the men face animal cruelty charges in California. A company spokesman said senior management was not aware of the use of extreme measures to get sick cattle upright.
Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle said yesterday the recall "validates the chief finding we made, that sick and injured animals got into the food supply."
Officials at Hallmark and Westland could not be reached yesterday to comment.
The largest previous meat recall orders both covered 35 million pounds and came a month apart in 1998 and 1999. Both involved ready-to-eat products contaminated with listeria. Nearly two dozen people died and about 100 fell ill after eating the meat.
Last September, 21.7 million pounds of Topps Meat ground beef were recalled after at least 30 people were sickened from meat contaminated with E. coli bacteria.
In the Hallmark/Westland case, Raymond said, "We feel there is a very, very remote possibility of health consequences from consuming this product."
Sun, Feb 24 2008
CLUELESS CANDIDATES
None of these three morons, Obama, Clinton or McCain understands just how much trouble we are really in or has any idea how to fix it, so it's back to the same old same old, giving tomorrow's money away today.
Costly campaign vows face reality check
WASHINGTON, Associated Press - Barack Obama promises $4,000 credits to help pay college tuition. Hillary Rodham Clinton backs $25 billion for home heating subsidies. And John McCain wants to not only extend President Bush's tax cuts, but eliminate the alternative minimum tax at a cost of about $2 trillion over 10 years.
Then there's reality.
These campaign pledges — and dozens more in the manifestos of the leading presidential candidates — face a collision with the real world come January.
That's when the new president will start putting together a real budget and economic plan, one drafted against the backdrop of record federal deficits exceeding $400 billion. Even more challenging is the growth of the Medicare and Social Security retirement programs, which budget experts say could require wrenching benefit cuts, politically difficult tax hikes or both to handle the retirement of the baby boom generation.
In that environment, promises to effectively rebate the first $500 of Social Security payroll taxes (Obama), provide $1,000 tax credits for retirement savings (Clinton) or cut the corporate income tax by 10 percentage points (McCain) may turn out to be campaign fantasies.
"They're operating in Never Never Land.... None of them are honestly addressing the real challenges that they're going to be facing if they're elected," said Leon Panetta, former budget director and chief of staff for President Clinton. "We're facing a deficit bubble that is getting increasingly worse and at some point is going to explode on us."
[Ed. note: I've always loved plain-talking Leon. Back when he was our local guy running for Congress, he was the only person I ever actually voted *for*. He still tells the truth.]
Democrats Obama and Clinton face a situation eerily familiar to 1992, when Bill Clinton ran a campaign promising middle-class tax cuts and universal health care. Instead, worsening deficit predictions led him to push through Congress a tax-heavy deficit reduction plan that helped Republicans take over Congress in 1994.
For Republican McCain, the parallel is to the one-term presidency of George H.W. Bush, who inherited a budget crisis — and a Congress controlled by Democrats — that ultimately led him to break his "read my lips" pledge not to raise taxes.
For now, however, the campaigns are sticking with policy papers that don't add up but cater to political constituencies.
Obama's "Keeping America's Promise" manifesto is full of costly prescriptions for the economy. Obama proposes tax cuts for senior citizens and college students, and $500 for every wage-earner, totaling $80 billion-$85 billion a year. He says he would pay for the tax cuts by closing loopholes and closing offshore tax havens, but those steps would fall far short of fully offsetting their costs.
Both Obama and Clinton would keep in place many of the Bush tax cuts, including rate cuts for most taxpayers and the $1,000 per child tax credit. Both would let rate cuts for upper-income taxpayers expire, and use the savings to help pay for their health care promises.
To address looming shortfalls in Social Security, Obama supports raising the cap that limits the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax to the first $102,000 of income.
Almost in an aside, the Obama campaign document says he supports closing the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug benefit — the gap created at the point when beneficiaries have to pick up all of their drug costs before catastrophic drug coverage kicks it. Closing it would roughly double the cost of the Medicare prescription drug program, however, and Obama offers no way to pay for it.
Obama also promises a $60 billion investment in infrastructure and an $18 billion per year boost in education spending. The Illinois senator says his plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq will generate savings to help pay for these items, but that doesn't qualify as an offset under budget rules because the Iraq spending is an emergency expense, not a permanent part of the budget.
For his part, McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts as tilted too much in favor of the wealthy. He has since changed his mind.
Now, with most budget experts forecasting deep deficits for the future, McCain wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, which expire at the end of 2010. The price tag for McCain's plan would soon exceed $300 billion a year after government borrowing costs are factored in.
McCain also wants to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, which would add more than $2 trillion in accumulated deficits to the federal ledger from 2010-2020. The AMT was enacted in 1969 to make sure the wealthy paid at least some tax, but now also threatens about 20 million additional taxpayers with levies averaging $2,000 if annual fixes aren't renewed.
Clinton's campaign generally succeeds more than the others at providing offsets — revenue increases or spending cuts — to finance programs such as her plan to provide health care for all.
But even if the next president "pays for" new initiatives, they will still be left with an underlying budget deficit exceeding $400 billion and the looming crises in Social Security, Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled.
Even so, Clinton campaign literature promises a "return to fiscal responsibility. After six and a half years of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, Hillary wants America to regain control of its destiny. She will move back toward a balanced budget and surpluses."
Just how Clinton — or any of her rivals — might miraculously produce a budget surplus is not answered.
"They face a collision with reality," said Bob Greenstein, who heads the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. "None of the three candidates is coming to grips with budget realities."
Urban Institute President Robert Reischauer, who directed the Congressional Budget Office during landmark budget debates of 1990 and 1993, says there's only so much any incoming president can hope to accomplish. Already, Reischauer says, the agenda includes bruising battles over renewing the Bush tax cuts, as well as reforming the AMT and preventing Medicare payments to doctors from being cut .
"There's a certain amount of political capital and energy that new administrations have and because the plate is already full, it's going to be very hard for them to push forward on new initiatives," Reischauer said.Sun, Feb 24 2008
HOW THE FASCISTS WILL IMPLEMENT NAU MARTIAL LAW
Today is Sunday afternoon, and most Americans are watching the Oscars. The news item below was quietly released on a Canadian news site, something most Americans don't ever visit. Way to effectively bury truth on page 41, fellas.
North American Union, here we come. Can't get American soldiers to open fire on their own disaffected countrymen? Get Canadian soldiers to do it:
Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies
Canwest News Service - Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.
Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.
The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.
The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.
The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.
"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites," said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.
Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines. (TGH ed. note: would that be the four-football-field wide highway planned from Mexico to Canada?)
"Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?" he asked.
Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. "We don't know the answers because the government doesn't want to even announce the plan," he said.
But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.
He said the agreement is "benign" and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.
"But there's no agreement to allow troops to come in," he said. "It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The 'allow' piece is entirely up to the two governments."
If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.
News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.
On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a "North American union" where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.
"Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!" notes one website. "The next time your town has a 'national emergency,' don't be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember - Canadian military aren't bound by posse comitatus."
Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.
Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.
Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn't been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.
All news articles and images provided under the Fair Use Notice.