Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier has announced that a high-ranking envoy at the Sudanese embassy in Ottawa will be turfed from the country in a retaliatory move that is expected to turn up the heat on a simmering diplomatic dispute.
Bernier says Canada has decided to expel the diplomat in response to the Sudanese government's expulsion of Canada's chargé d'affaires, Nuala Lawlor.
"Canada considers the expulsion of our chargé d'affaires to be entirely unjustified. Wherever they are posted, Canada's diplomats will continue to work to uphold Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law," Bernier said in a statement.
Sudan's ambassador in Ottawa has been notified of the decision, which will take effect on September 1.
Earlier this month, the Sudanese government announced that it would be expelling Lawlor and EU's diplomat Kent Degerfelt for "meddling in its affairs."
Lawlor and Degerfelt had allegedly been seeking the release of opposition politicians who had been imprisoned over an alleged coup attempt.
At the time, the Sudanese government asserted that the expulsion order should not hinder relations between Sudan and the EU or Canada.
Earlier this week, Bernier said he spoke to Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol in protest of Lawlor's expulsion and conveyed "Canada's strong concern about Sudan's decision to expel Canada's charge d'affaires."
But Bernier's efforts were to no avail, he said.
As a result, Bernier has directed Lawlor to leave Sudan.
Canada has already cut off bilateral aid to the Sudanese government and ensures that its aid money flows through the African Union's mission in that country.
Has the time come to bring back Mel Lastman as mayor of Toronto? Perhaps Mississauga can be brought into Toronto on the condition Hazel stays mayor. Anyone has got to be better than the current leadership at Toronto city hall.
Thanks for reading...
Darryl
City service cuts stupid, Lastman says
Former mayor has a few ideas to fix the city's fiscal crisis, starting with councillors' salaries
Aug 14, 2007 11:19 AM
Kerry Gillespie Queen's Park Bureau
KITCHENER–Toronto councillors are making such a mess of the city's budget, former mayor Mel Lastman says people are stopping him in the streets begging him to come back.
"They're making the biggest hero in the world out of me. Please stop. I'm no hero.
"Everybody tells me I have to run again. I don't want to run again. I'm really happy," Lastman, 74, said in an interview yesterday after sharing the stage with Premier Dalton McGuinty at the grand opening of a Bad Boy Furniture and Appliances store in Kitchener.
But the man who led North York for 25 years and then Toronto for another six, until his retirement in 2003, does have some ideas to save the city money.
The first stop: City Hall.
The 9 per cent salary increase councillors recently voted themselves has got to go, as does the $40 million overhaul of Nathan Phillips Square. Councillors' annual office budgets also need to be reduced.
"If you don't bleed yourself, how can you ask the people of Toronto to bleed?" Lastman said.
Once councillors have made some cuts they'll feel personally, then they can look at bigger ticket savings, he said.
On the top of that list is staff overtime, particularly police waiting to testify in court.
"Cops should not have to go to court. That is a fortune in overtime," he said.
Toronto should use a system used in other jurisdictions where police representatives testify in court instead of the officers, he said.
"I'd get that legislation put through quickly. The province and federal government are most receptive to helping now because they see what's going on," he said.
Toronto's fiscal crisis hit home last Friday when city officials revealed a cost containment strategy, which trims $34 million from the city's operating budget this year and $83 million next year.
The cuts fall far short of the city's projected $575 million budget deficit next year.
Miller, who has repeatedly said he wasn't elected to cut city services, called the cuts "a diminution of the quality of life in Toronto."
But councillors have to go much further to deal with the budget crisis, Lastman said.
They have to look at contracting out services and cutting staff. Buses on nearly empty routes need to be pulled off the road. Instead of buying new garbage bins for Toronto's planned garbage-fee system, council should just charge a per-bag fee, he said.
"They have to cut staff. They can't continue this way. Their budget has gone up by $1.5 billion since I left," he said. "Politicians have got to learn ... to say: `We can't afford it.' " There's one service cut Lastman isn't willing to put up with, and that's city snow clearing at the end of driveways.
Lastman still remembers with pride that as the mayor of North York he was known as the man who had the snow cleared before it fell.
"The city is a great city and they've got to keep it great and you can't keep it great by telling seniors to shovel windrows that you've put at the end of their driveway," he said.
"You can't cut necessary services. That's stupid, completely stupid with four O's," Lastman said.
He recognizes that several of his ideas, contracting out services and cutting staff being at the top of the list, wouldn't sit well with city unions.
"You try to work with them but sometimes it's impossible," he said.
Also, Toronto property taxpayers are paying hundreds of millions for provincial social services like welfare, drug costs for the disabled and housing for the poor. The city's budget can never truly be fixed until that's dealt with, Lastman said.
Lastman, dressed in his trademark flashy style, with white shoes and slacks, a hot pink shirt and checkered jacket, was under the familiar glare of lights and TV cameras yesterday while opening a Bad Boy store. And though the local MPP, during his introduction, elevated him to "Toronto's premier," Lastman said he has no intention of returning.
"I get wound up and that's a problem for me. I'm not fit to live with anymore and I've been living a wonderful life (since retiring in 2003)," he said. "I love my wife, I've got to know her all over again, she's got the greatest personality, the greatest sense of humour and I have a laugh every day."
Fundraising rules for Independents are unfair, says Bill Casey
Latest Independent MP says he was surprised at the speed at which he was expelled from caucus but doesn't rule out a return to Conservative Party
By Robert Smol
Bill Casey, who was expelled from the Conservative caucus last spring over his opposition to the 2007 budget's reneg on the Atlantic accords, is settling into his new role as the latest Independent member of Parliament, but says that restrictive laws governing election financing create a double-standard for Independent candidates.
As far as the day-to-day business of being an MP is concerned, not much has changed for the Parliamentarian who, since first being elected to the House in 1988, has served under numerous party leaders and five prime ministers.
"For me there hasn't been a lot of change because I still have my budget, I still have my office, and I have nothing to change as far as my duties go," Mr. Casey (Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley, N.S.) told The Hill Times in a phone interview. "In fact I probably have more resources available now to do my job than I did when I was a member of the caucus."
Looking back on the last session of Parliament, the real surprise for Mr. Casey was the sheer speed at which he, the longest-serving member of the Conservative caucus, was expelled for his opposition to the budget, he said, which denied him an opportunity to explain his decision to other members of caucus.
"I knew what I was doing when I voted, but I did not expect it to happen so fast," he said. "I didn't even get out of the Chamber, and the whip had his pen in my face saying, 'You're expelled,' and that's his job, I understand, but I thought that it would not have happened exactly like that."
Yet for Mr. Casey, there should not have been any doubt among his former party's leadership that he had issues with the way the budget appeared to be going against the Atlantic accord.
"I read the words in the Atlantic accords and the words in the budget that contradicted and changed the accord. I did it twice in caucus," he said. "So everybody knew that I was concerned. I also had written the Prime Minister on two occasions in the week before the vote to tell him of my concerns and then to tell him exactly that I would be voting against the budget unless the accords were restored exactly as written–it couldn't have been clearer."
When asked whether or not he will return to the Conservative Party in the next election, Mr. Casey was noncommittal. "I want to be an effective member of Parliament in whatever capacity I am and currently I am an Independent," he said. "I voted against the budget because it broke a contract with my province, so I am sitting as an Independent at the moment and that is all I really know. I don't rule anything out and I don't rule anything in."
Back in Mr. Casey's riding, though, the possibility of him returning as a Tory is an option that the local Conservative riding association is still hoping for as they keep the door open for his possible return.
"Our executive is firmly behind him running again as a Conservative," said Scott Armstrong, president of the Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley Conservative rising association. "What we hope to have happen here is that the negotiation between the province and the federal government can resolve the situation and that the Atlantic accord can be restored. At that point Bill can support that and hopefully be accepted back into the Conservative caucus."
However, should he end up running as an Independent, Mr. Casey and his staff have found that current regulations governing election financing place restrictions on an Independent candidate's ability to raise money.
"Other candidates in my riding can all raise money now through their riding associations, but I am not allowed to raise a penny until the election starts," he said. "In a campaign it is hard to raise money. I mean, you are running a campaign and trying to get elected."
With no affiliation to a registered political party, Casey has also found restrictions in the amount of money any single contributor can give to his campaign. "I can only receive a maximum contribution by any individual of $1,100 for an election," he said. "But because of the way the system is, my competitors can each get a maximum of $5,500 from a single contributor because they can get $1,100 each year between elections, and I can only raise money during an election."
Further, as an Independent, any money he might have left over from an election campaign will now have to be remitted to the Receiver General of Canada with no chance of being refunded.
"The other campaigns can turn it back to their riding association until the next election," he said. "It creates two classes of candidates in this democracy of ours, and if we saw this in a foreign country we would cry foul."
As a result, one of Mr. Casey's priorities for the immediate future is to put before Parliament a private member's bill that addresses what he called a double-standard in fundraising.
"If I was a member of the Marxist-Leninist party of Canada, or if I was a member of the Marijuana Party, I could be out there now raising money, and, as a member of those parties, I could raise five times as much as I can as an Independent," he said. "As an Independent I can't keep the money I raise, but the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada can. It isn't fair."
For Mr. Casey, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) decision to turn his back on the Atlantic accords–which prevented claw backs on offshore resource revenues to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland under the equalization program–represents, in his opinion, "a terrible way to do business."
"I think that it is shameful that the government of Canada is breaking a 15-year contract after two years," he said. "Anytime anybody sees the Government of Canada's signature on a piece of paper they should know that it is solid gold and bulletproof and will not be abrogated. Yet that is what happened here."
It is a concern that is shared by Mr. Armstrong. "We support the provincial position that this is a contract between the federal government and the provincial government and we want to see the accord restored," he said. Today, three months from his expulsion from the Conservative caucus, Mr. Casey is still at a loss to explain the government's about-turn on the Atlantic accords.
"I don't know where it changed, because just two years ago the Prime Minister was in Halifax saying that the accords are Nova Scotia's best chance in 138 years to become a 'have' province," he said. "But today, in order to sell their notion, both the minister of finance and the Prime Minister continually refer to the accords as double equalization, this when the Ministry of Finance web page says that it is an economic development program it is not part of the equalization system."
Yet some experts on federal-provincial relations assert that while the federal government may have mishandled the accords, they nonetheless should not be allowed to exist in their present form within the current constitutional arrangement.
"This issue goes way beyond Casey. This is a fundamental issue going to the very heart of the Canadian constitution and the federal system of governance," said Michael Behiels, university research chair in federalism and constitutional studies at the University of Ottawa. "The constitutional parameters have never been fully defined by government and, ultimately, it is the courts that will decide the parameters of equalization."
In spite of his opposition to the government's handling of the Atlantic accords, Mr. Casey said he believes that Mr. Harper's recent Cabinet shuffle, and his decision to move Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) to defence, was a smart move.
"In every way I think that the appointment of Peter MacKay is a good thing," he said. "We have a tremendous defence industry in Atlantic Canada and especially in Nova Scotia and in my riding, so to have him as defence minister will give us at least an objective chance at military contracts and we should have a level playing field at least in competing for contracts."
The recent Cabinet shuffle, in Mr. Casey's opinion, also allows for better regional representation in the direction and formulation of future defence contracts. "In the previous Cabinet, the minister of public works, and the minister of industry, who are the key people negotiating defence contracts, were both from Quebec, and the minister of defence was also from very close to Quebec," Mr. Casey said. "But home is home, and there is always an influence, so I think it's good that they broke that up so that the minister of industry is now from Alberta, the minister of defence is now from Nova Scotia, and the minister of public works is now from Quebec. That is a much better balance."
There is one area, Mr. Casey said, where, since becoming an Independent, he has noticed an improvement in his work as a member of Parliament. That has been in his ability respond directly, and more quickly, to the needs and concerns of his constituents. "I have absolutely no loyalty to anybody except my constituents," he said. "Today I don't have to be concerned about what somebody might think in some office somewhere about a position that my constituents feel strongly about anymore."
All games will be streamed live on TSN and Rogers Sportsnet Broadband
Date
Away
Home
ET
Network
Encore Showing
Mon, Aug. 27
Canada
Russia
9am
TSN & Broadband
Midnight ET/TSN
Wed, Aug. 29
Canada
Russia
9am
Rogers Sportsnet & Broadband
7:30pm local/Rogers Sportsnet
Fri, Aug. 31
Canada
Russia
8am
Rogers Sportsnet & Broadband
7:30pm local/Rogers Sportsnet
Sat, Sept. 1
Canada
Russia
6am
TSN & Broadband
7pm ET/TSN
Tues, Sept. 4
Russia
Canada
8pm
TSN & Broadband
Midnight ET/TSN
Wed, Sept. 5
Russia
Canada
8pm
TSN & Broadband
Midnight ET/TSN
Fri, Sept. 7
Russia
Canada
10pm
Rogers Sportsnet & Broadband
11:30pm MT on RSW and Midnight local on RSP
Sun, Sept. 9
Russia
Canada
8pm
Rogers Sportsnet & Broadband
1am ET on RSE/RSO, 11pm MT on RSW, 11pm PT on RSP
Knights goalie named Super Series starter
Aug 26, 2007 10:24 AM
Canadian Press
MOSCOW – Steve Mason of the London Knights has been named Canada's starting goaltender for the opening game of the Super Series against Russia.
The Canadian and Russian junior hockey teams begin the eight-game series, which marks the 35th anniversary of the 1972 Summit Series, on Monday in Ufa, Russia.
Mason, from Oakville, Ont., led the Ontario Hockey League with a league-record 45 wins last season.
The Columbus Blue Jackets draft pick is also a talented puck handler as he also had 11 assists for the Knights during the regular season and playoffs.
The Canadian team concluded a four-day training camp in Moscow today and were to fly to Ufa later in the day for the first of two games in that city.
The third and fourth games will be staged in Omsk before the series heads to Canada for games Sept. 4 in Winnipeg, Sept. 5 in Saskatoon, Sept. 7 in Red Deer, Alta., and Sept. 9 in Vancouver.
Last week, CNN did a special called "God's Warriors" with a 3 shows on Christian, Jewish and Muslim extremists and their impact on politics. I thought the series was excellent and very informative. You can catch the replay on CNN or view the show at your convenience by visiting YouTube linked below. I have also posted three of the previews. To view the full shows visit:
Tell the networks not to follow FOX down the road to war 38,596 signers
Dear ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN,
"My station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at FOX News."
That is CNN's Christiane Amanpour explaining why the major television networks failed to accurately inform the public in the lead-up to the Iraq war, choosing instead to follow FOX's lead.
Now, FOX is beating the drums for war with Iran. Robert Greenwald's short film, "FOX Attacks: Iran", outlines the evidence from the station's own broadcasts, comparing their reporting before the Iraq war with what they are saying now about Iran.
You have a sacred responsibility to the American people to provide accurate and reliable information so we can best make the decisions which affect our lives. We urge you to accurately and thoroughly report all sides of this important story.
Please do not blindly follow FOX down the road to another war.
Aug 24, 2007 04:30 AM Steve Lambert Sidhartha Banerjee Canadian Press
MONTREAL–With the proof caught on video, Quebec provincial police were forced to admit yesterday that three undercover agents were playing the part of protesters at this week's international summit in Montebello, Que.
But the Quebec police force denied they were attempting to provoke protesters into violence. Rather, they said the three were planted in the crowd to locate any protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating. Police said the trio's cover was blown when they refused to toss any objects.
"At no time did the Quebec provincial police officers act as agents provocateurs or commit criminal acts. Also, it is not part of the policy of the police force nor is it part of its strategy to act in this manner. At all times, the officers responded to their mandate to maintain law and order," the Sûreté du Québec said in a news release last night.
The police said after viewing a video clip from YouTube.com and video shot by police officers, they were able to confirm the three were Quebec provincial police officers.
Earlier, both Quebec police and the RCMP denied any of their officers were involved.
Earlier yesterday, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day rejected opposition calls for an inquiry into the role of suspect agents at the North American leaders summit.
"If people have concerns ... there is a complaints process for the RCMP. There is also one for the Sûreté du Québec. This incident happened in Quebec, so I imagine people could also file under that complaints process."
Day's words did little to appease Dave Coles, the union leader who confronted the three men on the protest line and accused them of being cops.
"We're going to talk to our legal counsel and we'll decide (Friday) what our next action is going to be," said Coles, president of the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada.
The three officers, sporting bandannas, showed up on the front lines of a protest at the summit. One carried a large rock.
You Tube is quickly become a major tool in election campaigns. Over the next few weeks, I am going to try and do a "2008 Focus" on all the major Presidential candidates so that my readers will have a one stop place to see who stands for what. The first "2008 Focus" will be on Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich is the most left wing of the Democratic choices. He was also the only candidate to vote against the Iraq war as well as funding it 100% of the time. His campaign slogan is "Strength through Peace". He is a Congressman based in Ohio.
Bush and Harper agree to disagree on Northwest Passage
Norma Greenaway, CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Article tools
MONTEBELLO, Que. - The United States accepts Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic Islands but not over the Northwest Passage waterway, President George W. Bush says.
Speaking at a closing news conference at a summit of the three North American leaders here Tuesday, Bush made clear he was not persuaded so far by Canada's claims of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, even though the claim won a nod of approval earlier this week from a former U.S. ambassador to Canada who was appointed by Bush.
Bush said Canada and the U.S. must agree to disagree on the status of the Northwest Passage, which the U.S. considers an international waterway. But he suggested the difference of opinion would not get in the way of the two countries' relationship.
"We'll manage the differences, because there are differences on the Northwest Passage," Bush said. "We believe it's an international passage. Having said that, the United States does not question Canada's sovereignty over its Arctic islands."
Harper also sought to portray Canada's differences with the U.S. as manageable, although he referred pointedly to recent comments by Paul Cellucci, the former ambassador, on the status of the Northwest Passage.
Cellucci suggested in a CTV television interview on the weekend that the U.S. should consider agreeing to Canadian sovereignty over the passage as a way of enhancing security in the North.
Harper said the disagreement with the U.S. would not stop his government from pressing ahead with plans to strengthen Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.
"Quite honestly, Canada's position is that we intend to strengthen our sovereignty in the Arctic area," he said, vowing to add to the region's military, economic, social and environmental fabric.
