"Architect of the REACH Regulation" Calls for UN Panel on Chemicals

Margot Wallström is European Commission vice-president and the force behind the development and passage of the European Union's Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) regulation.

She is also now a conference room.

Okay, technically she isn't herself a conference room. But one of the two conference rooms in the new European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) conference center inaugurated April 3rd is named after her (the second is named after Guido Sacconi, the European Parliament's rapporteur for REACH). The new conference center, located at ECHA headquarters in Helsinki, Finland, is one of the most modern facilities available, including computer panels and microphones for each of the 200 seats.

In her invited remarks at the inauguration Ms. Wallström called for a new high level UN panel that would "tackle the risks from chemicals in the same way that the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is doing for climate change." The new UN panel would consist of a team of independent researchers. While she didn't provide further details at the ECHA event, you can read more about it here (assuming you can read Swedish).

Mr. Sacconi, while not present at the ECHA unveiling, recently made the news as he, in conjunction with Europe's largest trade union, published a list of 306 chemicals that they consider to be of very high concern.

Ms. Wallström isn't the only one calling for more chemical control. Dr Thomas Jakl, Chairman of ECHA’s Management Board, in response to a question from the students about the role of consumers, implored them to "be active, seek out information on chemicals...ask manufacturers what is in the products that you buy. Man made chemicals are in the blood of every single one of us – they should be a matter of concern for us all.”

Global Warming Denialists - The Art of Deception

Global warming denialists are carrying on an ideologically motivated campaign to discredit real climate science. And they are doing so by willfully and repeatedly misrepresenting the state of our knowledge. They have several methods that all scientists and every citizen should be on the look out for, and these methods should be exposed for what they are - purposeful deceit of the public.

Some of the more prevalent methods to deceive the public include:

"Global warming is just a theory, and the science is still unsettled"

Denialists are fond of manipulating the public by misrepresenting the meaning of scientific theory. They do this to suggest that the science of climate change is still unsettled. But the science of climate change is clear. The scientific consensus is clear.

"The IPCC is ignoring the science"

Except that it isn't. The IPCC, and the thousands of researchers on whose studies the IPCC relies for its compilation of the state-of-the-science, examine every legitimate study that has been conducted regarding climate science. Any new valid data are also incorporated into the discussion, which is why the IPCC, for example, revises its reports every few years - they are incorporating newer data. Claims of "they are ignoring solar forcing" and others, for example, are patently false, and the denialists know this but continue with their charade.

"Many scientists disagree with the IPCC"

Some legitimate scientists legitimately disagree with parts of the consensus. And as legitimate scientists they present their real scientific data to real scientific peer-review. As yet, the legitimate disagreement has been on specific data or on specific interpretation. But these disagreements have been unpersuasive to the vast community of scientists as far as changing the consensus. It comes down to the preponderance of evidence. And the preponderance of the evidence remains clear. Most of the time these legitimate scientists actually, in the end, provide support to the consensus by helping to fine-tune specific details.

"So and so scientist says that global warming is wrong"

To scientists this is one of the most despicable and deceitful ploys used by global warming denialists. They "quote" a certain scientist to suggest that the scientist agrees with their denialist position. Except they selectively quote to misrepresent the scientist's position. Several scientists have had to issue corrections - often repeatedly - to clarify their position or even to deny that their research says what the denialists say it means. One scientist has been fighting for years to stop denialists from continuing to misquote his research, which they continue to do intentionally to claim the exact opposite of what the scientist's research actually concludes. Another had to issue a statement - and even ensure it was posted on his Wiki biography - to refute the way denialists have mischaracterized his views. A major scientific organization had to issue a press release to warn that denialists had fraudulently mimicked its journal design with the explicit goal of suggesting the organization supported their view. It does not.

"Independent organization scientists refute global warming"

One of the favorite means for denialists to deceive the public is to create a "science sounding" organization and pass it off as independent. This despite the fact that all the funding comes from industry donors, ideological foundations, and "private citizens" (who oddly enough tend to be associated with industry donors and ideological foundations). The claim of independence is farcical, as these organizations are merely front groups for the industrial and ideological firms who fund them. Even the handful of scientists they employ are shared amongst the groups to create the illusion that there are more dissenters than are there in truth. More deceit.

