Analysis of dangers to the world including the environment, terrorism and the wars manufacturing terrorists, 9/11 and its lingering effects on America, the Islamic death cult Al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the West empowerment of the state to reduce the democratic rights of individuals
"The cost of decommissioning Britain's 19 ageing nuclear plants has jumped from £61bn to £73bn in two years and could land the taxpayer with even higher bills in the future, a report by the National Audit Office reveals today."
What? How? Why? Is the cost to the taxpayer of the nuclear industry figured into the real costs of this energy source. Put another way, this kind of cost differential when its not exactly a moving target, is £12bn.
So, the cost of decommisioning goes up by 10% per annum. The UK had better get cracking before they can not afford to do it.
Industrialization and globalisation have some unremarkable consequences. Empowering rebellion is going to be a risk when profiteering companies harvest cheap human labour.
The terrorism crisis is partly down to the greed popularly contested for by our Western multinationals. Not to be outdone, watch out for similarly lumbering bests from the East.
This insane economy that has failed to grow since 2000 has basically lived on borrowed money with a hope that things may get better but the end result is much worse.
The whole point of releasing the top 1% to invest is productivity. Instead we have increased risk with sub-prime madness. Why lend to those who can never repay? How is that going to work?
Oh it is easy Mr Treasury. We flood the market with tax cuts at the top end and raise speculation through the roof. This gambling with the financial stability of our grandchildren undertaken primarily by the Bush administration and the cowboys running the big banks has resulted in wiping out the capital base of many huge financial institutions. The return of slavery is probably next.
Each field of candidates in the USA Presidential primaries have established two leading voices. In Iowa, the moral aspirations of each side prevailed but in New Hampshire a harsher reality was reflected. Obama and Hukerbee appear to share commitment and charm. They appear to represent the more optimistic side of things.
Clinton and McCain reassure those who still feel security is paramount. This is the pessimistic side. The "realists". They enter office believing America is under threat and continue losing much money with military adventures to "protect Americans".
The trouble with an apologist following a monster is the actions the monster took are not reversed but diluted - they continue to rust away the foundations of security, albeit in more rationale doses. Until eventually it becomes too expensive, and then they stop. It is the money involved that makes change a more likely democratic solution.
Change only usually occurs by doing something different. It is not that there are singular right answers to the problems the new president will face in 2009. Bush and Cheney have until them to continue to excercise their beliefs; ergo, an impeachment hearing may not just defeat such efforts, but it would turn US politics on its head. But for good reason. Impeaching Bill Clinton was political. Would impeaching Dick Cheney could help Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama be more evenly matched and thus give Americans a better democratic choice?
Barrack Obama has the largest turnout and number of votes. In this speech to the Democratic Party - he shows why he is generating an emotional response from his electorate. Does he represent what Americans want, or is he so bound to his convictions he will fail to see the "bigger picture"? One senses a sort of obsessive left wing response to the failed Bush years that made America the terrible, invading Iraq for the sake of it rather than to win a war against the Taleban - the bastard children of yesterday's war, rape and pillage. War without end is a terrible drain on the future. The effect on the American health system of a few thousand badly disfigured and derranged vets is minor compared to the effect of war on the young of Afghanistan. Thank Bush for the next wave of convicted Jihadi warriors born in Iraq during the violence of the past 10 years. Yes we know Saddam was evil. Bush has unleashed a more evil evil by committing American forces to war crimes. The challenge the next president faces include the containment of a nuclear Pakistan, Iran and Israel. Disturbing Trends predicts you can add Turkey and Saudi Arabia to that list. Turkey may wage war against an emerging Kurdish state. It is not the use of nuclear weapons guiding circumstance, it is the threat of them being controlled by a fundamentalist Islamic logic. That has already occurred by proxy. How much pressure can exist inside Pakistan and Afghanistan before Iran does not feel it needs better defenses? Is that not the real issue Iran is going to be facing over the next ten years? The USA and the USSR were not able to negotiate without one bankrupting the other. US Government has flirted with nuclear superiority as a right. It then postulated M.A.D. - a state of neither side wanting to murder its voters. It nurtured a military class in Afghanistan and supported a military dictatorship in Pakistan then invaded Iraq. Like Iran-Contra, these strategies have landed the US in danger. Rename the war on terror the war on the Taleban and win it. The USA will withdraw from Iraq gradually over the next few months. Then it may invade Pakistan unless a democratic process is able to produce a constructive government. A Barak Obama led White House says it would withdraw the troops from Iraq. But is Pakistan going to let him withdraw troops from Iraq? What about Saudi Arabia? Maybe after a CIA briefing or two, it will be harder to predict what Obama will do.