Harper recently returned from a tour of the North, aimed at bolstering Canada's presence by, among other things, announcing a new deep-sea port and military training facility near the Northwest Passage.
*************
Canadian PM vows to defend Arctic
TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- Canada's prime minister has begun a three-day trip to the Arctic in an effort to assert sovereignty over the region a week after Russia symbolically staked a claim to the North Pole by sending submarines.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is on a three-day trip to the Arctic.
Although Stephen Harper's visit has been planned for months, it has taken on new importance since the Russian subs dived 2½ miles to the Arctic shelf and planted their country's flag in a titanium capsule.
"The Russians sent a submarine to drop a small flag at the bottom of the ocean. We're sending our prime minister to reassert Canadian sovereignty," a senior government official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because his language was undiplomatic.
Five countries -- Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway and Denmark -- are competing to secure subsurface rights to the Arctic seabed. One study by the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic has as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas.
Harper, who has pledged to spend billions defending Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic, is expected to announce the location of a planned military deep water port later in the week.
"Our government has an aggressive Arctic agenda," said Dimitri Soudas, the prime minister's spokesman.
"Economic development -- unleashing the resource-based potential of the North, environmental protection -- protecting the unique Northern environment, national sovereignty -- protecting our land, airspace and territorial waters."
Last month, Harper announced that six to eight new patrol ships will be built to guard the Northwest Passage sea route in the Arctic, which the United States insists does not belong to Canada.
U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins has criticized Harper's promise to defend the Arctic, calling the Northwest Passage "neutral waters."
Harper said last month the deep water port will serve as an operating base for naval ships and also will be used for commercial purposes. He might also announce a military training center in the Arctic.
"Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic. We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this government intends to use it," Harper said.
The disputed Northwest Passage runs below the North Pole from the Atlantic to the Pacific through the Arctic Archipelago.
As global warming melts the passage -- which is navigable only during a slim window in the summer -- the waters are exposing unexplored resources, and becoming an attractive shipping route. Commercial ships can shave off some 2,480 miles from Europe to Asia compared with the current routes through the Panama Canal.
Canada also wants to assert its claim over Hans Island at the entrance to the Northwest Passage.
The half-square-mile rock, one-seventh the size of New York's Central Park, is wedged between Canada's Ellesmere Island and Danish-ruled Greenland, and for more than 20 years has been a subject of unusually bitter exchanges between the two NATO allies.
In 1984, Denmark's minister for Greenland affairs, Tom Hoeyem, caused a stir when he flew in on a chartered helicopter, raised a Danish flag on the island, buried a bottle of brandy at the base of the flagpole and left a note saying: "Welcome to the Danish island."
The dispute erupted again two years ago when former Canadian Defense Minister Bill Graham set foot on the rock while Canadian troops hoisted the Maple Leaf flag.
Denmark sent a letter of protest to Ottawa, while Canadians and Danes took out competing Google ads, each proclaiming sovereignty over the rock 680 miles south of the North Pole.
Some Canadians even called for a boycott of Danish pastries.
Canada and the United States dismissed the Russian flag-planting as legally meaningless.
But Russian researchers also plan to use the dive to help map the Lomonosov ridge, a 1,240-mile underwater mountain range that crosses the polar region. Moscow claims the ridge is an extension of the Eurasian continent, and therefore part of Russia's continental shelf under international law.
The United Nations has rejected Moscow's claim, citing a lack of evidence, but Russia is set to resubmit it in 2009. If recognized, the claim would give Russia control of more than 460,000 square miles, representing almost half of the Arctic seabedE-mail to a friend
*******************
Arctic melt unlocks Northwest Passage
'Unprecedented'
Randy Boswell, CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Just a week after Canada and the United States agreed to disagree over the ownership of the Northwest Passage, a record melt of Arctic sea ice has completely unlocked the shipping route, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center says.
"It's open," Mark Serreze, a senior scientist with the research institute, based in Boulder, Colo., said yesterday. "It's unprecedented. Theoretically you could take a ship from Tokyo through the Northwest Passage to Boston. Not an easy sail, not a Sunday cruise, but it has started to happen," he said.
Describing the phenomenon as proof that climate change is underway, the centre says on its Web site that "analysts at the Canadian Ice Service and the U.S. National Ice Center confirm that the passage is almost completely clear and that the region is more open than it has ever been since the advent of routine monitoring in 1972."
Environment Canada scientist Lionel Hache, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, said a navigable route across the country's Arctic archipelago has opened a few times since 1998. This year, he noted, "you could go through the Northwest Passage with a sailing boat without any problems, without seeing any ice."
What particularly concerns scientists is that the thawing of Arctic ice typically continues until mid-September, virtually ensuring that next summer's melt season will begin with a much-reduced base of what used to be called "permanent" ice.
The ice "is going to remember that next year," Mr. Serreze said. "Everything seems to be ahead of schedule and the models are all too slow. We're on the fast track."
The accelerated annual loss of ice prompted Mr. Serreze to predict that the entire polar region, including the North Pole, could witness a total summer melt by 2030.
The rapid degradation of the ice cover has been a key factor in the growing interest among--and friction between -- Russia, Canada, the United States and other northern nations in securing seabed territory, resource claims and shipping rights in the Arctic.
On Aug. 2, a Russian minisub planted a flag on the North Pole seabed as part of a controversial bid to prove that Russia's continental shelf extends far from the Siberian coast and encompasses the potentially lucrative oil reserves of the high Arctic sea floor.
Days later, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reasserted Canadian sovereignty in the North during a high-profile Arctic tour that added a $100-million deepwater seaport on Baffin Island and a new military training centre at Resolute Bay to a previous $3-billion promise of at least six new Arctic patrol ships.
Danish-and U.S.-led research expeditions to the Arctic followed, fuelling the sense that an Arctic land grab and oil rush are underway.
For centuries, European explorers sought a clear shipping route through the Northwest Passage as a shortcut to Asia.
Canada's vast possessions in the Arctic are largely the result of 19th-century British voyages in search of the passage, which was not traversed until Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen completed a three-year crossing in 1906.
Canada and the United States have been at odds for decades over the legal status of the Northwest Passage.
The tension was highlighted in 1985 by the unauthorized transit of the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea.
At the end of August, a wisp of flame suddenly appeared in the Arctic twilight over the Barents Sea, bathing the low clouds over the Norwegian port of Hammerfest in a spectral orange glow. With a tremendous roar, the flame bloomed over the windswept ocean and craggy gray rocks, competing for an instant with the Arctic summer's never-setting sun. The first flare-off of natural gas from the Snohvit (Snow White in Norwegian) gas field, some 90 miles (145 km) offshore, was a beacon of promise: After 25 years of false starts, planning and construction, the first Arctic industrial oil-and-gas operation outside of Alaska was up and running. Norway's state-owned petroleum firm Statoil could finally exploit once unreachable reserves, expected to deliver an estimated $1.4 billion worth of liquefied natural gas each year for the next 25 years.
But in a place where the aurora borealis normally provides celestial beauty, Snow White's luminous apparition also signals caution. What will a new era of exploitation bring to the Arctic, one of the earth's last great uncharted regions? The vast area has long fascinated explorers, but it has just as long been the site of folly and exaggerated expectations. Over centuries, hundreds died in the doomed search for an ice-free Northwest Passage between Asia and Europe, many of them victims of ill-fated stabs at national and personal glory.
This summer, however, saw something new: for the first time in recorded history, the Northwest Passage was ice-free all the way from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The Arctic ice cap's loss through melting this year was 10 times the recent annual average, amounting to an area greater than that of Texas and New Mexico combined. The Arctic has never been immune from politics; during the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet submarines navigated its frigid waters. But now that global warming has rendered the Arctic more accessible than ever — and yet at the same time more fragile — a new frenzy has broken out for control of the trade routes at the top of the world and the riches that nations hope and believe may lie beneath the ice. Just as 150 years ago, when Russia and Britain fought for control of central Asia, it is tempting to think that — not on the steppe or dusty mountains but in the icy wastes of the frozen north — a new Great Game is afoot.
Gas and Global Warming
Russia is at the thick of the new game. In an expedition that lacked nothing in patriotic bluster, a Russian-led team descended to the seabed on Aug. 2 and planted a titanium Russian flag directly on the North Pole. In early September, Russian bombers launched cruise missiles during Arctic exercises. But it isn't only the Russians who are staking their claims. On Aug. 10, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper flew to Resolute, a hamlet of 250 souls on Cornwallis Island in the northern territory of Nunavut, and announced plans for an Arctic military training facility and a refurbished deep-water port on the Northwest Passage. Then Danish scientists set sail on an expedition to map the seabed north of Greenland, a Danish dependency, and — not to be outdone — the U.S. Coast Guard dispatched the cutter Healy on a similar mission north of Alaska. The flurry of activity has prompted the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to schedule hearings this month to push for U.S. ratification of the international treaty on the Law of the Sea, which came into force in 1994. Ratification of the treaty has long been opposed by conservatives, who consider it a shackle on U.S. sovereignty, but it now has the support of the Bush Administration, largely because its terms would allow Washington to weigh in with its own claims in northern waters.
The current interest in the Arctic, in short, is a perfect storm seeded with political opportunism, national pride, military muscle flexing, high energy prices and the arcane exigencies of international law. But the tale begins with global warming, which is transforming the Arctic. The ice cap, which floats atop much of the Arctic Ocean, is at least 25% smaller than it was 30 years ago. As the heat-reflecting ice that has made the Arctic the most inaccessible and uncharted part of the earth turns into water — which absorbs heat — the shrinkage is accelerating faster than climate models ever predicted. On Aug. 28, satellite images analyzed by the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center revealed that the Arctic ice cap was already 10% smaller than at its previous record minimum, in September 2005 — and it still had about a month of further melting to go. "If that's not a tipping point, I'd hate to see what a tipping point is," says Mark Serreze, the center's senior research scientist. Trausti Valsson, a professor of environmental planning at the University of Iceland in Reykjav�k, says Arctic warming has become a "self-propelling" process that could leave the Arctic Ocean ice-free in summers by 2040. Even in winter, says Valsson, ice coverage would amount only to what could form in a single season, meaning that "Arctic shipping, with specially built ships, will be easy in all areas during the whole year."
As shrinkage of the ice has made it easier to access the Arctic, competition for the region's resources has intensified. David Ooingoot Kalluk, 66, an Inuit who has hunted on the ice around Resolute for the past 48 years, has sensed the weird new world to come. "The snow and ice now melt from the bottom, not the top," Kalluk says as he glances out over the almost ice-free waters of Resolute Bay and fingers a pair of binoculars. He used to take dogsleds across the ice in June to hunt caribou on nearby Bathurst Island. Now, he says, the ice is too thin even in early May. If the warming continues, he fears that the cod population will shift farther north, disturbing the food chain for the ring-necked seal — the natural staple of the polar bears that regularly stalk the hamlet in the winter months.
Kalluk and his people will just have to adjust, but the polar bears may not be able to. A recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) predicts that shrinking sea ice will mean a two-thirds reduction in their population by midcentury. Not even strict adherence to the Kyoto accord on limiting greenhouse gases would stop an Arctic meltdown, which means the Arctic, like nowhere else on Earth, is a place where efforts to mitigate global warming have yielded to full-bore adaptation to its impact. That process is freighted with irony. With gas and oil prices near historic highs and with scant prospect of any decrease in world demand for energy, it is only prudent to get a sense of what resources lie below the newly accessible sea. But there is something paradoxical about seeking in the Arctic the very carbon fuels that are melting the northern ice. "The rush to exploit Arctic resources can only perpetuate the vicious cycle of human-induced climate change," says Mike Townsley of Greenpeace International.
The rush will go on for Arctic resources, even though it is far from clear how extensive they really are. An often cited USGS report from 2000 estimated that the Arctic could contain 25% of the world's undiscovered oil reserves. More precise guesses are just beginning to come out. Late last month the USGS put total reserves in the East Greenland Rift Basins at 31.4 billion bbl. of "oil equivalent," mostly in the form of natural gas. (That would be the equivalent of about four years of U.S. oil consumption.) While the assessment of the region won't be finished until next year, Don Gautier, one of the survey's principal investigators, says, "there's no doubt that certain geologic provinces in the Arctic have significant oil and gas reserves." Some of the most attractive are in the Barents Sea. In Russian waters, east of Norway's Snohvit deposit, lies the Shtokman gas field, thought to be 10 times as big. Granted, not everyone is convinced that the Arctic will be Big Oil's new savior. A study by energy consultants Wood Mackenzie and Fugro Robertson concluded last year that Arctic reserves would prove "disappointing." "Our assessment is that the Arctic has not 25% but 10% of world reserves," says Wood Mackenzie vice president Andrew Latham. "And considering how hard it is to get, a very large fraction of that won't be developed." But for now, such downbeat assessments are being shrugged off. Just as global warming has made it easier to get to the Arctic, so high oil prices have made it worth the hassle of doing so. This summer's activities were, in essence, attempts to claim the rights to seabeds that few considered worth a walrus's whiskers a generation ago, when oil was cheap and the ice was thick.
Whose Ice Is It?
It's one thing to covet the resources that may now be accessible in the Arctic. It's another to establish a legal claim to them that others will recognize. Under the provisions of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a country has exclusive economic rights to the sea's resources within 200 nautical miles (230 miles, 370 km) of its coast. The treaty provides for extending that limit up to 350 nautical miles if a country can prove that its continental shelf extends from the coastline beyond the current limit. That explains the rush by Russia, Denmark and Canada to try to use the murky form of the underwater Lomonosov Ridge to expand the territory they control. The ridge, a largely uncharted geological formation named for an 18th century Russian polymath born near the northern coastal city of Arkhangel'sk, runs under the Pole from north of Canada's Ellesmere Island and Denmark's Greenland to the New Siberian Islands of Russia. Each of the three countries hopes the ridge's contours and rock content will throw up proof that it is an extension of the continental shelf rather than a strictly deep-ocean formation.
It was with an eye to bolstering Moscow's claims that Artur Chilingarov, a member of Russia's parliament, enlisted fellow parliamentarian Vladimir Gruzdev and the commander of the Mir 1 submersible, Anatoli Sagalevich, for last month's aquatic assault on the North Pole. With the funding (and presence aboard) of a Swedish millionaire and an Australian adventure-tour operator, the expedition trailed an icebreaker to the pole, where Sagalevich piloted one of two submersibles to a depth of 13,100 ft. (4,301 m), planted the Russian flag and then skillfully resurfaced through the shifting holes in the ice. Chilingarov said the flag was to "stake the place for Russia," although, in truth, Russia is already a dominant force in the Arctic; it has the world's largest fleet of icebreakers and long experience developing its icy northern coastline.
Chilingarov and his team were given a heroes' reception in Moscow and an audience with President Vladimir Putin. But the Russians' adventurism also set off an irritable and predictable backlash. Canada's then Foreign Minister Peter MacKay dismissed the Russian effort as a "show." "This isn't the 15th century," he said. "You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say, �We're claiming this territory.' " In Washington, Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation said, "Russia's attempted grab is a cause for concern" and called on the U.S. government to "formulate a strong response."
Sagalevich professes bafflement. "I don't really know why some people got so nervous about [our] placing the Russian flag there," he told TIME. "The Americans placed their flag on the moon, and it doesn't mean the moon became theirs." The Russian acknowledges that though the mission "excited the whole world," it amounted to only a "pinprick" in Moscow's continued efforts to undergird its case for extended sovereignty in the Arctic. (In 2002 a U.N. commission shelved Russia's claim to more of the Arctic for lack of detailed technical evidence.) Nor, despite this summer's bravado, is it clear that Russia has real plans to follow up the Mir expedition. Robert Nigmatulin, director of the Institute of Ocean Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, says establishing a claim to the continental shelf before 2009 — as Russia must do under the terms of the unclos — would require drilling deep-water seabed samples, technology that he says Russia does not possess and is not inclined to pay for.
In any event, it is hardly as if Russia were the only nation to see the Arctic as a place to burnish national pride. The Norwegians have their new gas field, and Denmark is pursuing proof of its own claims just as doggedly as the Russians — though in a more consensual, Scandinavian mode. The Danes enlisted both a Swedish and a Russian icebreaker for its expedition to the largely uncharted waters north of Greenland to document what Science Minister Helge Sander refers to as "our hopefully justified claim of a continental shelf from Greenland toward the North Pole." The Danes know that scientific inquiry alone will not determine who gets what in the north. "When we are talking resources, we are also talking politics," says Sander, who predicts that the demarcation of rights to the Arctic will end with a "dogfight at the International Court of Justice in the Hague."
If it does, expect Canadians to have one of the biggest dogs there — for Ottawa has never been shy about asserting ownership to much of the Arctic. In 1907 a Senator claimed a Canada-wide triangle right up to the Pole, and there's still a plaque on Melville Island commemorating that assertion. As a spur to maple-leaf nationalism, it is not just the Russians and Danes that Canadians have to worry about in the Arctic but also their giant neighbor to the south. When Prime Minister Harper declared in August that the "first principle of Arctic sovereignty is use it or lose it," he was directing his message partly at Washington. The U.S. has long claimed that the Northwest Passage is an international strait through which all ships have the right to travel, whether Canadians want them there or not. That line has always rankled Canadians but never more so than now that the ice is disappearing. "I'll jump up and down and say it — the passage is Canadian," says Josh Hunter, Resolute's senior administrative officer. "If the Americans try to come through unwanted, we'll be out there on our snowmobiles blocking their passage."
Even backed by the new icebreaker fleet Harper has promised, that's not much of a deterrent. In truth, of course, it isn't military encroachment the Canadians fear so much as the environmental peril that may come from unregulated use of their waters. Cruise ships transporting Arctic ecotourists, many of them Russian vessels hired out to Western tour operators, anchored off Resolute 17 times this year alone. Once the Northwest Passage becomes not just a tourist destination but a viable commercial route that would cut an astonishing 5,000 miles (8,000 km) from the distance between Asia and Europe through the Panama Canal, shipping traffic could explode. "The idea of Liberian-registered tankers chugging through the Northwest Passage or oil spills that can't be cleaned up — that's what terrifies me," says Mike Beedell, an Arctic adventurer who sailed a small sailboat through the passage 20 years ago.