"A conference to present the science refuting the global warmist agenda"

Another trick of the denialists is to sponsor a conference in which will be presented "the real science that global warmists ignore." As noted above, no real science is ignored, so this in itself is deceit. But the deceit goes even further as the conference is billed as a scientific conference when in fact it is nothing but an advocacy meeting designed to confuse the public and influence politicians. The recent conference sponsored by the conservative Heartland Institute is a perfect example of the deception employed by the global warming denialist industry. Besides the ideologically oriented HI, the conference was co-sponsored by 57 other organizations, every one of which were ideological, libertarian, anti-tax, pro-business and free-market organizations. No scientific organizations participated. The handful of "science sounding" organizations (about 6 of 57) were the deceitful front groups mentioned in the last point. No new scientific data were presented, and in fact the only science presented was the same old information that has been repeated for years. Any legitimate science would be presented at legitimate scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. As such, any legitimate science is already part of the consensus and any new legitimate data will be added to the analysis. The conference was a sham designed to deceive.

"Such and such a source says..."

One common ploy is circular citation. The denialist industry creates a "press release" masquerading as scientific opinion. It then ensures that it circulates to its network of bloggers - some paid, others merely ideological lackeys - for distribution. Call it the "cut-and-paste" method of creating the impression that there is more uncertainty than there is, more disagreement than there is, and more authority than there is. Citing a blog that stole from another blog that stole from another blog that got it from the industry denialist machine is a combination of lazy and deceitful. The intent is to create an implied volume of information when it is in fact nothing more than creative plagiarism. Given that any person with a computer can publish anything they want without any kind of check on its factual integrity, no blog can be used for anything more than ascertaining the blogger's opinion, which by definition is tuned to their inherent biases. That's why you get the same sort of "conspiracy theory" stories showing up on "conspiracy theory" blogs. In short, citing a blog as a source of scientific fact is meaningless, not to mention that it and shows a lack of scientific understanding and/or a willingness to deceive.

"The science definitively says that global warming is not happening"

False. Often this comes in the form of "we know that the temperatures are cooling" or "the sun is causing global warming." These are third-grade level misunderstandings (at best) or intentional misrepresentations (most likely) of the science. But by making the statement definitively the denialists know it sounds authoritative to the public. Just like former vice-president Dick Cheney stating definitively that Saddam Hussein had WMDs (he did not) and that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks (they were not). Being authoritative does not change a lie into the truth, but it does cynically take advantage of the natural tendency for people to assume forceful statements represent reality. This is deception and should be called deception.

"Global warmists are pushing a political agenda for the funding"

This is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. Climate scientists toiled for decades doing research, generally with very limited funding. Anyone who knows how much scientists get paid know they don't do it "for the money." In fact, for the denialist industry (funded lavishly by some of the biggest corporations on the planet) to disingenuously suggest that the science is political and their obvious political is science is, well, audacity at its most cynical.

"Al Gore's theories..."

One common ploy - called misdirection by public relations firms and professional magicians alike - is to suggest that Al Gore "invented" global warming, and thus it is a political rather than scientific consensus. Al Gore is a former politician and now businessman who also just happens to have a three decade interest in science issues. His "Inconvenient Truth" presentation is designed to communicate the long-time research of climate scientists. He didn't invent global warming, he is merely a messenger. The science itself has nothing to do with Al Gore, and the denialists know this. They merely use Gore in their sleight-of-hand attempts to misdirect attention away from the fact that there is a clear scientific consensus on global warming.

"Repetition"

Repetition ties all the previous deceit together into a continuous stream of "information" that by shear volume and tenacity is designed to create the illusion of authority. The same handful of "points" are repeated over and over again long after they have been discredited as false, illogical, or just plain silly. The same "experts" are trotted out even though it has been shown that their scientific credibility and integrity is equivocal (to be clear, some of these are legitimate scientists who legitimately disagree, but many are being used as shills by the denialist industry and others are mere charlatans selling snake oil for the industry money). The same "science is being ignored" line is repeated even after it has been shown that the science has already been incorporated into the consensus (even, in fact, after pointing to a specific set of pages in which this point is discussed). The repetition of falsehood is part of the ploy. And it is dishonest.