With all the other Arctic nations making their plays, it would be too much to expect the U.S. — an Arctic state itself, thanks to Alaska — to stand idly by. The Coast Guard icebreaker now on its way back from plying the waters of the Chukchi Cap, north of the Bering Strait, has charted the sea floor with a multibeam echo sounder to delineate where Alaska's continental shelf ends and the depths of the Arctic Ocean begin. But to press its case for extended territorial waters, as the other Arctic nations are doing, the U.S. needs to sign the convention. Some conservatives have always depicted the treaty as a no-win giveaway of U.S. sovereignty that would cast the baleful shadow of "world government" over the high seas and that might, for example, bar the U.S. from interdicting ships suspected of terrorist ties. Given the Senate's rules, opponents of the treaty have plenty of chances to use procedural dodges to kill it. But at hearings on the convention due to begin on Sept. 27, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joseph Biden will be able to muster support for ratification not only from the Bush Administration and the military but also from groups as disparate as the American Petroleum Institute, whose members would like to exploit the Arctic, and the World Wildlife Fund, whose supporters would like to stop them from doing so. With such backing, supporters of the treaty are guardedly optimistic that this time it will be ratified. The convention is "critical to our national interests as a maritime power and as the world's leading economy," Biden told Time. "Its ratification is long overdue."
How can competing claims to the Arctic — of environmentalists and entrepreneurs, nations and natives — be reconciled? Antarctica, with no native population, has been saved from international competition by a treaty signed in 1959, which (among other things) bans all mining there until 2041. There have always been advocates of such an approach in the Arctic, but given well-established local populations and long-standing national claims, they have never gotten very far.
Meanwhile, as they always have, adventurers, hucksters and dreamers will continue to make their way north — some of them in bikinis. Iceland's Valsson sees the Arctic as "the new Mediterranean," with warming temperatures fostering new centers of civilization in Siberia and Arctic Canada. Hammerfest bears witness to some of that: The population is booming, and a sense of hope infuses the economy. But as winter approaches in Resolute and the lowering sky turns dark, Kalluk, the Inuit hunter, suspects that dreams of a new world in the north are overdone. "Whatever else happens," he says, "the sun will still disappear for a good part of the year." The unanswered question is whether that will be enough to preserve the harsh beauty that he and others in the Arctic have long known and cherished.
With reporting by Laura Blue/London, Ulla Plon/Copenhagen, Andrew Purvis/Berlin and Hammerfest, Elisabeth Salemme/New York, Adam Zagorin/Washington and Yuri Zarakhovich/Moscow
Greenlanders get asked some fairly predictable questions when they're out and about in the world. They get asked, for instance, if it's winter all year long in Greenland. (No.) They get asked if they live in igloos. (No.) And they get asked if it's true that Iceland is really green, and Greenland is really ice. (Sort of. For now.)
Russia has planted a flag on the ocean floor at the North Pole, Canada is talking tough and Washington wants to be a player. Who will win the race for the Arctic?
Though Greenland lives large in the world's imagination, the world hasn't always put much effort into imagining what life is like for Greenland's 56,000 residents. But as the increasingly alarming news of its melting 1.8 million square kilometer (695,000 square mile) ice cap has trickled south and the race for polar resources has officially started, the international community is paying more attention to its largest island. By the end of this summer, some 3,400 scientists from 60 countries were working on the landmass. Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had dropped by to see the melting glaciers for themselves. And singer Björk dedicated a song to Greenland (and the Faroe Islands) — "Declare Independence" — on her latest album.
Why? Because while people may be learning more about Greenland through global warming's effects on its fragile environment, what's less well known is that a grassroots movement for greater self-rule has been brewing in the Danish territory for the last 30 years. First colonized in 1721 when a Norwegian Danish priest came to what is now the capital city of Nuuk, Greenland remains part of the Danish kingdom. In 1979, its predominantly Inuit population fought for management of domestic affairs, which it was granted, but Copenhagen still handles its foreign relations and supports the island with a whopping $600 million yearly subsidy. Diplomatic relations between territory and crown are very cordial — indeed, some Greenlanders consider themselves lucky to have been colonized by Denmark and not the United States or Canada — but some also feel that the same well-intentioned Danish money that keeps the island on its feet also keeps it under Denmark's thumb. A small faction of politically minded Greenlanders has been looking for a way out for decades.
In those years, environmental and social change have hit Greenland hard and fast. In Nuuk, drying musk ox hides hang over the balconies of the monolithic blocks of public housing that absorb exiles from the quickly emptying outlying villages stationed around the island's rocky fringe. The island's transition to a cash economy has rendered subsistence hunting a less and less viable way to live, and the effects of climate change on sea ice has made hunting seasons shorter and less predictable. Poverty, alcoholism and high suicide rates haunt the population. Alfred Jakobsen, deputy minister of the environment in the Home Rule government, says the combination of these struggles and the ballooning demand for western goods won't offer a sustainable economic future. "It's heartbreaking to see that there is not much local entrepreneurship creating things for export," Jakobsen says. "In a way, you feel happy if you can get this shirt, or these pants, or these shoes. But it's not healthy for the national economy to see that more import stores are opening. The balance of import and export will be very, very skewed."
And, so, long before Russia planted a metal flag in the sea floor beneath the North Pole last month, Greenland had been eyeing its own potential reserves of oil and gas surrounding the island. Shrimp processing is the biggest contributor to the territory's GDP today, but big oil could offer a much shorter path to self-reliance. In September, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Denmark's Dong Energy joined the ranks of those who have been looking for oil off Greenland's west coast, and last month the U.S. Geological Survey released an estimate that an area off Greenland's northeast coast could yield the equivalent of 31.4 billion barrels of oil, gas and gas liquids. If those barrels materialize, it would make northeast Greenland the 19th largest oil and gas reserve out of 500 in the world. No one has struck black gold in Greenland's waters yet, but foreign investment is gaining momentum.
What happens when they find it is another matter. Right now, Greenland and Denmark have 50-50 rights to profits from Greenland's natural resources. Securing full rights to administer the oil, gas and minerals harvested from their land and water has been a recurring theme among Greenlanders who want greater sovereignty, but talks about whether the territory will take over sole rights are currently stalled. And in August Denmark sent a crew of some 40 scientists on a technically unprecedented mission to explore whether a ridge beneath the North Pole was geologically linked to their territory. (If it is — if the ridge is an extension of their continental shelf and, therefore, an extension of the country's coastline — it could mean legal rights to a greater chunk of the sea for Denmark.) "I'm sure that the foreseeable easier access to the North Pole and potential oil in those areas is a tremendous focus of the Danish politicians," says Jakobsen. He says the talks, part of a commission's report that's due out about increasing Greenland's autonomy, are held up because Danish and Greenlandic politicians "can't agree" on who's going to get what from this potential oil and gas.
But harvesting whatever Greenland's icy waters may yield — not to mention the resources under the polar cap — is a long way off. The sea ice is still too thick in most places to access reserves that may or may not exist, and the technology to drill in these inhospitable conditions is not there yet. "If anybody has reached anything, we haven't heard about it," says Mr. Steen Ryd Larsen, who heads the department in charge of Greenland in the Danish Prime Minister's office. "And if somebody reaches the resources, it would be another decade before it generates income. It's not just around the corner."
For some independence-minded Greenlanders, that's just fine. The thought of big nations finding yet another vested interest in their landscape isn't universally thrilling in Greenland, which has been a strategic military outpost for the U.S. and Denmark since the Cold War. Inuit hunters were displaced when the American military set up camp at the Thule Air Base on the island's northwest shore in the 1950s, and Inuit hunters were the first to be exposed when a B-52 carrying hydrogen bombs crashed near the base in 1968. "We are fragile, both in terms of the climate crisis and because of the military buildup in the Arctic," says Aqqaluk Lynge, president of Inuit Circumpolar Conference Greenland. Things don't always work out for small, oil-rich countries with indigenous populations, he says. "Every night I pray they don't find oil and gas in Greenland."
Still, having the world's ear isn't all bad news. Earlier this month, Lynge saw the United Nations adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, an effort over 20 years in the making for him. And Jakobsen says the process of negotiating with Denmark has made Greenland savvier about their place in the international community. "[People] know more than they knew before. ... They are more ready for a change," he says. "They are waiting for someone to pop up and say, 'Yes, this is the way we should go. Follow me.'"
British troops taking part in an exercise on the southern Atlantic island of South Georgia in 2004. Britain is preparing a claim for sovereign rights covering gas and oil resources over a wedge of the Antarctic seabed.
In politics as in medicine, there are some contagions that spread despite the most prudent vaccines. Witness the news this week that the United Kingdom has decided to lay claim to 385,000 sq mi (1 million sq km) of seabed off the coast of Antarctica, despite being a signatory to the 1959 treaty that was supposed to protect the earth's most desolate continent from the vagaries of international competition.
Russia has planted a flag on the ocean floor at the North Pole, Canada is talking tough and Washington wants to be a player. Who will win the race for the Arctic?
This infection could be traced back halfway around the globe to the Arctic, where a new competition for sovereignty heated up this summer even as the ice cap shrank, at an ever-accelerating pace, to an alarming new minimum. There it was Russia and its jingoistic jaunt in August to the Arctic Ocean floor at the North Pole that inspired Canada, the United States, Denmark and Norway to freshen up their own claims to the Arctic. Considerable — but still largely uncharted — oil and gas deposits are the attraction, and they become ever more enticing as prices for petroleum soar and exploitation technology improves.
So is Britain playing the role of the Russian bear at the other end of the globe? Not exactly. Six other countries (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand and Norway) have also laid claims to sectors of Antarctica; those of Chile and Argentina overlap with the British claim. (The United States recognizes none of them, but reserves the right to make its own claim down the line.) Each of those seven claims include coastline, and every coast presents an opportunity under Article 76 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea: If you can prove that the continental shelf extends out into the sea, you can claim mineral rights out to a maximum of 350 nautical miles. This is precisely what Britain is preparing to do in Antarctica, and it won't be the first: Australia and New Zealand have already submitted similar claims to Antarctic waters to the relevant U.N. Commission.
Nor will the British claim be the last, since all claims under the law of the Sea have to be submitted by the spring of 2009. And that's the point. A spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry told reporters that London was merely "safeguarding for the future," and that no challenged claim — as the British one is sure to be — can be acted on. But the claim points out the limits of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, and a codicil adopted in 1991. It does an admirable job of protecting the land — banning nuclear material, declaring the Antarctic to be a "natural reserve, devoted to peace and science," and prohibiting any mining — but not the surrounding seas, which support a singular ecosystem ranging from krill to penguin, from seal to whale.
If any country develops the right and the means to drill for offshore oil in Antartica, and particularly if they hit pay dirt, it's not just that ecosystem that could be endangered. So could the ban on mining on the Antarctic continent itself, which can be lifted by unanimous agreement at any time. That is highly unlikely, but just a couple of decades ago, so was the prospect that the ice caps would melt. The British claim, and those that are sure to follow, amounts to a long-shot move that enables resorting to a future temptation. For the sake of Antarctica, let's hope we've got beyond oil and gas before that temptation ever arises.
*******************
Russia plants flag on Arctic floor
MOSCOW, Russia (Reuters) -- Russia staked a symbolic claim to the resource-rich Arctic on Thursday when a submersible dived beneath the ice directly under the North Pole and planted a Russian flag on the seabed.
The Akademik Fedorov research ship carried about 100 scientists to the region.
The rust-proof titanium flag was planted on the seabed 4,261 meters (13,980 ft) under the surface of the Arctic Ocean, Itar-Tass news agency quoted Vladimir Strugatsky, vice president of Russia's polar exploration association, as saying from a support vessel.
Russia wants to extend the territory in the Arctic it controls right up to the North Pole. The region is believed to hold vast untapped oil and gas reserves.
Under international law, the five states with territory inside the Arctic Circle -- Canada, Norway, Russia, the United States and Denmark via its control of Greenland -- have a 320 km (200 mile) economic zone around the north of their coastline.
But Russia is claiming a larger slice extending as far as the pole because, Moscow says, the Arctic seabed and Siberia are linked by one continental shelf.
One of the aims of the expedition is to allow oceanographers to study the seabed and establish that Russia and the North Pole are part of the same shelf.
"It was a soft landing ... There is yellowish gravel down there. No creatures of the deep are visible," Tass quoted expedition leader Artur Chilingarov as saying.
Soviet and U.S. nuclear submarines have often traveled under the polar icecap, but no one has so far reached the seabed under the Pole, where depths exceed 4,000 meters (13,100 feet).
Expedition leaders have said their main worry is to resurface at the ice hole where they dived as the mini-submersibles are not strong enough to break through the North Pole's desolate ice cap.
Bush administration increased restrictions on travel, money transfers to Cuba
Democratic presidential candidate says he would reverse Bush measures
Obama's chief rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, opposes any changes now
GOP's Mitt Romney says Obama is not strong enough to confront enemies
By John King CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As Ronald Reagan might have put it, here we go again.
Sen. Barack Obama campaigns in Iowa last week.
What to do about Fidel Castro is a question that dates back five decades and 10 U.S. presidencies.
In more recent times, it has become somewhat of a litmus test in presidential politics, dating back to Reagan's heavy emphasis on the Cuban-American vote in the 1980s.
The question has more significance now, perhaps, because of Cuban leader Fidel Castro's failing health.
"Even though it is not the number one issue for the majority of voters in Florida, for a very vocal minority, it is an incredibly passionate issue that has a lot of history," says Washington-based Democratic strategist Maria Cardona.
The debate was stirred Tuesday by an op-ed essay Sen. Barack Obama wrote for the Miami Herald. In it, he called for the lifting of two Bush administration restrictions on Cuban-Americans. Obama wrote that he would grant Cuban-Americans "unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island."
A leading Republican candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was quick to pounce, saying in a statement "unilateral concessions to a dictatorial regime are counterproductive" and that Obama's position proves the Illinois senator "does not have the strength to confront America's enemies or defend our values."
Current restrictions allow Cuban-Americans to send family members $300 a quarter and limit visits to up to 14 days once every three years.
Among the other Democratic candidates, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson already was on record in favor of changes along the lines outlined by Obama.
Former Sen. John Edwards split the difference; he favors unlimited travel by family members but opposes "raising the limits on sending American dollars back to Cuba at this time."
Sen. Chris Dodd would do more; he favors allowing all Americans unrestricted travel to Cuba.
Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton favors no changes to U.S. policy and said through a spokesman "we cannot talk about changes to U.S. policy" unless and until Castro passes from the scene and a new government demonstrates its intentions.
On the other end of the spectrum, Rep. Dennis Kucinich favors lifting the embargo outright.
Most interested in this debate is a tiny slice of the U.S. electorate. Nationally, Cuban-Americans account for less than 1 percent of the U.S. population. But they are heavily concentrated in the key presidential battleground of Florida, where they constitute 8 percent of the state's electorate. (The winner in Florida was decided by 537 votes in the 2000 presidential election.)
Cuban-Americans are the most reliably Republican of the nation's Latino voters, leading some strategists to wonder why Obama would be interested in inflaming the passions of the Cuba debate.
"Non-Cuban-Hispanic voters do not appreciate a presidential candidate coming down and once again making Cuba the issue. They want to hear about other things," Cardona said.
Others saw a calculated effort by Obama to shift attention away from criticism in Miami's Cuban-American community for his talk of being willing to meet with Castro and leaders of other so-called rogue regimes in his first year in office.
The op-ed piece made no mention of such a pledge. Instead, Obama talked of bilateral talks in a "post-Fidel" Cuba and said his administration would make clear that if such a government would adopt democratic reforms, "the United States is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for five decades."
Obama's stirring of this debate continues a theme of taking an unorthodox -- rivals would say inexperienced -- approach to foreign policy issues. It is also an issue that could test how the actions of President Bill Clinton's administration affect the candidacy of his wife.
Her husband made courting Cuban-Americans a priority, and received nearly 40 percent of Miami's Cuban vote in the 1996 presidential election.
But President Clinton's decision to return Elian Gonzalez to Castro's Cuba provoked outrage among Cuban-Americans, and, according to a Florida International University Study, Republican candidates received more than 80 percent of the Cuban-American vote in Florida in the 2000 presidential and the 2002 gubernatorial elections.
Japan omits China, asks Asian democracies to unite
George Nishiyama, Reuters
Published: Wednesday, August 22, 2007
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called on Wednesday for a "broader Asia" partnership of democracies that would include India, the United States and Australia but leave out the region's superpower, China.
Abe's comments came in an address to a joint session of India's parliament, at the start of a high-profile visit that aims to boost trade between Asia's largest and third largest economies and counter China's growing strength.
About 200 businessmen are accompanying Abe on the visit.
"This partnership is an association in which we share fundamental values such as freedom, democracy and respect for basic human rights as well as strategic interests," Abe told lawmakers and diplomats in a speech that did not name China.
"By Japan and India coming together in this way, this 'broader Asia' will evolve into an immense network spanning the entirety of the Pacific Ocean, incorporating the United States of America and Australia."
While Abe has improved ties with China, which had frayed under his predecessor, he has also stressed the need to forge closer links with democracies in what analysts have said was a tacit criticism of Beijing.
Tokyo has sought to build closer security ties with the United States, Australia and India, and its navy is due to take part for the first time in joint U.S.-India exercises to be held in the Bay of Bengal next month.
But in a sign that New Delhi was keen not to upset China -- which is likely to soon be its biggest trade partner -- Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon warned on Monday against a "zero sum game" with Beijing.
The trip, however, was not just about politics.
India was using the visit to woo much-needed investment to build infrastructure projects from transport to nuclear power.
The sheer size of the Japanese business delegation -- outstripping a recent Abe trip to the Middle East -- testified to the importance of business ties.
INDIAN BOTTLENECKS
India's poor transport network and frequent power shortages are seen as the Achilles' heel of India's fast-growing economy that hinders its ability to compete with its major global competitor, China.
The visit came just as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh faces a huge political crisis as leftist allies try to block a civilian nuclear deal with the United States that the government and many business leaders say is crucial for India's economy.
Singh was expected to seek Japan's support for the energy deal, but Abe was likely to remain non-committal, given the sensitivity of the issue in Japan, the only country to suffer an atomic bombing.
Critics argue the India-U.S. pact could undermine efforts to stem nuclear proliferation by allowing India to pursue nuclear energy without adhering to non-proliferation obligations.