"Global warmists only demean the "skeptics" because they can't discredit the science"

This is a favorite tactic. As noted above, all real science is presented to the scientific community for peer-review and discussion. Most of the "science" of the skeptics has been shown time and time again to be spurious, incorrect, or irrelevant. Much of it is deliberately misleading, misrepresented, or outright fraudulent. Many scientists and others have spent considerable time evaluating the "cut-and-pasted from blog" science of denialists, and even after their contention is shown to be false and/or completely uninformed or illogical, they continue to repeat the same untruths.

As scientists, and as human beings, we must ask ourselves whether it is "unkind" to call a liar a liar. Should we ignore dishonesty by the denialists because to point out their dishonesty might hurt their feelings? But think about this. Would one not call a murderer a murderer because it would be "unkind" to the murderer? Is it not unkind to the victims to not stand up for their rights? Is it unkind to call Bernie Madoff a swindler, when he in fact is a swindler? What of the rights of his victims? Is it unkind to refute deception?

Should we not call a deceiver a deceiver?

The denialist industry has undertaken a campaign of deception that follows the same playbook as the "smoking isn't addictive and doesn't cause cancer" playbook of the past. Even some of the players are the same. So should a scientist, or a non-scientist who also lives on this planet, stand back and allow the denialists to deceive the public for their own ideological profit?

I think the answer is clear.

Climate Scientists in Emergency Meeting to Stimulate Action

"This is not a regular scientific conference," says University of Copenhagen marine biologist Katherine Richardson, "This is a deliberate attempt to influence policy."

Pretty direct for a scientist, to say that they intend to stimulate action by politicians. That's how serious climate researchers feel the situation is right now...they are making direct calls for policy-makers to do something, and do it now.

The event is the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change , which features keynotes by leading advocates for dramatic global warming policies, as well as most of the world's climate scientists. These scientists are in Copenahagen to collate the latest scientific findings so they can exert pressure on the negotiating teams that will meet in Copenhagen next December. The concern is that the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 is already severely out-of-date. In fact, recent studies suggest that the pace of climate disruption has quickened, so that we may already be too late to stop changes that scientists warned of just five years ago. In fact, the most recent IPCC report failed to adequately account for several climatic tipping points ― like methane released from a thawing tundra, and decreased albedo from a melting arctic ― which are happening earlier than predicted. The concern now is that climate change could accelerate so quickly that humanity will be unable to slow the outcome.

The conference will synthesize the latest climate change science and publish a master document for negotiators heading to the larger meeting to be held in December, also in Copenhagen.

Japan Amends Chemical Control Law

I've documented efforts by Europe, the US, and Canada to change their chemical control laws and/or review their Inventory chemicals. Well, now Japan is getting in on the act. As it has elsewhere, public interest in ensuring the safety of chemical substances has been on the rise in Japan. At the global level, agreements such as the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) have pushed to minimize adverse effects of chemicals on human health and the environment by 2020. Other regional and international efforts have also put pressure on individual countries to enact changes to their long standing chemical control laws.

So at the end of February 2009, the Japanese Ministry of the Environment issued an announcement that a bill to amend the had been submitted to the 171st ordinary session of the Diet. This bill is aimed at introducing a comprehensive control system to minimize the adverse effects of chemical substances on human health and the environment and at ensuring the international consistency of Japanese regulations on chemicals.

The main changes include:

• Companies that have manufactured or imported any chemical substance, including an existing one, in excess of the specified amounts are newly obliged to notify applications containing quantity and other information to the government.

• Upon receipt of those applications, the government screens and prioritizes substances subject to detailed risk assessment. For these substances, the manufacturers/importers may be required to submit information on hazardous properties for government evaluation.

• Based on the evaluation, the government decides whether to regulate the manufacture/used of the substance and its product, etc.