"Japan is one of the biggest suppliers of the best nuclear reactors in the world critical to process industries," Reliance Industries Chairman Mukesh Ambani, one of India's most important businessmen, told a Japanese business
"This will help Indian aspirations to become energy sufficient."
Tokyo is considering offering low-interest loans to help build a high-speed freight rail link between New Delhi and Mumbai as well as funds for a $90 billion industrial corridor between the two cities, Japanese officials said.
The aim is to boost Indian manufacturing by helping make use of its cheap workforce while solving its poor infrastructure and transportation problems.
"These projects are critical to India's aspirations of wresting the manufacturing space that at present is dominated by China," said a report prepared by KPMG consultancy group and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry
Abe also pledged to double bilateral trade to $20 billion by 2010. Japan is only India's 10th-largest trade partner, as Japanese firms have focused on China and Southeast Asia.
India is also aiming to seal an economic partnership agreement -- expected to include a free-trade accord -- by the end of this year, Indian Trade Minister Kamal Nath said.
Montebello, Quebec - Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed his satisfaction today with the outcome of the North American Leaders' Summit in Montebello, Quebec, where he met with U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderón.
"Canada, the United States and Mexico are good neighbours and also good friends. As sovereign countries in the modern world we are both independent and interdependent," said the Prime Minister. "This week's Summit has provided an opportunity to share individual perspectives and take stock of challenges we face together."
The discussions covered a wide range of issues the three countries face, including:
Working together on consumer protection to ensure the safety of imported foods and products entering North America;
Developing practical solutions to our mutual environmental challenges; and
Assuring both efficient and secure borders, while respecting the bonds of friendship and commerce between the three countries.
The discussions focussed as well on international and hemispheric matters from climate change to the upcoming APEC meetings. Also discussed were the Middle East and Haiti, where all three countries are working to advance freedom, democracy and development.
Since last year's Summit, agreements on regulatory cooperation, pandemics, intellectual property and energy research have been achieved.
"Our three countries share peaceful and productive relations," said the Prime Minister. "These relations are rooted in our common commitment to democracy, free and open markets through NAFTA, and equal opportunity for all our citizens."
Prime Minister Harper met in separate bilateral meetings with Presidents Bush and Calderón.
The Prime Minister and President Bush discussed a range of bilateral issues including the countries' joint commitment to a secure border open to the exchange of goods and services and the interaction of peoples.
The Prime Minister and President Calderón discussed the growing breadth and depth of the Canada-Mexico relationship such as labour mobility, the environment, security and defence cooperation, and a range of hemispheric issues.
Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper, President George W. Bush and President Felipe Calderón last met in Cancun, Mexico in March 2006, much has been achieved in meeting the challenges mutually faced by our three North American nations.
Highlights of those achievements include: the development of a Regulatory Cooperation Framework, a North American plan for avian and pandemic influenza, an intellectual property rights action strategy and an agreement for cooperation in energy science and technology.
Regulatory Cooperation Framework
Incompatible regulations between trading partners can create unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles to trade and investment which can limit innovation, hinder exports and efficient supply chain management, increase consumer prices, and reduce consumer choice.
The Regulatory Cooperation Framework will enable Canada, the US and Mexico to increase regulatory cooperation in order to provide North America with broader product choice, lower prices, and more flexibility.
This will be done while maintaining high standards of health, safety, and environmental protection and while respecting each nation's sovereignty and legal requirements.
The Framework will track and report on progress to Leaders, Ministers and the public through a Committee which will also coordinate and oversee cooperation activities.
The Framework's goals will be achieved by promoting a systematic approach of information sharing among regulators to encourage greater compatibility of regulations and regulatory processes.
North America Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza
The world is facing a growing threat posed by the spread of a new form of avian influenza-or bird flu-and the potential emergence of a human influenza pandemic. A worldwide outbreak of a new influenza virus could result in a high death toll, millions of hospitalizations, and hundreds of billions of dollars in direct and indirect costs to North American economies.
At their meeting in Cancun, the leaders of all three countries committed to developing a comprehensive, coordinated, science-based approach to prepare for and manage avian and pandemic influenza. The Plan would be based on the four pillars of emergency management: prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.
Central to the Plan is a North American focus that will maintain the flow of people, services, and cargo across the borders during a pandemic while striving to protect our citizens. The Plan also builds upon existing national emergency management plans, and conforms to guidelines and standards set by international organizations.
Intellectual Property Rights Action Strategy
Counterfeiting and piracy activities cost North America hundreds of millions of dollars. These activities include manufacturing goods bearing imitation trade-marks (including pharmaceuticals, toys, clothing, auto parts, medical equipment and foodstuffs) as well as making unauthorized copies of books, CDs, DVDs and computer software for commercial distribution.
After the last North American Leaders' Summit, a strategy was developed with the support of both public and private sector representatives. It builds on existing cooperation and improves co-ordination among the three governments and businesspeople. The Strategy is based on the following three elements:
Detection and Deterrence: the sharing of best practices among enforcement authorities and the identification of further areas of collaboration, including exchanging practices for training customs/border enforcement authorities on intellectual property rights;
Public Awareness: public education, including media campaigns, around the negative impacts that counterfeiting and piracy have on both consumers and the economy and;
Impact Measurement: a coordinated approach to data collection using the study of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on economic impact of counterfeiting and piracy as well as systematic surveys. This will help to define the scope of counterfeiting and piracy activities, to set objectives, and to measure performance.
Trilateral Agreement for Cooperation in Energy Science and Technology
This trilateral agreement is designed to support North American pursuit of energy security, environmental protection and economic sustainability. Developed by officials under the North American Energy Working Group, the Agreement provides a formal framework for collaboration and joint projects in energy science and technology.
It flows directly from the identification of energy security as one of five key priorities set by the Prime Minister of Canada and the Presidents of Mexico and the United States at their trilateral meeting in 2006.
Trilateral collaboration in the areas of innovation, energy efficiency and technology development, as well as in moving these technologies to the market, promotes energy security. This agreement allows for public and private sector cooperation in research, development and deployment on a wide range of energy technologies for peaceful uses, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, nuclear energy, fossil fuels and electricity.
Such cooperation will help to increase the pace of development and use of cleaner, more efficient energy technologies in all three nations.
With a provincial election less than two months away, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams has clinched a deal with a consortium of oil companies to proceed with the $6-billion Hebron offshore oil project.
Mr. Williams and representatives of Chevron Corp. — the lead company in the consortium — are set to hold a press conference Wednesday in St. John's at which they will announce the go-ahead of the first standalone offshore project in several years.
The deal will allow the province to earn a 4.9-per-cent equity stake in the project, and has a royalty regime that will ensure the province earns a greater share of the proceeds from oil production than it has from existing offshore projects, sources said last night.
Mr. Williams has been widely criticized for his insistence that the province gain an ownership stake in the project, with some critics dubbing him "Danny Chavez" after the socialist president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.
But the Premier — who faces an election on Oct. 9 — is wildly popular in his home province partly as a result of his battle with the international oil companies, as well as his heated disagreement with Prime Minister Stephen Harper over equalization.
The two sides had been at an impasse since April, 2006, when the companies broke off talks over Mr. Williams's demands, particularly his insistence that the province receive equity in the project.
At the time, Mr. Williams was particularly critical of Exxon Mobil Corp., blaming the Texas-based oil giant for rejecting what he described as reasonable terms.
He accused the companies of making last-minute demands for tax breaks when a deal was within reach.
While Chevron is the operator of the Hebron project, with a 25-per-cent stake, Exxon has the largest ownership stake at 37.5 per cent. Petro-Canada and Norway's state-owned Norsk Hydro ASA are also partners.
Talks resumed in the late spring, after Mr. Williams indicated he was willing to invest in the project to earn the equity stake.
The resumption of negotiations came as the international oil companies faced increasing hostility from oil-rich governments elsewhere, notably in Venezuela.
Both Chevron and Exxon have refused to accept Venezuela's demand for a majority government stake in their heavy oil projects and have pulled out of the Latin American country.
By April of 2006, Mr. Williams had reduced his demand for an equity share of the project to below 5 per cent, the threshold that would have given the province a veto over all development plans.
This spring, the Premier announced the reorganization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, with an energy arm that will own and develop oil and gas assets, as well as electricity.
Hebron, located 340 kilometres from St. John's, would be the second-largest project in the offshore waters of Newfoundland, with as much as 700 million barrels of reserves, second only to Hibernia. However, Hebron's crude is a lower quality than the Hibernia oil, and so would not fetch as high a price on world markets.
The Premier's hard-line stand over Hebron rattled the home-grown oil industry in the province, as officials warned that the project was necessary to keep work there and continue the revenue flow from offshore.
One industry source said that the deal appears to give both sides enough satisfaction to be called a "win-win."
"It is very important for the province to proceed with this — and I don't think it is coincidental that there is an election in less than two months," he said.
Given that it is hurricane season, I found some interesting facts on the largest earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes in Canadian history. Surprisingly these events occur more frequently in Canada (and Ontario) then I expected. Obviously it is important that our government be prepared for any kind of emergency such as a natural disaster, terrorist attack or health pandemic.
I also found a great website on Hurricane Hazel, a hurricane that impacted us over 50 years ago in York Region. To view the website visit: http://www.hurricanehazel.ca/
The following map and list show the date, magnitude and location of the 10 largest earthquakes ever located in Canada or its territorial waters. Note that many large earthquakes occuring in neighbouring Alaska or Washington state have also affected residents in western Canada. Magnitudes for earthquakes prior to the 20th century are less precise as they have been estimated from non-instrumental data.
Canada Seismicity map with 10 largest events highlighted
Date Lat N Lon W Magnitude Location 1700/01/26 48.5 125 9.0 Cascadia subduction zone, British Columbia. 1949/08/22 53.62 133.27 8.1 Offshore Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. 1970/06/24 51.77 130.76 7.4 South of Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. 1933/11/20 73.00 70.75 7.3 Baffin Bay, Northwest Territories. 1946/06/23 49.76 125.34 7.3 Vancouver Island, British Columbia. 1929/11/18 44.50 56.30 7.2 Grand Banks south of Newfoundland. 1929/05/26 51.51 130.74 7.0 South of Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. 1663/02/05 47.6 70.1 7.0 Charlevoix, Quebec. 1985/12/23 62.19 124.24 6.9 Nahanni region, Northwest Territories. 1918/12/06 49.62 125.92 6.9 Vancouver Island, British Columbia.
On average 4 tropical cyclones affect Atlantic Canada each year. No category 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in Canada since 1851. Only two category 3 hurricanes have made landfall in Canada in the last 110 years, one in Newfoundland (Luis, 1995) and one in Nova Scotia (1893C). (See: History of Tropical Cyclones in Canada)
Frequency of tropical cyclones by province:
Newfoundland: one every 1.4 years
Nova Scotia: one every 2.4 years
New Brunswick: one tropical cyclone every 3.4 years.
Quebec: one tropical storm every 6.6 years
Ontario: one tropical storm every 11.1 years
The tropical cyclones that impact Quebec and Ontario are always the remnants of tropical cyclones. These storms are generally weak and do not cause much damage. British Columbia gets brushed by eastern Pacific cyclones very rarely.
(Click on the specific region to get a more detailed look)
This image shows all of the Atlantic Canada landfalling hurricanes from 1886 - 1996. This image only shows hurricanes (not tropical storms). Also, if a hurricane made landfall in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick before making landfall in Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island, it is not included in this image.
Southern Ontario Top Ten Tropical Cyclones (1886 -1998)
Year
Name
Pressure
Wind
Rating
Month
Day
1954
Hazel
-
60
TS
10
16
1893
1893I
-
60
TS
10
14
1957
Audrey
-
50
TS
6
29
1938
1938D
988
45
TS
9
22
1995
Opal
991
40
TS
10
6
1903
1903D
-
40
TS
9
17
1900
1900A
-
40
TS
9
12
1989
Hugo
988
35
TS
9
23
1928
1928D
-
35
TS
9
20
1923
1923D
-
35
TS
10
25
Northern Ontario Top Ten Tropical Cyclones (1886 - 1998)
Year
Name
Pressure
Wind
Rating
Month
Day
1954
Hazel
-
50
TS
10
16
1961
Carla
-
30
TD
9
14
1955
Connie
-
25
TD
8
15
1923
1923F
-
25
TD
10
19
1896
1896A
-
25
TD
7
11
ABOUT HURRICANE HAZEL
On the afternoon of October 5, 1954, hurricane hunter planes found the eye of Hurricane Hazel about 50 miles east of the island of Grenada. The eye was poorly defined, but its highest winds were already near 100 mph. It was the beginning of a storm that was to spread death and destruction from the Caribbean up through the Carolinas, the middle of the Atlantic states and into Canada.
As Hazel crossed the island of Haiti, it left a death toll that was estimated as high as 1,000 people. By October 14, Hazel's winds accelerated to 150 mph, and the storm was moving at an incredible forward speed of 30 mph. Hazel then moved through the Bahama's, leaving six dead.
By 11:00 a.m. on October 14, Hazel reached North Carolina, its winds sustained at 150 mph. It was preceded by a storm surge of 14.5 feet. When it reached Garden City, South Carolina, it destroyed the entire town, leaving only two of 275 homes habitable.
In the 12 hours after Hazel struck the Carolina coast, it traveled with extreme speed, passing through the western suburbs of Washington, D.C. and spinning across Pennsylvania and New York into Ontario, maintaining its intensity all the way. In the U.S., it is estimated that Hazel caused $1.5 billion in damages and killed 100 people. At 9:30 p.m., the final official forecast on the storm was issued by the Dominion Weather Office, and read as follows:
Synopsis: Hurricane Hazel, which moved in on the North Carolina Coast Friday morning, continued to move northward and to accelerate during the day, and by 9:00 p.m. was centred between Buffalo and Rochester.
The intensity of this storm has decreased to the point where it should no longer be classified as a hurricane. This weakening storm will continue northward, passing east of Toronto before midnight. The main rainfall associated with it should end shortly thereafter, with occasional light rain occurring throughout the night. Winds will increase slightly to 45 to 50 mph (72 - 80 km/h) until midnight, then slowly decrease throughout the remainder of the night.
For Lake Ontario and Niagara Regions, Toronto and Hamilton cities: Rain tonight. Cloudy, with occasional showers Saturday. Little change in temperature. Winds north 40 to 50 mph (64 - 80 km/h) this evening, decreasing overnight to northwest 30 mph on Saturday. Low tonight and high Saturday at Toronto, St. Catherines, and Hamilton, 45 and 55 degrees fahrenheit (7 and 13° C). Outlook for Sunday, cloudy and cool.
There are varying opinions on whether or not the forecasts were accurate or given in sufficient time. It is clear, however, that if more people had taken the warnings seriously, lives would have been saved and damage to property would have been less severe.
********************
Canada's Worst Tornadoes
Location
Date
Deaths/Injuries
Regina, Saskatchewan
June 30, 1912
28 dead, hundreds injured
Edmonton, Alberta
July 31, 1987
27 dead, hundreds injured
Windsor, Ontario
June 17, 1946
17 dead, hundreds injured
Pine Lake, Alberta
July 14, 2000
12 dead, 140 injured
Valleyfield, Quebec
August 16, 1888
9 dead, 14 Injured
Windsor, Ontario
April 3, 1974
9 dead, 30 injured
Barrie, Ontario
May 31, 1985
8 dead, 155 injured
Sudbury, Ontario
August 20, 1970
6 dead, 200 injured
St-Rose, Quebec
June 14, 1892
6 dead, 26 injured
Buctouche, New Brunswick
August 6, 1879
5 dead, 10 injured
Sixty per cent of Canada's reported tornadoes take place in the southern portions of the prairie provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta—one of two "tornado alleys" in Canada that also include the southwestern region of Ontario.
In Canada, during an average year, 80 tornadoes cause two deaths and 20 injuries, plus tens of millions of dollars in property damage. These are the reported numbers - many more tornadoes strike unpopulated areas and are undetected.
May to September are the prime tornado months, with the peak season in June and early July. The afternoon and early evening are the peak times.
Chávez' goal is to remain in power until 2021 and to spread the Bolivarian revolution across his country, his continent and the globe. The Well-Oiled Revolution of Hugo Chávez shows what Chávez has planned for his country and the wider world, and how his revolution is tearing Venezuela in two.
A future scenario for The Place of Judgment, the Middle East. Are we on course to a doom scenario? What are the scenarios for the Near East in the forseeable future? Tension in the Middle East is mounting again, as political decisions in both the United States and Iran are now being taken by neoconservatives. 'Both places have idiots in charge', states colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. And the weapon of mass destruction scenario has been dug up again, this time for Iran. PLans of attack are being made and pre-emptive strikes are being considered. Backlight presents an ominous future view on the Middle East, the Place of Judgment. For 'Endgame', director Marije Meerman has gathered opinions and attitudes from the US, Israel and Iran concerning Israel's near future. Could the possible US withdrawal from Iraq herald the destruction of Israel? And will the pro-Israel stances of the presidential candidates affect their chances? How will any rethinking of American foreign policy impact on the region? Backlight spoke to: Martin van Creveld (Israeli military historian), Tony Judt (British historian), Brigitte Gabriel (Christian Lebanese emigre), Lawrence Wilkerson (former chief of staff to Colin Powell), Etgar Keret (Israeli writer), Anoush Ehteshami (British-Iranian political scientist) and Richard Perle (American neoconservative). This episode also features Ahmadinejad, pastor John Hagee and Barack Obama in an attempt to illustrate the frontlines of a possible Third World War. Could the increasing tension regarding the escalation of the conflict lead to a self-fulfulling prophesy?
Research: William de Bruijn Director: Marije Meerman
It started as a possible case of food poisoning but within weeks turned into a grim spectacle of enormous political proportions: Aleksander Litvinenko, former member of the Russian secret service, died in his place of residence London last November, after having been poisoned with a radioactive substance. The search for the possible perpetrators lead to a political difficult situation that reminded us of the dark days of the Cold War. Three years ago Aleksander Litvinenko told his life story to documentary maker Jos De Putter. It is a wild tale full of conspiracies, assassination attempts and imputations. Litvinenko talks about his time with the secret service, about his experience in Chechnya, and in particular about the series of bomb attacks on Russian territory that led to the seizure of power by Vladimir Putin. According to Litvinenko those attacks were the work of the secret service. After Litvinenko's funeral in December 2006, Backlight spoke to Litvinenko's widow. Marina Litvinenko is writing a book about her husband. The book will be published in May 2007 and the film rights have already been sold to Columbia Pictures. In this unique interview, she speaks about how they first met, how they fled to England and she speaks about Aleksander´s death agony. We also see Litvinenko's father Walter, with Chechen leader and Litvinenko's closest friend Akhmed Zakayev and the prominent Russian exile Vladmir Bukovsky, also a friend of Litvinenko.