The Japanese amendments reflect changes recently made in Canada (Chemical Management Plan), Europe (REACH), and potentially the United States, which began hearings last week aimed at reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Russia, The Arctic, and the New Oil Rush - Global Warming Opens Up New Cold War

It seems thar's oil in that there ice. And also gas. And Russia wants it.

News reports indicate that Russia is working hard to stake a claim in the Arctic seabed. One of its most famous polar scientists, Artur Chilingarov, noted in a recent news conference "the Arctic has a special geopolitical importance for Russia." It also, apparently, may contain as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. So Russia is planning to build a new Arctic research ship to add to its existing icebreaker fleet and allow it to better exploit these energy resources. Already, in 2007, they conducted an expedition in which Russian mini-submarines "planted the Russian flag" (actually, a capsule containing the Russian flag) on the Arctic seabed. In time, according to Chilingarov, the goal for the Arctic is "expanding the Russian presence there, intensifying research and rebuilding a network of polar stations."

But the real controversy is Russia's plan to send about 50 polar scientists to Spitsbergen, an island to which Norway claims exclusive rights. It seems Russia, the United States, Canada and other northern countries are all in a race to assert jurisdiction over the Arctic, whose oil, gas and minerals until recently have been considered too difficult to recover. However, there is growing evidence that global warming is shrinking polar ice, opening up new shipping lanes and thus new resource development possibilities.

In 2001, Russia submitted a claim to the United Nations that an underwater mountain range crossing the polar region is part of Russia's continental shelf. The UN rejected that claim for lack of evidence. But Russia seems intent on establishing both a scientific and military presence in the Arctic as the major powers all seek to lay claim to its newly lucrative energy reserves.

"We aren't going to wage a new Cold War in the Arctic," Chilingarov said, though he also added that "Russia will look to protect its interests."

Seeking a new global deal on climate change

The European Commission (EC) has released a paper outlining its position on climate change ahead of international climate talks. According to the paper, they foresee a major role for carbon trading in efforts to tackle climate change. The commission says the costs of containing global warming are likely to increase rapidly in years to come – adding 175 billion Euro to the cost the world must assume by 2020. More than half that amount, they say, will be needed in developing countries like China and India. The paper presents various options for increasing international funding – including requiring countries to contribute according to their income and level of emissions. Another option would be to auction some emission allowances on a carbon market.

The paper also says that the European Union and other economic powers should help defray the costs of reducing greenhouse gases emitted by developing nations. All developing nations, except the very poorest, would be required to limit growth in emissions by adopting development strategies that produce fewer greenhouse gases. These strategies should include stopping (or at least slowing) tropical deforestation, as trees and plants absorb carbon dioxide.

The EU is also keen to build on the steps it has already taken to stimulate others at talks in Copenhagen scheduled for December of this year. The United Nations is organising the conference for the purpose of securing a new and more ambitious global commitment to tackling climate change. The current treaty – the Kyoto Protocol – expires at the end of 2012. And so the EU will urge developed countries to commit to an overall 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels). The contribution would vary by country, depending on income, population, level of emissions and past efforts to reduce emissions. Compliance should be monitored and enforced.

The commission also foresees a major role for emissions trading, and seeks to build a global carbon market. And they already have a head start, after introducing the EU carbon market (called the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme) back in 2005. A growing number of countries are looking to follow suit, including the US, New Zealand and Australia. The scheme caps overall CO2 emissions, but allows businesses to buy and sell credits amongst themselves.

The paper notes that as some climate change is inevitable, it hopes the Copenhagen agreement will also provide a framework to help countries adapt. For example, they state that it should ensure support for poor nations vulnerable to extreme weather such as drought, storms and floods.

Much will be happening in the months between now and December, but the hope is that there will be a plan that moves the debate a large step forward. What role the US plays in this discussion remains to be seen.

Review of "Between Two Worlds: Escape from Tyranny: Growing Up in the Shadow of Saddam" by Zainab Salbi

Salbi, an Iraqi who with her family was in the inner circle of "friends" of Saddam Hussein, doesn't tell you what two worlds she is between until near the end of Between Two Worlds: Escape from Tyranny: Growing Up in the Shadow of Saddam. But the reader can imagine many "two worlds" as they read this fascinating book.

In a way, Between Two Worlds is the coming-of-age story of a young girl growing up in a privileged family in a the 1980s. In another way, the book reveals the paradox of Saddam Hussein, a man who loved to party and loved having friends, yet partied and communed by coercion. While living a life that most Iraqis couldn't enjoy - cars, good schools, travel to Europe and the US - Salbi and her parents and relatives did so under a constant cloud of fear. Fear because their "special status" allowed them to stay in Iraq...and to live...because Saddam Hussein held them close as "friends" on his whim. Her father, Saddam's pilot for a while, at one point is asked to choose between being a pilot and friendship with Saddam because of a contrived slight. Fearing no answer was correct, he chose friendship, knowing that friendship would mean privilege but also fear. Her life, and that of her family, is an illusion of happiness, an "artificial life."

Throughout the book we see a young girl slowing realizing that Amo...Uncle...was not only leader of Iraq but a murderer, a rapist, a terrorist to his own people. A man who she "ultimately came to realize" did things "specifically designed to cause fear and hurt." She would realize the depth of this only after her mother marries her off at 20 to a much older Iraqi man living in the US...a brutal man she leaves after he rapes her. So now alone in the US when the first Gulf War (1991) pushes Saddam back out of Kuwait and starts a long decade of difficult times in Iraq, she starts to see life from another world.

To me, the focal chapter in this book is the one called "Becoming Zainab." Here she discovers real love and compassion, the pain of others, and her mission in life. She decides she must give back to the women who were abused physically and mentally. She begins Women for Women International and it becomes her passion as she travels to places like Bosnia and elsewhere to help women escaping from "rape camps" and other control methods often sanctioned by totalitarian governments. She fights against the idea that in some countries "violence against women was somehow expected."

She ends with "[b]etween the world of right-doing and the world of wrong-doing there is a meeting ground. There is a garden where women no longer need to whisper. I know it. Your real country is where you're heading, Mohammed said, not where you are."
I found this is be a powerful book. The earlier portions where she describes her childhood will appeal more to women readers than men, but men will in particular find the growing dread as she discovers more and more about the real "Amo." To both it provides a valuable insight into both Saddam's mind and the mind of a woman coming to understand how other woman are abused. A woman who dedicates her life now to helping other woman.

When I first saw Salbi's photo on the cover she seemed familiar. By the time I finished the book I felt I was beginning to know her.

I highly recommend this book. The insights are incredibly valuable as we face similar dictators...and similar abuses on women...in other countries of this world.

The Future of the War on Terror

We've been in the War on Terror for over 7 years now, assuming it started on or about 9/11/2001. We've gone after al Qaeda (though didn't get bin Laden). We've fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with forays into places like the Yemen, Somalia, and the mountains of western Pakistan. The question remains, has it worked? Or to paraphrase something former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once said "are we creating more terrorists than we are killing?"

I offer for discussion the following thoughts. These are not a policy for which I am advocating, but rather a series of slightly less than random ideas on how we can more innovatively wage the war on terror. Please feel free to disagree, expand, expound, and by all means, offer your own ideas.

1) First, drop the "war on terror" moniker. Frankly, it suggests that all terrorism is the same. It is not. And as such it needs to be dealt with differently. The moniker has become trite, which isn't helpful.

2) Al qaeda does not equate with all terrorists. Listening to our political leaders, one would be hard pressed to think that everyone who does something that can be deemed terrorism is somehow linked to al Qaeda. Kind of a "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" game. The truth is that our political leaders want to lump everyone together because it makes it easier to communicate the concept of "war on terror" (see item 1). But doing so makes it difficult to deal appropriately with the different groups, and it also gives al Qaeda a kind of "rock star" status that then can use as a rallying cry.