The result is an impressive 55-minute portrait of a former spy whose death brought him worldwide fame.
Directors: Jos de Putter and Masja Novikova
VPRO Backlight 2007
For more info, please visit: http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlic...
'Occupation 101' presents a comprehensive analysis of the facts and hidden truths surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and dispels many of its long-perceived myths and misconceptions. The film also details life under Israeli military rule, the United States' role, and sheds light on the major obstacles which stand in the way of a lasting and viable peace.
Unlike any other film ever produced on the conflict --- 'Occupation 101' explains the situation in a comprehensive manner and gives audiences a complete context in which to better understand the Israeli-Palestinian encounter. The film depicts the root causes of the conflict through Israeli, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, American, and Palestinian voices that are rarely ever heard through mainstream media outlets.
The film covers a wide range of topics -- which include -- the first wave of Jewish immigration from Europe of the 1880's, the 1920 tensions, the 1948 war, the 1967 war, the first Intifada of 1987, the Oslo Peace Process, Settlement expansion, the role of the United States Government, the second Intifada of 2000, and also covers the recent Gaza Disengagement of August 2005.
The conflict in the Sudanese province of Darfur has displaced more than two million people and cost nearly 400,000 lives. To raise awareness of this four-year conflict, actor, director and activist George Clooney traveled to Sudan and Chad with his father, journalist Nick Clooney. Both Nick and George Clooney attended the "Rally to Stop Genocide" organized by the Save Darfur Coalition on Sunday, April 30 in Washington, D.C.
To become one of the million voices for Darfur go to: www.savedarfur.org/
The only Republican I would even consider supporting in the 2008 Presidential election...
The Ron Paul Revolution is here!
This ... The Ron Paul Revolution is here!
This is the movement they don't want you to hear about or participate in! Despite mainstream media's attempt to marginalize Ron Paul's candidacy and his supporters with unfair participation in the debates and a virtual media blackout, why is Ron Paul winning nearly every online poll? Why does his website get more internet traffic than all other candidates? Why does Ron Paul see a huge spike in donations and internet traffic after each debate?
The other candidates have far larger war chests and much more advanced campaigns, but still they call his supporters "a small group of dedicated spammers". Here's proof that the Ron Paul Revolution is REAL!
The reason they can't stop Ron Paul is because his message is OUR message! Freedom, Peace and Prosperity is one of the most powerful messages on Earth, and no amount of money, no amount of organized obstruction, or any other obstacle can stop US from getting OUR message out!
Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535” on Capitol Hill.
Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 17 grandchildren.
While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul’s limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president.
During that time, Congressman Paul served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.
Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.
Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another colleague observed, “There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few.”
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
CHEBARKUL, Russia — Russian and Chinese military forces started war games on Friday, using a joint land and air assault on a mock town held by “terrorists” as a showcase for their military prowess.
Fighter jets swooped overhead, commandos jumped from helicopters onto rooftops and the boom of artillery shells shook the firing range in central Russia as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao looked on smiling.
The presidents, who control two of the largest armies in the world, were joined by leaders and military forces from the four other Central Asian members of the Shanghai Co-operation Organization (SCO), a regional security and economic grouping.
After the exercises ended, Mr. Putin said: “Today's exercises are another step towards strengthening the relations between our countries, a step towards strengthening international peace and security, and first and foremost, the security of our peoples.”
Mr. Hu also praised the exercises and said: “I am convinced that the current exercise will definitely serve to stimulate the SCO to play a bigger role in the struggle against terrorism in the region.”
The SCO on Thursday sent NATO a thinly coded warning at its summit, saying the world must let the region resolve its own security. The West has been jockeying with regional powers Russia and China for influence over the energy-rich area.
General Vladimir Moltenskoi, the Russian commander in charge of Friday's exercise, said the war games involving 7,500 troops from the SCO members would help the grouping fight international and “internal terrorists.”
“The aim of the operation is the freeing of the territory controlled by the terrorists and the destruction of the illegal group of terrorists if they fail to surrender,” Gen. Moltenskoi told the leaders.
Mr. Hu and Mr. Putin exchanged jokes as a line of tanks fired across the range to corner a group of “terrorists” holed up in a mock town, specially prepared on a sun-baked plain in Chebarkul in the Southern Ural mountains.
Explosions were soon so loud the ground at the grandstand housing the leaders rocked from repeated artillery fire.
General Xu Qiliang, the Chinese joint commander of the manoeuvre, told reporters the exercise illustrated closer relations between Moscow and Beijing. The historic rivals have been drawn closer by common interests including energy and opposition to U.S. dominance of global affairs.
Echoing the terrorism theme, images from the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington and subsequent bombings in Madrid and London were shown on giant video screens near the leaders.
The area is close to Chelyabinsk, nicknamed “Tankograd” after Josef Stalin moved tank and other arms production there during Second World War to escape the invading Nazis.
Western military attaches attending the exercise clicked away eagerly with cameras but some human rights activists questioned the war games' true intentions.
“The scale of the exercises suggests that they are aimed at controlling local populations and not just combatting terrorism,” said the Uighur American Association, a Washington-based NGO that supports the Muslim Uighur minority in China.
Russia has waged two wars against Muslim Chechen separatists since 1994, China says it has been combatting Uighur Muslim rebels in its most westerly province and Uzbekistan says it has also fought Islamist extremists.
*************
China rejects US 'threat' report
China says its armed forces are purely defensive in nature [GALLO/GETTY]
A Pentagon report on China's military strength deliberately exaggerates figures and is intended to spread the theory of a "China threat", Beijing's foreign ministry has said.
In a strongly worded rejection of the Pentagon findings, the ministry criticised what it said were the "ulterior motives" behind the report.
The Pentagon study, released on Friday, said China's military expenditure was well above officially released figures as Beijing looks to project its growing military strength well beyond its borders.
It said China should be more transparent in its military expenditure and ambitions.
The Pentagon report is an annual assessment of China's military strength presented to congress.
It said new and highly sophisticated Chinese submarines, missiles and unmanned combat aircraft had significantly raised China's ability to launch pre-emptive strike, and it pointed to China's recent test of an anti-satellite weapon as a threat to "all space-faring nations".
Global military expenditure
Spending as a proportion of worldwide total (2005 figures):
US 47.77% UK 4.83% France 4.61% Japan 4.20% China 4.10% Russia 2.10% India 2.04%
Source: Stockhom International Peace Research Inst. (www.sipri.org)
In March Beijing announced its military spending would rise by almost a fifth in 2007, although that still puts its total expenditure far behind the US.
The announced increase would take China's military spending to about $45bn, the Pentagon report said US intelligence estimates indicated total military-related spending for the year could be up to $125bn.
In contrast the White House has requested a defence budget of $484.1bn for the year starting from October 2007.
That figure that does not include military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
'Peace loving'
Condemning the latest Pentagon report, The Chinese foreign ministry said it "expresses strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition" to its findings.
"It continues spreading the 'China threat' theory, seriously violates the norms of international relations and is a gross interference in China's internal affairs," the ministry said.
The US report said China is deploying increasingly advanced weapons [GALLO/GETTY]
"Whipping up the 'China threat' theory is completely wrong and will be in vain," it said, condemning the Pentagon for "a serious violation of
the norms of international relations and a gross interference in China's
internal affairs."
China, it said, "is a peace-loving country which sticks to a path of peaceful development and adopts a defensive national defence policy," it said.
In March Marine General Peter Pace, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, paid a four-day visit to China, calling for closer ties between the two countries' armed forces.
"When you get to know each other and know how each other thinks, you build trust and confidence," Pace said, adding that China was "a nation that deserves respect".
The Pentagon report came at the end of a week which saw high-level trade talks between the US and China end without agreement on key disputes, particularly over US charges that China is not moving fast enough on promised reforms.
Members of the US congress are planning to introduce legislation in the coming weeks to punish China for policies they say keep the value of its currency artificially low.
That, they argue, has made Chinese good unfairly cheap, creating a record US trade deficit with China and causing the loss of millions of American jobs.
BEIJING-Despite increasing international pressure to tackle climate change with every means at its disposal, the Chinese government made clear today that such efforts would take a back seat to building the economy and eradicating poverty.
Calling China "a developing country of responsibility," the minister leading China's climate change effort said the government would "sincerely carry out" a new plan to combat greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming.
Ma Kai said China would be more energy efficient in its use of coal, continue a plan of reforestation, increase use of alternative fuels and increase public awareness of the problem.
But it would be "neither realistic nor fair," Ma said, for the developed world to overlook the needs of China and other countries to build their economies.
"When calling for efforts to tackle climate change, the international community should take into full account the rights to development," he said bluntly.
"Their overriding priority at the moment is still economic development and poverty eradication."
The government's long-awaited National Climate Change Programme was announced today just as G8 leaders prepare to leave for a three-day summit in Germany that will include Chinese President Hu Jintao.
Although not a full-fledged member of the G8, China's contribution to greenhouse gases is expected to come under close scrutiny by the G8 in a separate session on climate change.
China is already the second largest contributor to greenhouse gasses worldwide, surpassed by only the United States, and scientists say China will eclipse the U.S. by 2009.
But the Chinese minister also took pains to stress that the problem of climate change is not the product of China and other developing countries, but the result of 200 years of unbridled industrialization that began in the West.
Over that period, Ma said, "it is an indisputable fact...that developed countries have emitted unlimited quantities of carbon dioxide emissions.”
He said more recent figures bear out his claim. Between 1950 and 2002, he said, science shows that 77 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions originated from the developed world.
"And between 1903 and 2003," he said, "the United States accounted for 28.3 per cent of all the world's total carbon dioxide emission, whereas China accounted for only 7.6 per cent during the same period."
Ma pointed that these were statistics produced by "an American institution" working on climate change issues.
He rebuffed the idea of putting caps on emissions China should be able to release, saying China could never agree to such measures.
"This would hinder the development of developing countries and hamper their industrialization," he said.
The new plan points out that China's emphasis on building its economy and providing for its people is in keeping with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, one of the guiding documents in the international effort to combat climate change.
That convention also points out that "economic and social development, and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country parties."
Still, in its rush to industrialize, China's depends heavily on coal energy, a huge source of carbon dioxide emissions. Almost 69 per cent of China's energy comes from coal, while only 21 per cent is from oil. The other 10 per cent comes from hydro, natural gas, nuclear and other power sources.
The rest of the world generates about 28 per cent of its energy from coal, 36 per cent from oil and 36 per cent from hydro, gas and nuclear.
Ma said that China was keen to benefit from Western technology transfers and financial assistance in its "sincere" effort in combating climate change.
Lame duck Bush arrives in Canada It should be interesting to see what comes out of the "3 Amigos" meeting between George W. Bush, Stephen Harper and Felipe Calderon. Despite the fact that all have similar Conservative values, all face domestic political pressures within their own nation. The summit comes at a time when George Bush has become a complete lame duck both domestically and internationally because of his failed policies on Iraq, massive trade and budget deficits, lack of control over the Congress or Senate and dismal approval ratings. Democratic Presidential candidates, Lou Dobbs and many Americans are now questioning the benefits of NAFTA, free trade agreements in general and are extremely concerned about jobs being outsourced. Stephen Harper is in charge of a minority government, coming off a cabinet shuffle, concerned with falling public support for the Afghan mission and knowing full well that he has to walk a tight rope between improving relations with the United States while distancing himself from a President who if he gets too close too will almost surely hurt his own re-election chances. President Bush should not expect a warm welcome from either the Canadian people or the Canadian media. As for Calderon, he faces a huge divide in his nation as was evidenced by the last election. Illegal immigration and America's Southern border are huge issues in the United States. As a right wing leader, Calderon has few allies in South America where Hugo Chavez and his socialist views are widely gaining popularity in Latin America. Despite these concerns, these three leaders will meet and attempt to pursue the agenda laid out below according to the official website for the The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. It should be interesting to see how today's meetings turn out. For Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, there could be a lot riding on how Bush and Harper interact. Personally I hope the tone is more similar to the relationship between Bush and new UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown as oppose to the relationship that existed between Tony Blair and George Bush. On a side note, I think these talks should be much more transparent. It is actually scary when you have three of North America's leaders meeting with top business executives in secret from the common people. A bit more communication could open the door to an honest debate, and at the end of the day better security, economic and political relations between our crucial NAFTA allies.
In a changing world, citizens and businesses across our continent are increasingly affected by the growing economic strength and the political and social instabilities of other countries and regions. The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is a commitment by Canada, the United States and Mexico to work together to build a safer and more economically dynamic North America. While respecting the sovereignty and unique heritage, culture and laws of each country, the SPP complements the many initiatives at the root of the longstanding relations among them. It strengthens the ties that have shaped the North American partnership for decades, and outlines an agenda for greater cooperation in areas as diverse as security, transportation, the environment and public health.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is a means by which Canada, the United States and Mexico can work together to find approaches that address common issues. There are two main complementary themes in the partnership, the Security Agenda and the Prosperity Agenda. Initiatives under these agendas support continued, prosperous trade between the countries, while ensuring that the each nation ― and the continent as a whole ― remains secure against external threats and criminal activity. The security and prosperity of a country go hand in hand.
Both agendas are based on the principle of the three North American countries working together to remove duplication and therefore reduce costs and burdens on exporters, importers and travellers. There is also a commitment to find consistencies ― for example, practices proposed or adopted in one country might address similar needs in the others.
Enhancing the safety and security of Canadians
The SPP Security Agenda is oriented toward finding more effective ways to enhance the safety and security of Canadians, while supporting our need to efficiently move legitimate goods and people across our border, as well as through ports and airports.
By working more closely with our U.S. and Mexican counterparts, Canada can expand the reach and effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies, whether in communities, working abroad, or at our country’s borders, ports and airports. Canadians want their streets to be safe; keeping illegal weapons, drugs and criminals out of the country will significantly contribute to reduced crime and increased security for both residents and visitors to Canada. A risk-management approach is helping to identify threats before they reach North America; close collaboration with our neighbours is critical in such an approach.
Working under the principles of the SPP, the leaders have committed to reduce the potential impact of emergency situations, whether caused by natural disaster, accident, deliberate action or technological failure. They work together on emergency planning and measures to enhance preparedness and response capacities. From participating in joint emergency simulations to cooperating on security science efforts, the emergency management organizations of the three countries collaborate to achieve mutual goals.
The Security Agenda is not only about strengthening security and law enforcement capacity or responding to disasters that have already occurred. It’s about helping to set up easy-to-use systems that facilitate the movement of low-risk travellers and carriers of Canadian goods and services to the country’s largest trading partners and markets. It also requires secure and efficient transportation systems (sea, land, air) in North America. And it’s about making sure that information on food alerts or public health issues is received and acted on in time to make a real difference to our economy.
In Canada, all of these security-related efforts are being coordinated through an SPP Security Agenda Coordinator, working under the leadership of the Minister of Public Safety. A similar coordinator manages efforts under the Prosperity Agenda. The two coordinators ― who are in constant contact with each other and work with counterparts in the United States and Mexico ― focus on specific goals through the efforts of Working Groups. These groups in turn guide the efforts of the respective federal departments and agencies in the creation or revision of policies, services and agreements related to each goal.
Under the SPP Security Agenda, there are ten goals and therefore ten Working Groups:
The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is a means by which Canada, the United States and Mexico can work together to find approaches that address common issues. There are two main complementary themes in the partnership, the Prosperity Agenda and the Security Agenda. Initiatives under these agendas support continued, prosperous trade between the countries, while ensuring that the each nation ― and the continent as a whole ― remains secure against external threats and criminal activity. The security and prosperity of a country go hand in hand.
Both agendas are based on the principle of the three North American countries working together to remove duplication and therefore reduce costs and burdens on exporters, importers and travellers. There is also a commitment to find consistencies ― for example, practices proposed or adopted in one country might address similar needs in the others.
Promoting growth and increasing economic opportunities
The Prosperity Agenda of the SPP supports efforts to promote growth and increase the economic opportunities available to Canadians and Canadian companies. It builds on the longstanding relationship among Canada, the US and Mexico to improve the quality of life of all North Americans.
In Canada, the Minister of Industry oversees efforts to deliver on the priorities set out in the Prosperity Agenda. The work is managed through the SPP Prosperity Agenda Coordinator. A similar coordinator is responsible for efforts under the Security Agenda. The two coordinators ― who are in constant contact and work closely with counterparts in the United States and Mexico ― focus on specific goals through Working Groups. These groups in turn guide the efforts of the federal departments and agencies involved in the creation or modification of policies, services and agreements related to each goal.
The work done under the Prosperity Agenda is divided among nine Working Groups, each specializing in an area considered to be important for the three North American governments:
The three leaders of North America agreed at a meeting on March 31, 2006 in Cancun, Mexico, to advance the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) by focusing on five priority areas. These include:
The BIN IS IN and it’s going to change the way you think about garbage. Starting September 2007, your organic waste will be converted into rich compost for farming and landscaping instead of going to landfill. The Town strongly encourages use of the green bin to help the environment and to reach the Town’s diversion target of eliminating 65% of waste from landfill. Starting September, do something good for the earth and toss it in the bin. You'll be glad you did.
KEY DATES IN SEPTEMBER: Your Green Bin and start-up kit will be delivered to all households in early September, and weekly Green Bin collection AND weekly recycling will commence the week of Septebmer 17, 2007. With the introduction of the Green Bin, garbage collection will occur every two weeks starting the week of September 17 (limit: three bags every two weeks).
Green bin tips for new users
Continue to backyard compost! Backyard composting is an important part of Target Green. Green Bin collection simply expands your composting options by including items that can't be placed in your backyard composters such as diapers, meat and pet waste.
Line your bins with plastic bags. Either your small indoor collection container or Green Bin must be lined with a plastic, biodegradable or Kraft paper bag. Bags must be securely knotted to protect the safety of the collection worker. Plastic grocery bags are ideal for lining your small indoor collection container.
Please do not set your small indoor container at the curb for collection. The smaller containers are perfect for collecting organic waste within your home. The larger Green Bin is ideal for curbside collection.
If raccoons are getting into your Green Bin, use a 12 inch bungy cord to secure your Green Bin closed. Remember to remove the bungy cord before placing your Green Bin out for collection. Or, hang your green bin from a hook if storing it outside. Wither leverage, raccoons cannot open the lid.
Keep indoor collection containers in your washrooms. Most bathroom waste materials can be placed in the green bin. Additional green bins can be purchased from the Municipal Offices at 395 Mulock Drive.
Please don't place yard waste in your Green Bin. Yard waste and Green Bins are collected separately because different technology is used to compost these materials.
Use your Green Bin to reduce the amount of waste that you produce during the holidays. Remember, turkey trimmings, stuffing and bones can all be disposed of in your Green Bin.
Please use tags for garbage bags exceeding the 3-bag limit. Many households produce extra waste around the holidays. Remeber to tag your additional garbage bags. Garbage bag tags are available from the Municipal Offices at 395 Mulock Drive.
It's in the bin!
PAPER Shredded Paper
PERSONAL CARE Diapers Hair Nail Clippings Sanitary products Tampons Tissues & Kleenex
PET PRODUCTS Animal Bedding Animal Waste, Kitty Litter Bird Seed, Pet Food Pet fur feathers Sawdust SOILED PAPER PRODUCTS Butcher Paper Fast Food Paper Packaging Ice Cream Boxes Microwave Popcorn Bags Muffin Paper Paper candy wrappers Paper cups and paper plates Soiled cardboard Soiled Egg Cartons Soiled Paper Napkins Soiled Newspaper Soiled Paper Towels Soiled Pizza Boxes
Your Green Bin start-up kit will be delivered to your home in September, and includes an indoor and outdoor bin. One is specifically designed for use in your kitchen, while the other is for placement at the curb for collection.
You can line the indoor or outdoor bin with any bag, but not both. The most convenient option is to line your indoor container with a grocery bag, tie it off and then place in the Green Bin for curbside collection.
All Green Bin material must be placed out for collection in bags that are securely closed or tied. You do not have to purchase special bags to dispose of your organic material. Any type of bag is acceptable in the Green Bin. Plastic grocery bags are ideal liners for your indoor container.
If you have too much organic material for your Green Bin, additional bins can be purchased at the Municipal Offices (395 Mulock Drive). You can also place overflow material at the curb in clear plastic bags. Green Bins and clear plastic bags must not exceed 40 pounds.
How to get the green bin right
Option #1: Line your small indoor container with a plastic, Kraft paper or biodegradable bag. Plastic grocery bags are ideal for this. Fill your indoor container with organics. Transfer your tied organic-filled bag into your Green Bin. Place your Green Bin at the curb on your collection day.
Option #2: Line your Green Bin with a large plastic, Kraft paper or biodegradable bag. Fill your small indoor container with organics. Transfer loose organic material from your small indoor container into your lined Green Bin. Tie your Green Bin liner closed. Place your Green Bin at the curb on your collection day.
Note: All organic material must be contained in bags. Organic material placed loosely in your Green Bin will not be collected.
Please remember to have your Green Bin at the curb by 7:00 a.m. on your collection day.
4 possible reasons your green bin was not emptied
There was a Health and Safety concern. Please ensure all Green Bin materials are securely contained in bags that are tied or closed. Please avoid using twist ties. Any type of bag is acceptable in the Green Bin.
Your Green Bin contained materials that are not acceptable in the program (ex. Grass clippings)
Your Green Bin was overflowing - fill the Green Bin just to the top so the lid securely closes. Additional Green Bins can be purchased at the Town of Newmarket Municipal Offices (395 Mulock Drive).
Your Green Bin was just too heavy. Green Bins cannot weigh more than 18 kg/40 lbs.
Green Bin newsroom
Member of the media looking for more information on the Town of Newmarket's Green Bin program should review the media releases listed below or contact:
Crystal Moss Senior Communications Specialist Town of Newmarket Tel: 905-953-5300, ext. 2042 E-mail: cmoss@newmarket.ca
Green bin program to result in 492 fewer trips to Michigan landfill per year YORK REGION, Monday, August 13, 2007 – The northern six municipalities of York Region (Aurora, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, Newmarket, King and Whitchurch-Stouffville) have high hopes for the impending green bin waste diversion program. The goal of the program is to divert 65 per cent of waste from landfill and reach a 75 per cent resident participation rate overall. The Bin is In! and it’s going to change the way we think about garbage.
Six municipalities give the green bin a common personality YORK REGION, July 12, 2007 – If you’re a resident of Aurora, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, King, Newmarket or Whitchurch- Stouffville (the northern six municipalities of York Region), expect to meet Binny this summer, the green bin campaign mascot for the six municipalities.
Three-stream waste collection program starts in September YORK REGION, June 7, 2007 – Aurora, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, King, Newmarket and Whitchurch- Stouffville – the northern six municipalities of York Region – have joined forces to roll-out the most significant waste diversion program since the introduction of the blue box in the 1980s.
Collaborative waste collection contract saves $11 million YORK REGION, OCTOBER 10, 2006 – A co-operative approach to contracting waste collection services by the northern six municipalities (Northern 6) in York Region will divert over 65 per cent of waste from landfill, provide improved service and save taxpayers millions.
I am no fan of Michael Vick, but the time may have come in the United States to do something about these ridiculous lawsuits. In the case of the dry cleaning lawsuits, a couple of honest hard working South Korean immigrants were forced to pay thousands in legal fees to defend this insanity. I think it is long past time to introduce common sense back into the American legal system. McDonald's hot coffee anyone?
Thanks for reading...
Darryl
********************
South Carolina Inmate Hits Michael Vick With '$63,000,000,000 Billion Dollar' Lawsuit Alleging Al Qaeda Ties
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
AP
Michael Vick
Michael Vick
Embattled NFL quarterback Michael Vick, facing federal charges related to his alleged participation in dogfighting, has been hit with a "$63,000,000,000 billion dollar" lawsuit filed by a South Carolina inmate who alleges the Atlanta Falcons star stole his pit bulls and sold them on eBay to buy "missiles from Iran," FOX News has learned.
Jonathan Lee Riches filed the handwritten complaint over "theft and abuse of my animals" on July 23 in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, Va.
Riches alleges that Vick stole two white mixed pit bull dogs from his home in Holiday, Fla., and used them for dogfighting operations in Richmond, Va. The complaint goes on to allege that Vick sold the dogs on eBay and “used the proceeds to purchase missiles from the Iran government.”
The complaint also alleges that Vick would need those missiles because he pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda in February of this year.
“Michael Vick has to stop physically hurting my feelings and dashing my hopes,” Riches writes in the complaint.
Riches wants $63 billion dollars “backed by gold and silver “ delivered to the front gates to the Williamsburg Federal Correctional facility in South Carolina. Riches is an inmate at the facility serving out a wire fraud conviction.
FOXNews.com attempted to contact Vick, but neither he nor his spokesman could be reached for comment.
*******************
$65M lawsuit over lost pants
Washington judge suing after store lost trousers taken in for alterations
May 04, 2007 04:30 AM
Lubna Takruri ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON–A missing pair of pants has led to one big suit.
A customer got so steamed when a dry cleaner lost his trousers that he sued for $65 million (U.S.). Two years later, he is still pressing his suit.
The case has demoralized the South Korean immigrant owners and brought demands that the customer – an administrative law judge in Washington – be disbarred and removed from office for pursuing a frivolous and abusive claim.
"They're out a lot of money, but more importantly, incredibly disenchanted with the system," said Chris Manning, lawyer for the owners. "This has destroyed their lives."
The customer, Roy Pearson Jr., who has been representing himself, declined to comment.
According to court documents, the problem began in May 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.
Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.
But a week later, the owners said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants and decided to sue.
Manning said the cleaners have made three settlement offers to Pearson: $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000.
But Pearson was not satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants. Because he no longer wanted to use his local dry cleaner, he asked in his lawsuit for $15,000 – the cost of renting a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.
The bulk of the $65 million demand comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of Washington consumer protection law, which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation, per day. Pearson counted 12 violations over 1,200 days, then multiplied that by three defendants.
Much of Pearson's case rests on two signs Custom Cleaners once had on its walls: "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service." He claims the signs amount to fraud.
The case is set for trial June 11.
Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, an organization that fights what it considers abusive lawsuits against small businesses, has asked that Pearson be denied a renewal of his 10-year appointment. The association has also offered to buy Pearson a new suit.
Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone Butler had no comment on Pearson's reappointment prospects.
Melvin Welles, former chief administrative law judge with the National Labour Relations Board, wrote to TheWashington Post to say that if he were the judge in the case, he would throw out the lawsuit and order Pearson to pay the dry cleaners for their legal expenses and their mental suffering. He also called for Pearson's ouster and disbarment.
"The manifest absurdity of it is too obvious to require explanation," he wrote.
If anyone has a day off, there is a great rally going on for Tre Smith and Animal rights. See below...
Thanks for reading...
Darryl
Rally Planned To Support Suspended Humane Society Inspector
Tuesday August 14, 2007
CityNews.ca Staff
To animal lovers, activists, and thousands of everyday people who have offered their support, Toronto Humane Society inspector Tre Smith is a hero.
After all, if it weren't for his brave actions on July 31st, a Rottweiller named Cyrus almost certainly would have perished in the sweltering car his owner locked him in. But Smith arrived on the scene and didn't hesitate to smash the car's window and pull the dog, which was hovering near death, out of the vehicle where he could begin his valiant attempt to save its life. But in the confusion that followed, Smith had to make a tough choice. The dog's owner arrived on the scene, and according to Smith, became confrontational. Smith knew he had only seconds to spare if he hoped to save Cyrus, and chose to cuff the dog's owner and leave the scene to attend to the animal. While he was gone, the man became a sitting duck for angry bystanders, and was allegedly assaulted.
Smith was dumfounded by the decision, and so were his supporters, who have organized a rally on Wednesday in honour of their hero.
In the meantime, Smith is still trying to come to terms with what's transpired.
"To be honest with you, I'm not sure (why I was suspended). I really don't know," he told Ann Rohmer during Animal House Calls on Tuesday. "I received an e-mail sent out to every O.S.P.C.A. member across the province and alerting them to the fact that a Toronto Humane Society agent has been suspended due to his actions on July 31st, that's pretty much where it ended."
"I'm absolutely in the dark," he adds. "From what I understand they've hired an independent person, a retired O.P.P. constable, to look into the events on that day."
And while his future may be uncertain, Smith is sure of one thing --- he has no regrets about his past. In the end, Cyrus was saved, and to Smith, that's all that matters.
"When we brought him into the clinic we were surprised he was going to last the night and fortunately he did and he's thrived and got a lot better, (but) he'll never be the same dog he was before this incident.
"They haven't actually given him a final diagnosis but they're definitely seeing mild brain damage, his attention span isn't the same. He doesn't always respond to his name. I've been told by the vets that he is suffering from mild brain damage."
According to Smith, timing was everything, and if he'd been delayed dealing with the owner, the dog would have died.
"I don't think he could have survived any longer. He was seconds if not milliseconds away from crossing over. He had already released himself which is a tell tale sign that the organs are shutting down."
"I've been to hundreds of dog and car calls and you always prepare yourself (but) that was one of the most horrible things I've seen to date, seeing this beautiful Rottweiler slumped over the backseat gasping for his last bit of air. There's a lot going on. Emotions run deep when that happens but you have to keep them under control and remember that you're there to save and an animal's life."
Tre Smith Rally: Wednesday Starts at Toronto Humane Society 11 River St. @ 11:30am Procession drives slowly up Highway 404 to Newmarket OSPCA Headquarters 16586 Woodbine Avenue Newmarket.
Minister of Justice; Attorney General of Canada — Robert Nicholson.
Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics — David Emerson.
Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec — Jean-Pierre Blackburn.
Minister of Veterans Affairs — Gregory Thompson.
Leader of the Government in the Senate; Secretary of State for Seniors — Marjory LeBreton.
Minister of Human Resources and Social Development — Monte Solberg.
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and non-Status Indians — Chuck Strahl.
Minister of Natural Resources — Gary Lunn.
Minister of Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency — Peter MacKay.
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans — Loyola Hearn.
Minister of Public Safety — Stockwell Day.
President of Treasury Board — Vic Toews.
President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Western Economic Diversification — Rona Ambrose.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration — Diane Finley.
Minister of National Revenue — Gordon O’Connor.
Minister of International Co-operation — Bev Oda.
Minister of Industry — Jim Prentice.
Minister of the Environment — John Baird.
Minister of Foreign Affairs — Maxime Bernier.
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities — Lawrence Cannon.
Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario — Tony Clement.
Minister of Finance — Jim Flaherty.
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Minister for Official Languages — Josee Verner.
Minister of Public Works and Government Services — Michael Fortier.
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform — Peter Van Loan.
Minister of Agriculture and Agrifood and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board — Gerry Ritz.
Chief Government Whip and Secretary of State — Jay Hill.
Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity — Jason Kenney.
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade; Secretary of State for Sport — Helena Guergis.
Secretary of State for Agriculture — Christian Paradis.
Secretary of State for Small Business and Tourism — Diane Ablonczy.
Ottawa urged to help smokers snap habit with tax break
STEVE RENNIE
Canadian Press
August 13, 2007 at 4:22 AM EDT
Ontario is calling on the federal government to follow its lead by snuffing out the sales tax on all over-the-counter products designed to help smokers quit.
As of today, all nicotine-replacement-therapy products - such as nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, inhalers, sprays and tablets - will be exempt from the provincial sales tax. Ontario Health Promotion Minister Jim Watson, who announced last month the province would drop its sales tax on these products, said the federal government should do the same.
"I'm hopeful that the federal government will see that this is a good tax cut that they should be involved with," Mr. Watson said in a telephone interview.
A smoker who spends about $300 over 10 weeks on nicotine-replacement-therapy products would save roughly $24 as a result of the dropped sales tax, Mr. Watson said.
If the federal government followed suit and dropped the GST on such products, it would save Ontario smokers another $18 dollars, he added.
"It's not a huge amount ... but we think it's a good way to let people know the government of Ontario is serious about helping people to quit smoking," he said.
Mr. Watson said he's lobbied federal Health Minister Tony Clement and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to drop the GST on the over-the-counter products, but has yet to hear anything from them. Mr. Flaherty's press secretary, Chisholm Pothier, wouldn't rule out eliminating the GST on nicotine-
replacement-therapy products, saying "everything is under consideration as we determine what we are going to do for tax relief in budget 2008."
An opposition member of the Ontario legislature scoffed at Mr. Watson's federal plea, calling it "pre-election posturing."
New Democrat Paul Ferreira said Mr. Watson's appeal to the federal government is a "diversion" from the province's lack of "any meaningful tobacco control measures."
"It's more of the blame game from this government. They always look for somebody else to put the spotlight on to try and take away from their own failings," Mr. Ferreira said.
Progressive Conservative health critic Elizabeth Witmer said her party supports every initiative to help people quit smoking, but she added the timing of Mr. Watson's plea to the federal government is "somewhat suspect."
"They had four budgets [to remove the PST], they could have done it, and here we are, just prior to an election. It looks to me like an election goodie," she said.
But Mr. Watson said other ventures, such as the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients study, have helped 31,000 smokers kick the habit through free nicotine-replacement therapy and counselling services.
Ontario stands to lose roughly $5-million in tax revenue a year by dropping the PST on these products, but Mr. Watson said it will save the province money in the long run.
Smoking kills an average of 16,000 people in Ontario each year, while tobacco-related diseases cost the health-care system about $1.7-billion annually, he said.
Smoking accounts for at least 500,000 hospital days each year and is blamed for more than $4.4-billion in productivity losses.
Indian Affairs and Northern Development - Tony Clement (ON)
Human Resources and Social Development - Monte Solberg (Alb)
Labour - Jean Pierre Blackburn (Que)
Agriculture - Chuck Strahl (BC)
Heritage - Helena Guergis (ON)
Citizenship and Immigration - Jason Kenney (ON)
Natural Resources - Gary Lunn (BC)
Fisheries - Loyola Hearn (NFLD)
Treasury Board - Rob Nicholson (ON)
National Revenue - Diane Ablonczy (Alb)
Intergovernmental Affairs - Rona Ambrose (Alb)
International Cooperation - Josee Verner (Que)
Whip - Diane Finley (ON)
House Leader - Jay Hill (BC)
Democratic Reform - Peter Van Loan (ON)
Minister of Public Works - James Moore (BC)/Michael Fortier (Que)
Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) - Rahim Jaffer (Alb) Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism) - Gerry Ritz (Sask) Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs & International Trade) - Michael Chong (ON) Secretary of State (Agriculture) - Christian Paradis (Que) Secretary of State (Status of Women) - Bev Oda (ON) Secretary of State - Greg Thompson (NB)
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Prediction: Likely part of a wider shuffle. Should he be replaced look for Stockwell Day, Peter MacKay, Gary Lunn as possibilities. Nicholson potentially could end up in public safety, fisheries, native affairs, intergovernmental affairs or treasury board.
Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics Prediction: Tough decision. On one hand he was a controversial floor crossing pick and likely isn't running in the next election. On the other hand, he has done a great job of promoting free trade deals and settling the softwood dispute. May lose international trade but keep Olympics and Pacific Gateway. In the end he stays in cabinet.
Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Prediction: Quebec is crucial in the next election in terms of getting a majority. I think Blackburn will likely stay unless a massive shuffle and trade of ministries take place.
Minister of Veterans Affairs Prediction: He is retiring and will be shuffled out. Likely the landing spot for Gordon O'Connor following his removal from defense.
Leader of the Government in the Senate and Secretary of State (Seniors) Prediction: Keeps status as leader in the Senate while potentially getting some additional responsibilities.
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board Prediction: 50/50. There has been some trouble with the wheat board but for the most part has performed strongly. Is he running in the next election? I predict that he stays.