3) Marginalize al Qaeda. Fareed Zakaria in his new book "The Post-American World" suggests that the al Qaeda leadership has basically already been limited to public relations stunts. Every so often a video or audio tape arises to rile up the loyal followers. But they have had to decentralize their operations to the point where control of terrorist operations now happens at a local level. In a way this is worse - it is easier to cut out a tumor as a whole than it is to get the cancer once it metastasizes and spreads throughout the body/world. On the other hand, we can exploit the fact that these satellite operations are out there alone. Perhaps we can convince them that most of the community thinks of them as "the losers of the neighborhood" rather than the martyrs.

4) Do the same for the other terrorist groups. All of these organizations represent a small minority of the people in their communities. Sure, much of the community might sympathize with them, but in reality they do so mostly out of either fear (think al Qaeda in Iraq, AQI) or because the terrorist organization is providing more social services (schools, roads, safety) than the government (think Hamas and Hezbollah).

5) Go after the money. This is one area for which President Bush should get a heckofalot more credit. By cutting off their funding trails, the President has effectively kept millions of dollars from getting to people who would engage in terrorist acts.

6) Think antibiotics, not OTC. Most over-the-counter (OTC) medicines treat the symptoms, and let the body's natural defenses actually deal with the disease. Antibiotics go to the root fo the problem itself, at the source of the infection. Consider "the surge" in Iraq. The increase in troop numbers gets all the press, but in reality this was merely the OTC remedy for the symptoms (i.e., IEDs, car bombs, sectarian violence). Additional OTC efforts included physical separation (segregration) of Sunni and Shia. However, much of the success attributed to "the surge" actually was the result of greater attention to the root problems facing the people. The "Sunni Awakening," which started well before the troop surge, and the negotiated suspension of hostilities of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, did more to reduce violence than any increase in troops (though all of these factors obviously acted synergistically). The bottom line is that we worked with the Sunni leadership in Anbar province to deal with a mutual enemy (AQI made the tactical mistake of killing more Iraqis than Americans).

7) Admit that we like Muslims. On its surface this sounds a bit silly, or perhaps bigoted. What I mean is that the Islamic world, and much of the non-Islamic world, cannot help but think the US hates them. President Bush, in a catastrophically poor choice of words, even used the word "crusade" in first describing this new war on terror. Our rhetoric often includes phrases such as "they hate our freedoms," "Islamic jihad," "Islamic fundamentalism," and even "Islamic fascists." Emails bantered about the supposed former history as a "Muslim" by our new President-elect, in such a way as to use someone's supposed religion (when they weren't accusing him of being a radical Christian) as a pejorative. But as Retired General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently, "the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is: No." Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States and the world. I have friends who are Muslim (and Jewish and Christian and Buddhist and athiest) and they are just like everyone else...they don't hate America. They do, as does much of the world right now, wonder what the hell our problem is (but that is another post). My point, of course, is that if we demonize people, they will feel like, and act like, demons. And for the record, that is exactly how the rest of the world thinks of us...as demons who are so self-serving that we don't respect the rights of others. Frankly, that's not a real good place to be if we want to call ourselves world leaders.

8) Go green. Okay, this one looks out of place, doesn't it? But it actually may be one of the most important things we can do to fight terrorism. Much of the strife on the planet right now has one source - our addiction to oil. Sure, there is sectarian strife, cultural strife, caste-based strife, religious-strife, etc. But much of that is also related to the fact that oil = riches and development (think Dubai), no oil = poverty and struggle (think India). By finding alternative - and sustainable - sources of energy we will remove much of the bases for conflict. Can we do it?

Post 9/11 Opportunity - Lost

I recently posted an article called "The Real 9/11" on Gather, a community site. My motivation was a series of discussions with conspiracy theorists insinuating the whole day was some grand shadow government operation. At one point I realized that attempting to intelligently debate the point with people incapable of seeing even the incongruence in their own arguments (not to mention lack of any evidence) was a waste of time. More importantly, I realized that these people were disrepecting the nearly 3000 people who died that day. So I gave an opportunity in my post for people to express their feelings for those who gave their lives, loved ones, jobs, security, etc. I also asked if people thought our actions since that day were helping or hurting the "war on terror." There were varied responses, however one struck me as so thoughtful and so insightful that I've quoted it here in its entirety. The commenter is Suzanne Ford, an actress (watch for her on the premier of Bones on Sept. 25th) and obviously a very keen observor of life (imho). The following is her comment:

"We had several opportunities as a nation after 9/11. We could have made a mighty effort to enlist the help of the nations of the world in tracking down and stopping Bin Laden. We could have initiated the creation of an international anti-terrorist effort that would have made great strides in dampening terrorist movements across the globe. We could have reached out, in the throes of worldwide sympathy and condemnation of that event, and developed a global alliance of unprecedented strength and effectiveness, which we could have led as the most powerful country on earth. Instead, we have squandered those opportunities and are now possibly the most reviled nation on the planet, having created a brand new and ever more frightening threat in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and yet are still trembling lest the terrorists come at us again. It almost doesn't matter why we did this - the reasons are myriad and largely wrongheaded if not completely opportunistic. The point is that we blew it. Figuring out what to do now, where to go now, and how to get out of this mess is, for me, at least, an exercise in futility and frustration."

I couldn't have said it as well.

See the entire post and comments here: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977097590

The Internet

The internet is a complex issue. I'm convinced that the best way to communicate across this "flat world" (as in The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by Thomas Friedman) is to use the power of the internet for free expression. Certainly knowledge is power in the sense that if people around the world have the facts they can then make decisions. Ah, but therein lies the rub.

Anyone can write anything they want on the internet now...through blogs, personal web pages, "community" sites like Gather and Myspace, etc. It is largely unfiltered...and often inaccurate. Statements can be made as if fact when they have no basis in reality. In many cases the writers use the freedom of the medium to present their particular biases. In some extreme cases the medium can be used to foment hate. Authoritarian governments such as China, North Korea and many others strictly control the "freedom" of thought, site accessibility, and use. Even in the US the political parties and other special interest groups have manufactured concensus, created news, planted stories and videos on sites such as You Tube, and otherwise attempted to "control" (or at least supplement) the content. Clearly the "reporting" is unbalanced. Perhaps it is balanced in toto should people go to the trouble of comparing views on multiple sites (sort of like switching back and forth between CNN and Fox News Channel in order to figure out what the real non-spun version of the facts are). However, most folks don't do that. Rather they read those sites, watch those TV stations, and peruse those papers that they tend to agree with.

Okay, having said all this, and while the suggestion that England (technically it is the United Kingdom) is leading the way toward totalitarianism is more than a little unrealistic (and perhaps conspiratorially paranoid)[Note: this relates to a statement in the posting I was responding to]*, I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of keeping the internet free and uncontrolled. This is where it has the greatest power. However, to paraphrase a line from the first Spiderman movie, with great power comes great responsibility. It behooves all of us to read everything on the internet (and elsewhere) with a wary eye....to consider the source and the source's inherent bias (we all have it)...and to consider viewpoints that may not be the same as our own. We each need to filter out the noise and find the reality. While I certainly wouldn't trust some government functionary to do this screening, it does mean that each of us must take this personal responsibility upon ourselves.

Now let's get out there and blog people!!

[*Note: I wrote this in response to a comment on Gather, and decided it would be a good blog.]

Kazakhstan

I'm concerned about Kazakhstan. Not because of Borat (who probably has done more to boost the nascent tourism industry there than any one). Rather I mean the recent political situation. First the president introduced some changes into the constitution, according to which the terms of the next and any succeeding presidents would be reduced from 7 to 5 years. This would be considered a good sign. But after that the parliament introduced another change that would likely allow the current president to stay in power forever due to his historical role following the demise of the Soviet Union and independence of the former Soviet states. In addition, the government has cracked down severely on the media, such that it basically can't report anything that questions policy.

Unfortunately, the populace is way too passive about this following generations of soviet rule. The United Nations apparently can't do anything but hand-waving (assuming it even bothers to do this). The United States has certainly reduced any influence it could have exerted (assuming it had any influence in the region to begin with). What concerns me most is that all of this will go largely unnoticed by the world as we focus on more obvious problem areas.

Is this simply business as usual? Shouldn't we care more about the Kazakh people (and others in the same situation)? I wish I could do more to help.