Minister of Natural Resources Prediction: Has performed strongly in his role as Natural Resources minister. He may be in line for a promotion in order to demote someone else into this role. I predict he is shuffled into Indian Affairs, Fisheries, or International Trade as possibilities. Bev Oda, Diane Ablonzky, Rona Ambrose, Helena Guergis, and Rob Nicholson could all be replacements.
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Prediction: This will be one of Harper's toughest and most sensitive choices. MacKay performed terrific in developing strong relations with Washington during his interactions with Condi Rice. There have been a few minor blunders and at times it didn't seem like MacKay was fully in the decision making circle. The portfolio is extremely important to Harper's vision of bring Canada back onto the world stage. MacKay is also a symbol of the PC side of the party and given the poor relations with Atlantic Canada, demoting him would be risky unless the purpose of the change was to have a role closer to home in order to focus on Atlantic Canada. I think MacKay stays foreign affairs minister. Otherwise he may be part of a wider shuffle into justice, fisheries, public safety, industry or finance. Potential foreign affairs ministers...Stockwell Day? Jason Kenney, Helena Guergis, Jim Prentice, Maxim Bernier, Jim Flaherty.
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Prediction: He is retiring but represents Newfoundland. Can he be helpful in addressing the issues for the party in Atlantic Canada? Will there be a further fallout with Newfoundland and Danny Williams if he gets moved? At the end of the day, I think he will likely be moved and replaced with Peter MacKay, Rob Nicholson, Gary Lunn, Bev Oda, or a wildcard pick such as Bill Casey/Atlantic Canada backbencher.
Minister of Public Safety Prediction: In the Public Safety portfolio, Stockwell Day has reinvented himself and has surprised many by becoming one of the top performing ministers in this government. Justice might be a strong fit. Foreign Affairs is another possibility due to his strong knowledge on many issues, however putting him in that role might have some negative political consequences. Immigration would also not surprise me. I think he will be shuffled with potential of Rob Nicholson, Vic Toews, Peter MacKay, Helena Guergis and Gary Lunn all being potential replacements.
Minister of National Revenue Prediction: She will not be running in the next election and will be shuffled out of cabinet. Potential replacements will be Bev Oda, Gary Lunn, Stephen Fletcher, Rob Nicholson, Brian Pallister, James Moore, Michael Chong and Diane Findlay could end up here.
Unlikely to be moved into justice after being shuffled out previously. Public Safety may be his landing spot should Stockwell Day get shuffled. Otherwise I think he will stay.
President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Prediction: Got a raw deal and was the scapegoat of the last shuffle in the environment file. By far the most talented female MP in caucus in my opinion. She is comfortable in her current role but may be required in a higher profile role depending on what Harper does with the other women. Natural Resources? Justice? Foreign Affairs? Heritage? Look for one of Helena Guergis, Diane Ablonzky or Rona Ambrose to replace Bev Oda. In the end Rona Ambrose will stay I think.
Prediction: Almost a guaranteed shuffle. Look for Finley to end up in Heritage, Agriculture, National Revenue, Treasury Board, Native Affairs (due to riding concerns), House leader. Diane Ablonzky, Rahim Jaffer, Scott Reid, Vic Toews, Stockwell Day, Bev Oda, Rona Ambrose, Rob Nicholson or Gary Lunn could end up here.
Prediction: Everyone feels this guy is a dead man walking and the central reason for the shuffle. Look for him to move into Veterans Affairs while either Jim Prentice, Maxime Bernier, Stockwell Day, Jason Kenney as possible replacements.
Prediction: Most likely will be shuffled. Has not been a strong performer but she is unlikely to get demoted right out of the cabinet. Expect immigration, natural resources, agriculture or national revenue. Heritage will most likely be Helena Guergis while Rona Ambrose, Diane Ablonczy and Diane Finley are also possible.
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Prediction: This is the number one minister in the caucus, a strong future leadership prospect, and has the trust and ear of Stephen Harper more than anyone else in cabinet these days. Will he be this season's John Baird where a trusted minister is moved to a problem area like Afghanistan or Finance? The unknown factor is how important does Harper consider this file. Jim Prentice has built some very solid relationships and credibility with first nations groups. Should he be shuffled, whoever replaces him will have huge shoes to fill in a potentially sensitive file. I think Prentice will be shuffled the question is where. Defense? Foreign Affairs? Finance? I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Jim Prentice will be the next finance minister where over time he will be positioned as the next leader of the party.
Prediction: Still a huge file with great electoral importance. It is very unlikely that John Baird will be shuffled out after just moving into the role in January. Almost a sure bet that he stays although reviews on his performance in this file our debatable.
Prediction: Conventional wisdom in the media has suggested he may be on the move to foreign affairs or defense. He is the strongest Quebec cabinet minister and could see finance as well. Health could be a long shot choice. At the end of the day I think both him and MacKay will stay where they are.
Minister of Health and the Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
If Prentice is shuffled, I would expect Tony Clement to move to native affairs and Northern development. This would leave an opening for Stephen Fletcher, Maxime Bernier, Diane Ablonczy, Rona Ambrose, or Jim Flaherty.
The toughest decision Harper has to make is with regards to Flaherty in finance. Income Trusts and the issue with the Atlantic Accords have become serious political liabilities. At the same time firing the finance minister would hurt the optics of the Conservatives management of the economy and both budgets. Given that there is a fresh start coming with a throne speech this decision is really going to be 50/50 and take Harper the longest to consider. Does he keep Flaherty and push for tax cuts and reduced spending in order to rebuild the relationship with the base. Is he able to fix the mess with Atlantic Canada? Does he have the confidence and respect of Bay Street? I think he is going to end up shuffled. Jim Prentice would be the most likely replacement with Peter MacKay and Maxime Bernier being potential wild cards.
Prediction: More than any minister this is the one I personally would like to see shuffled out. He is unelected, unaccountable and has been virtually invisible since his appointment. He also represents a slap in the face to anyone who wants to see an elected senate and presents a credibility problem for Harper on this issue. Problem is the damage has already been done and the reality is he needs to keep his cabinet profile to have any chance in the next election. He will likely stay in his role with James Moore acting the part of minister in the House of Commons.
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Prediction: Most likely will keep his role for now, but may have it split in order to give an Ontario MP like Scott Reid or Michael Chong a shot at Democratic Reform.
Prediction: Strong possibility that he may swap portfolios with Diane Finley. Could also be a surprise pick for defense, justice, public safety, natural resources
Who from the back benches may get selected into cabinet?
Diane Ablonczy - third time is a charm. The shortage of women in the Conservative caucus combined with currently weak performing members means that the punishment of being from Alberta is over for Ablonczy. Health, National Revenue, Treasury Board, Heritage, Natural Resources could all be possibilities.
Rahim Jaffer - From Alberta may be the downfall. Expect him to keep his current duties. I personally think he would make a great cabinet minister dealing with national unity or immigration.
James Moore - The best young talent in our party. Billingual, from BC, great in question period, loyal and experienced. Should be a Minister but will likely play the role Fortier would if he was elected to the House of Commons. Could formally take a cabinet position of his own with someone else moving in to speak for Fortier. Stephen Fletcher - Health would be a perfect fit if Clement is moved into Native Affairs and Northern Development.
Brian Pallister - Asked not to be considered for the first cabinet as he tested the waters for leadership of the Manitoba Conservatives. Was a great critic in opposition. Treasury board??? Andrew Sheer - May look to someone from the Sask. if Carol Skelton is shuffled out of cabinet. Sheer is young and his very familiar with house procedures. Whip? House Leader? Michael Chong - Was forced to resign from cabinet due to his opposition to recognizing Quebec as a nation. Is it time to forgive and forget??? I think Conservatives need the talent, especially when it comes from key 905 seats essential to a majority government in Ontario.
Joe Comuzzi - Recently joined Conservative caucus. Has experience as a cabinet minister with the Liberals. Will he run in the next election? Is his experience required in any way? Maybe Northern Development?
Fabian Manning, Norman Doyle, Gerald Keddy - May require extra profile to keep their ridings in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. May require additional representation should Loyola Hearn be shuffled out of cabinet.
Bill Casey - Is he part of the solution to the problems in Atlantic Canada? Would have to rejoin caucus as oppose to his current status as an independent.
Michael Allen or Rob Moore - With Greg Thompson retiring, there is a good chance NB will require representation in the cabinet.
Andre Arthur - Can Harper turn this independent MP into a Conservative MP in Quebec??? He has voted with the party almost on every issue. Having responsibility for the CRTC would be interesting.
Garth Turner - Surprise finance minister??? Not likely.
Ken Dryden, Judy Sgro, Joe Volpe, Scott Brison, Ruby Dhalla, Jim Karygiannis, Denis Coderre, Irwin Cotler, Keith Martin - After Emerson, a floor crossing surprise is always possible. Will there be any big surprises??? Anyone second guessing Dion's leadership? From Toronto or Montreal???
Probably—but not in the way many foreigners (and some Americans) hope
FOR George Bush, the presidency is becoming a tragic tale of unintended consequences. In foreign policy, the man who sought to transform Iraq, the Middle East and America's reputation has indeed had revolutionary effects, though not the ones he was aiming for. Now something similar seems to be happening in domestic politics. The most conservative president in recent history, a man who sought to turn his victories of 2000 and 2004 into a Republican hegemony, may well end up driving the Western world's most impressive political machine off a cliff.
That machine has put Republicans in the White House in seven of the past ten contests. At times it has seemed as if the Democrats (oddly, given their status as the less Godly party) have had to rely on divine intervention to get elected. Watergate helped Jimmy Carter in 1976, just as the end of the cold war and Ross Perot's disruptive third-party campaign helped Bill Clinton in 1992. Better organised and more intellectually inventive than their “liberal” rivals, American conservatives have controlled the agenda even when they have lost: Mr Clinton is best remembered for balancing the budget and passing welfare reform, both conservative achievements. In a country where one in three people see themselves as conservatives (against one in five as liberals) and where the South and West have grown far more quickly than the liberal north-east, it is easy to see why Mr Bush and his strategist, Karl Rove, dreamed of banishing Democrats from power for a generation.
Now they would settle for a lot less. Having recaptured Congress last year, the Democrats are on course to retake the presidency in 2008. Only one Republican, Rudy Giuliani, looks competitive in the polls, and his campaign is less slick than those of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Voters now favour generic Democratic candidates over Republican ones by wide margins. Democrats are more trusted even on traditional conservative issues, such as national security, and they have opened up a wide gap among the young, among independents and among Latinos (see article).
For this, he is not guilty
The easy scapegoat is Mr Bush himself. During his presidency, the words Katrina, Rumsfeld, Abramoff, Guantánamo and Libby have become shorthand for incompetence, cronyism or extremism. Indeed, the failings of Mr Bush's coterie are oddly reassuring for some conservatives: once he has gone, they can regroup, as they did after his father was ousted in 1992.
Yet this President Bush is not a good scapegoat. Rather than betraying the right, he has given it virtually everything it craved, from humongous tax cuts to conservative judges. Many of the worst errors were championed by conservative constituencies. Some of the arrogance in foreign policy stems from the armchair warriors of neoconservatism; the ill-fated attempt to “save” the life of the brain-dead Terri Schiavo was driven by the Christian right. Even Mr Bush's apparently oxymoronic trust in “big-government conservatism” is shared in practice by most Republicans in Congress.
From this perspective, the worrying parallel for the right is not 1992 but the liberal overreach of the 1960s. By embracing leftish causes that were too extreme for the American mainstream—from unfettered abortion to affirmative action—the Democrats cast themselves into the political wilderness. Now the American people seem to be reacting to conservative over-reach by turning left. More want universal health insurance; more distrust force as a way to bring about peace; more like greenery; ever more dislike intolerance on social issues.
Be careful what you wish for
So some sort of shift seems to be under way. Would it be a change for the better? The Economist has never made any secret of its preference for the Republican Party's individualistic “western” wing rather than the moralistic “southern” one that Mr Bush has come to typify. It is hard to imagine Ronald Reagan sponsoring a federal amendment banning gay marriage or limiting federal funding for stem-cell research. Yet Mr Bush's departure hardly guarantees a move back to the centre. Social liberals like Mr Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger are in a minority on the right. On the one issue where Mr Bush fought the intolerant wing of his party, immigration, the nativists won—and perhaps lost the Latino vote for a generation.
In terms of foreign policy, America's allies, especially in Europe, would also be unwise to start celebrating, for two reasons. First, some of the changes that would stem from a more Democratic America would be unwelcome. The Democrats are moving to the left not just on health care, but also on trade; and a more protectionist America would soon make the world's poor regret Mr Bush's passing. Similarly, many Europeans may yearn for a less interventionist America; but an isolationist superpower could be much more frightening.
Second, America, even if it shifts to the left, will still be a conservative force on the international stage. Mrs Clinton might be portrayed as a communist on talk radio in Kansas, but set her alongside France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany's Angela Merkel, Britain's David Cameron or any other supposed European conservative, and on virtually every significant issue Mrs Clinton is the more right-wing. She also mentions God more often than the average European bishop. As for foreign policy, the main Democratic candidates are equally staunch in their support of Israel; none of them has ruled out attacking Iran; Mr Obama might take a shot at Pakistan; and few of them want to cede power to multilateral organisations.
One finding that stands out in the polls is that most Americans distrust government strongly. Forty years ago they turned against a leftish elite trying to boss them around; now they have had to endure a right-wing version. In democracies political revolutions usually become obvious only in retrospect. In 1968, with America stuck in another bruising war, few liberals saw Richard Nixon's southern strategy as part of a long-term turn to the right. All that was clear then was that most Americans urgently wanted a change of direction. That is also true today.
***********
Under the weather
Aug 9th 2007 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition
The conservative movement that for a generation has been the source of the Republican Party's strength is in the dumps
Illustration by Kevin Kallaugher
THIRTY years ago Eric Hobsbawm, the dean of Marxist historians, chose as his subject, for the Marx memorial lecture, “The forward march of labour halted?” Things turned out even worse, for his side, than he had expected, thanks in part to the rise of a very American brand of conservatism. But are we now witnessing Mr Hobsbawm's revenge: the forward march of American conservatism halted?
The right has dominated American politics since at least 1980. The Republicans' electoral successes have been striking: five out of seven presidential elections since 1980 and a dramatic seizure of the House in 1994 after 40 years of Democratic rule. Even more striking has been the right's success in making the political weather.
The Republican Party is only the most visible part of the American right. The right's hidden strength lies in its conservative base. America is almost unique in possessing a vibrant conservative movement. Every state boasts organisations fighting in favour of guns and against taxes and abortion. The Christian right can call upon megachurches and Evangelical colleges. Conservatives have also created a formidable counter-establishment of think-tanks and pressure groups.
And many Americans who are not members of the movement happily embrace the label “conservative”. They think of themselves as God-fearing patriots who dislike big government and are tough on crime and national security. In 2004 roughly a third of the voters identified themselves as conservatives; just over 20% identified themselves as “liberal” (as American left-wingers are somewhat strangely called). Conservatives have driven the policy debate on everything from crime to welfare to foreign policy.
Yet today this mighty movement is in deep trouble. Veteran activists are sunk in gloom (“I've never seen conservatives so downright fed up,” says Richard Viguerie, a conservative stalwart). And the other side is cock-a-hoop. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, describes the shift from conservatism as “breathtaking”.
The Democrats are well positioned to retake the White House in 2008. True, the Republican front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, a “big tent” Republican who combines liberal views on abortion and gay marriage with stellar credentials as “America's mayor”, is a strong candidate. The Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, suffers from high negatives and a scandal-prone husband. But the Clinton operation looks far more professional than Mr Giuliani's—and he has plenty of scandals of his own.
Overall, the Democrats are much more confident: 40% of Republicans believe that the Democrats will win, but just 12% of Democrats believe that the Republicans will win. They are more motivated: in the second quarter the two leading Democrats raised $60m, against just $32m for the two leading Republicans. And 61% of Democratic primary voters are happy with their choice of candidates, compared with only 36% of Republicans. Generic polls show voters expressing a preference for a Democratic president by a 24-point margin, a gap unheard of since the Watergate era.
The Democrats are also likely to keep Congress. The tide that enabled the party to pick up 31 House seats and six Senate seats in 2006, along with six governorships and 321 state-legislature seats, is still swelling. The Republicans will be defending more vulnerable Senate seats than the Democrats in 2008, and they are losing the race for cash. The public favours Democratic control of Congress by a margin of 10-15 points. Off the record, Republicans use words like “catastrophe” and “Armageddon” to refer to 2008.
The issues that people care about are also tipping the Democrats' way. A Pew Research poll in March discovered growing worry about income inequality combined with growing support for the social safety net. The proportion of Americans who believe that “the government should help the needy even if it means greater debt” has risen from 41% in 1994, at the height of the Republican revolution, to 54% today. The poll also revealed a decline in support for the things that drove the Republican resurgence in the mid-1990s, such as traditional moral values.
In 2002 the electorate was equally divided between Democrats and Democratic-leaners (43%) and Republicans and Republican-leaners (43%). Today only 35% align themselves with Republicans, and 50% with Democrats. The Republicans are doing particularly badly among independents (the fastest-growing group in the electorate) and younger voters. The proportion of 18-25-year-olds who identify with the Republican Party has declined from 55% in 1991 to 35% in 2006, according to Pew. Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster, notes that the share of Republican voters aged 55 and over has increased from 28% in 1997 to 41% today, whereas the share aged 18-34 has fallen from 25% to 17%. No wonder Ken Mehlman, a former Republican Party chairman who oversaw George Bush's 2004 victory, is now advising hedge funds on how to deal with a Democratic-leaning America.
The Republicans have alienated America's fastest-growing electoral block—Hispanics—with their visceral opposition to immigration reform. Nearly 70% of Hispanics voted Democratic in House races in 2006, up from 55% in 2004. That trend is sure to have been solidified by the Republicans' recent scuppering of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, in a revolt sodden with xenophobia. Lyndon Johnson once noted that the Democrats' support for civil rights had cost them the South for a generation; the Republican Party's opposition to immigration reform may well have cost it the Hispanic vote for a generation.
Republicans have also whipped up a storm of opposition among middle-of-the-road voters on social issues. The religious right's opposition to abortion has always been an electoral liability: only 30% of voters favour overturning Roe v Wade. But in the past few years social conservatives tested people's patience still further over a federal marriage amendment and Terri Schiavo. Fully 72% of Republican voters opposed the Republicans' attempt to use the might of the federal government to keep the brain-dead woman alive. The voters got their revenge in the 2006 mid-term elections—“bloody Tuesday” in the words of Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group. Rick Santorum, once the religious right's most prominent champion in the Senate, barely scraped 41% of the vote in Pennsylvania. Ken Blackwell, social conservatism's most prominent black champion, went down to a humiliating defeat in the race for the Ohio governorship. Social conservatives lost ballot initiatives on everything from abortion to gay marriage.
Why the conservative crack-up?
The obvious cause of the right's implosion is the implosion of the Bush presidency. Mr Bush has the worst approval ratings since Jimmy Carter—29% according to Newsweek and 31% according to NBC News. Only 19% of Americans think that America is headed in the right direction under Mr Bush. An astonishing 45% of Americans, including 13% of Republicans, support impeaching Mr Bush, according to the American Research Group.
The most obvious cause of the implosion of the Bush presidency is the disaster in Iraq. The Republican Party's biggest advantage over the Democrats has long been on foreign and defence policy. You voted Democratic if you cared about schools and hospitals. But you voted Republican if you cared more about keeping America safe in a dangerous world. September 11th 2001 turbo-charged that advantage. The Republicans used the “war on terror” to roll over the Democrats in elections in 2002 and again in 2004.
But the war in Iraq has buried this vital advantage under a mound of discredited hype (“mission accomplished”) and mind-boggling incompetence. A CBS News/New York Times poll found that only 25% of people approved of Mr Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 63% of respondents did not trust the Bush administration to report honestly about possible threats from other countries. The damage is not limited to the Bush administration: a Rasmussen poll on July 25th-26th found that Mrs Clinton outscores Mr Giuliani as the candidate voters trust most on national security.
Mr Bush has also presided over the biggest expansion in government spending since his fellow Texan, Lyndon Johnson, provoking fury on the right. His prescription-drug benefit was the largest expansion of government entitlements in 40 years. He has increased federal education spending by about 60% and added some 7,000 pages of new federal regulations. Pat Toomey, the head of the Club for Growth, says the conservative base feels “disgust with what appears to be a complete abandonment of limited government.”
Many conservative activists would like to pin the blame on Mr Bush alone—either because he pursued foolish policies (the paleo-conservative version) or because he pursued sensible policies in a cack-handed manner (the neoconservative version). William Buckley, the conservative movement's pope, says that, if Mr Bush were the leader of a parliamentary system, “it would be expected that he would retire or resign.” Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan-administration economist, accuses him of “betraying” the conservative movement. Other conservatives would like to pin the blame on the Republican Party. “We have to recognise that this was a defeat for Republicans, not for conservatives,” Newt Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House, argued after the 2006 mid-term elections.
In fact, the Republican Party in Congress is just as responsible as Mr Bush for most of the recent troubles. The Republican majority routinely appropriated more spending than the president asked for. It also larded spending bills with as much extra pork as possible. The number of congressional “earmarks” for projects in members' districts increased from 1,300 in 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress, to 14,000 in 2005.
The Republican majority also cheered Mr Bush all the way to Baghdad. Add to this the corruption of congressmen like Tom DeLay, a conservative hero, and the semi-corrupt institutional relationship that the Republicans formed with lobbyists, and you see that Mr Bush was only part of a much bigger problem.
Nor can conservatives claim that Mr Bush is a country-club Republican like his father. He has devoted his energies to giving “the movement” what it wants: the invasion of Iraq for the neoconservatives (who had championed it long before September 11th); tax cuts for business and the small-government conservatives; restricting federal funding for stem-cell research for the social conservatives; and conservative judges to please every faction.
This desire to pander to the conservative movement is partly to blame for the administration's practical incompetence. Mr Bush outdid previous Republican presidents in recruiting his personnel from the conservative counter-establishment. But this often meant choosing people for their ideological purity rather than their competence or intelligence. Some 150 Bush administration officials were graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University, including Monica Goodling, who put on such a lamentable performance before a House inquiry into the firing of nine US attorneys. A more pragmatic president would surely have sacked many of the neoconservative ideologues who have made a hash of American foreign policy
The Republicans' problems are creating a civil war on the right about how to dig themselves out of their hole. This is producing some spectacular intellectual fireworks—fireworks that prove there is still a lot of intellectual life in the right. But such internal strife tends to put off the voters. And this civil war has the added problem that, from the point of view of broadening the Republican coalition, the wrong side has won too many important battles, not least on immigration.
One fight is over the size and scope of government. Small-government conservatives accuse Mr Bush of betraying conservatism's core principle: that government is the problem rather than the solution. Big-government conservatives retort that there is only a limited constituency for small government. The general public strongly opposes cutting entitlements. “Anti-government conservatism turns out to be a strange kind of idealism,” argues Michael Gerson, Mr Bush's former speechwriter, “an idealism that strangles mercy.”
A second fight is over social conservatism. Libertarians argue that the Republican Party is too much in the pocket of ageing social conservatives such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, activists who do not represent the views of common-or-garden Evangelicals let alone middle-of-the-road Americans. Social conservatives retort that they are the people who deliver the votes: if the Republican Party relies only on business conservatives and libertarians, it will be reduced to a rump.
A third fight concerns Mr Bush's foreign policy, particularly his stubborn defence of the Iraq war. Some conservatives predicted that the “war on terror” might take the place of the “war on communism”, both as a glue holding conservatism together and a guarantee of long-term Republican advantage over the Democrats. That happened for a while. But the sustained unrest in Iraq has opened deep divisions on the right—not least between Mr Bush (who rides off into the sunset in January 2009) and politicians who would like to hang around for a bit longer. Senate Republicans are on the verge of a full-scale revolt against the White House.
Dead right?
It is always tempting to read too much into this or that crisis. David Frum predicted doom for his fellow travellers in “Dead Right” just as Mr Gingrich was about to seize control of Congress. Emmett Tyrell described a conservative crack-up only to see the movement come back together.
The Democrats' good fortune is much more the result of a Republican collapse than a Democratic revival. The March Pew poll shows that the proportion of people who express a positive view of the Democratic Party has actually declined by six points since January 2001. It's just that the proportion of people who express a positive view of the Republican Party has declined by 15 points. The Democratic-controlled Congress is even more unpopular than the Bush White House, with the lowest approval rating in 35 years.
Illustration by Kevin Kallaugher
Americans remain sceptical about the Democrats' favourite tool for improving the world—government action. A Democracy Corps poll found that Americans believe by a majority of 57% to 29% that government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life. The same poll found that 83% of people believe that, if the government had more money, it would probably waste it, the highest level of anti-government sentiment in a decade. America is not entering into a new era of liberal activism.
The Democrats have ceded a lot of ground to the conservatives. The party has sidelined liberal groups who oppose the death penalty or want to restrict gun-ownership. The big three Democratic presidential candidates compete with each other to prove how religious they are: Mrs Clinton repeatedly claims that she is a “praying person” who once considered becoming a Methodist minister. The Party put forward anti-abortion candidates in both Colorado and Pennsylvania.
And the conservative movement is at its most deadly as an insurgency. The movement was born during the 1964 Goldwater campaign as a revolt against the liberal establishment. It enjoyed its glory days when it was battling Hillarycare and trying to impeach Bill Clinton. A Clinton presidential nomination would undoubtedly reunite and re-energise the movement. Deeply rooted in gun clubs, anti-tax groups, right-to-life groups and Evangelical churches, American conservatives will never be reduced to the feeble status of their British cousins.
But even when you enter all the qualifications the right's situation is dire. It is a sign of weakness that the conservatives are retreating to their old posture as insurgents, and need a bogeywoman like Mrs Clinton to hold them together.
The Republicans have failed the most important test of any political movement—wielding power successfully. They have botched a war. They have splurged on spending. And they have alienated a huge section of the population. It is now the Democrats' game to win or lose.
"The most heated moments from tonight's AFL-CIO forum came when the topic turned to Senator Barack Obama and his claim for the last debate that he would invade Pakistan to fight terrorism, even without permission from President Pervez Musharraf. Senator Chris Dodd was asked about his critical response to Obama's statements and reiterates his criticism and things get going from there. Obama stands his ground and jabs Dodd and Clinton for voting for the invasion of Iraq, then turning around and attacking him "for making sure we are on the right battlefield, and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism," which drew huge applause from the audience."
Six foreign nationals stage a protest against Chinese rule of Tibet
Canadian protesters held in China
ROD MICKLEBURGH
Globe and Mail Update
August 8, 2007 at 6:43 AM EDT
VANCOUVER — Intent on shining an international spotlight on China's human-rights record as it begins a year-long countdown to the 2008 Olympics, two Vancouver activists unfurled a large pro-Tibet banner on the famous Great Wall Tuesday and were promptly arrested.
A third Canadian from the group that sponsored the demonstration was arrested on Wednesday.
Melanie Raoul, 25, and Sam Price, 32, had rappelled down the side of the Great Wall of China to display a banner that read "One World, One Dream, Free Tibet 2008."
The message remained in place for about 90 minutes before Chinese security forces were able to take it down and arrest all six protesters involved in the bold action, which had been meticulously planned in Vancouver over the past few weeks. Videos Students for a Free Tibet's executive director Lhadon Tethong in Beijing
Group harnesses power of Internet
Dramatic demonstration organized by Students for a Free Tibet Internet Links
* Students for a Free Tibet Popup * Lhadon Tethong blog Popup
The Globe and Mail
"People said they were put into a brown station wagon and zipped away with members of the Chinese police," said Melanie's father, Yvon Raoul. "That's all we know."
The caper was organized by Students for a Free Tibet, which timed it purposely to coincide with lavish ceremonies this week to mark the one-year countdown to the Olympics in Beijing.
"We wanted to bring the issue of Tibet into China's Olympic celebrations a year ahead of time," said Freya Putt, Victoria-based spokeswoman for the international organization that advocates an end to Chinese occupation of the remote Himalayan region.
On Wednesday, the group said Ladon Tethong, its Tibetan-Canadian executive director, was arrested in Beijing along with a colleague, Paul Golding.
The group says Ms. Tethong has been travelling in Beijing for the past week, writing on her blog about what it calls China's "propaganda campaign" leading up to next year's Olympic Games.
Duncan Price, head of obstetrics and gynecology at Surrey Memorial Hospital, was between cases when he noticed news of his son's exploits on TV. "I'm a little bit worried about him, but I support what he's doing. I know how determined and passionate he is about the cause of the Tibetan people," Dr. Price said.
Both fathers said Canadian officials had not yet contacted them about the pair's detention in China.
Protesters' parents fear China's wrath
According to Foreign Affairs spokesman Bernard Nguyen, the Canadian embassy in Beijing has asked Chinese authorities for confirmation that two Canadians have been arrested in connection with the protest, but have received no reply. "If they have indeed been arrested, then we will seek immediate consular access," Mr. Nguyen said late Tuesday from Ottawa.
In the past, China has quickly deported Westerners who stage protests on Chinese soil, but Dr. Price and Mr. Raoul are worried that the audacious nature of this action — staged on the country's greatest historic attraction and connected to the coming Olympics — could prompt a harsher response.
"The Great Wall is a very symbolic icon of China," Mr. Raoul said. "Are they going to get fed up and react in an irrational way? Or will they be mellowed by the fact the Olympics are coming and they can't afford a scandal? It's a hard country to read, but I think it would be cruel to keep the two of them in jail."
Ms. Putt said the group, which also included two Americans and two Britons, made a firm decision not to involve Tibetans in their action.
"All of them knew the risk they were taking, but they decided to use the freedom they have as foreigners in China to take their message to the Chinese government," she said. "They knew that if Tibetans had voiced a protest, the Tibetans would be facing multiple-year jail sentences."
And it did not take long for a video of the unprecedented protest, featuring the rappelling Ms. Raoul and Mr. Rice, to appear on YouTube.
Ms. Tethong, the Canadian-born executive director of Students for a Free Tibet, had been in Beijing writing a daily blog at beijingwideopen.org about her efforts to press the Tibetan cause with International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge.
After the banner protest, Ms. Tethong blogged: "We don't know where the 'Great Wall 6' are right now. There is no word yet. … We trust the Chinese authorities will treat them well and release them soon. The whole world is watching."
Ms. Putt said Tuesday's civil disobedience is merely the beginning of a year-long campaign to use the Olympics as a way to press the Chinese government over Tibet. "China is running Olympic ads to make it seem that Tibet is a happy part of China. We are trying to shine the spotlight on the reality there," she said.
Tuesday's protest is not Mr. Price's first in China on behalf of Tibetan independence. In 2001, he and Kate Woznow were deported after disrupting a China-Canada business meeting attended by then-prime minister Jean Chrétien and key Canadian executives.
Mr. Price has been an SFT member since 1999. Ms. Raoul, described by her father as "quite an athlete and a wonderful human being," has belonged to the organization since 2001.
"Those two really believe in what they're doing. You can't tell people like that what to do or not do," Mr. Raoul said.
Official theatrical trailer for the documentary "Iraq In Fragments," directed by James Longley. The film, distributed by Typecast Releasing in association with HBO Documentary Films, will have its theatrical premiere in New York City on November 8, 2006, and will open in select U.S. cities later that month. "Iraq In Fragments," an audience favorite on the international film festival circuit, was the winner of three awards at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, among many other honors.
The Academy Award nominated documentary, "My Country, My Country," by Laura Poitras, is an unforgettable journey into the heart of war-ravaged Iraq in the months leading up to the January 2005 elections. Symbolized by fingers marked with purple ink, the 2005 elections posed challenges to all sides of the debate about the war. Listen to a podcast interview with the filmmaker and watch video not included in the film at www.pbs.org/pov.
This fall, the midterm elections will be among the most fiercely contested in American history. And, you can count on one thing. Karl Rove ... all » will be calling the shots. He will be the key Republican strategist. He will do whatever it takes to insure that the Republican majority is still intact in November.
BUSH'S BRAIN chronicles the life and work of Karl Rove. When we began shooting BUSH'S BRAIN, Karl Rove was unknown to most of us. He was the most powerful man America had never heard of. He was the "Wizard of Oz" behind the curtain of the Bush Presidency.
Now, in 2006, things have certainly changed. Most Americans now know the name "Karl Rove". They probably even know him by the nickname "BUSH'S BRAIN". They know he has engineered two Presidential victories for George W. Bush. They know he is smart. They know he is effective. They may even think of him as ruthless. Machiavellian.
But, even now, what most Americans don't know or understand… is the "Rove M.O.". They don't know how Karl Rove actually operates.
BUSH'S BRAIN is a primer on how Karl Rove operates. If you want to understand what happened in the elections of 2000 and 2004, you should see this film. If you want to know what will probably happen this fall, you must see this film.
This documentary is built around over 20 hours of interviews that director Errol Morris conducted with Robert McNamara (1916-), which is supplemented by archival footage and supplementary interviews. Robert McNamara was the Secretary of Defense during both the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson presidential administrations, and as such was a key figure in the Vietnam War.
An eye-opening look inside the "vast right-wing conspiracy" identified by Hilary Clinton as committed to driving her husband from the presidency. Featuring acid portraits of Clinton nemeses, from Gennifer Flowers to Kenneth Starr, longtime Clinton friend Harry Thomason's documentary is an entertaining look at a particularly bilious time in American politics.
Movie: Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election
Fillmmakers Richard Ray Perez and Joan Sekler take a look at the 2000 Presidential election, and the controversy and scandal that surrounded it. Examining the accusations of vote-rigging and suspicious irregularities that don't appear to add up, the two filmmakers expose some sinister going's on that appear to undermine the very notion of democracy.
This documentary film takes us inside Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign and the exciting, topsy-turvy race that proved to be one of the most memorable in U.S. history and came to define American political discourse in the 1990s. Directed by D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus.
Unfortunately things fell through with both the Penguins and Predators for Jim Balsillie. Hopefully through expansion or another purchase, Hamilton will finally get their team. There is no question an NHL team in Hamilton would be great for Canada's hockey fans, the local economy and NHL stability. Let's hope this dream becomes reality in the near future. The NHL should be a lot more respectful of a true hockey fan and great potential owner in Jim Balsillie.
Thanks for reading...
Darryl
******************
Rebuffing RIM boss, Nashville Predators eye local bid for ownership
DAVID NAYLOR
August 1, 2007
It appears the Nashville Predators will be staying in the Tennessee capital after all.
A group of Nashville investors is expected to announce today that it has signed a letter of intent to purchase the nine-year franchise from owner Craig Leipold for between $175-million (all figures U.S.) and $190-million, according to a source familiar with the deal.
The group, which consists of a half dozen local businessmen, hopes to have a binding agreement by mid-August, allowing for approval by the NHL board of governors and change of ownership before next season starts.
"We're getting close," Herb Fritch, CEO of Healthspring Inc. and a member of the local ownership group, said yesterday. "Right now it's moving right along. The time frame is pretty short to get a deal done before the start of the season, but I think that's what everyone is striving for."
Today's anticipated announcement is the latest twist in a saga that began in February when Mr. Leipold entered talks with Canadian businessman Jim Balsillie, the co-chief executive officer of Research In Motion. Roughly three months later, Mr. Leipold announced he'd signed a letter of intent to sell his team to Mr. Balsillie for a reported $238-million.
But talks broke off without a binding deal in late June after the National Hockey League refused to consider Mr. Balsillie's application to relocate the franchise to Hamilton, arguing it couldn't do so while the team had a valid lease in Nashville.
That lease states the Predators are bound to the Sommet Centre unless the team averages fewer than 14,000 fans a game in consecutive seasons.
Last season, with one of the best teams in hockey, the Predators averaged just 13,815, a figure many presumed would decrease this season because the team has spent the summer shedding payroll.
However, a group of local businessmen, not associated with the group that is purchasing the team, rallied new ticket sales to the point where 14,000 fans a game during the 2007-08 season looks like a realistic target.
The Predators have sold roughly 2,000 new season-ticket subscriptions, bringing their overall total to about 8,900. That's slightly higher than the final season-ticket number of a year ago.
But with the club's major push still to come, it's now widely assumed that the 14,000-fans-a-game target will be achieved.
"Our whole focus has been to raise awareness in the community that if we sold enough tickets, it ensures we keep that lease," said Ron Samuels, CEO of Avenue Bank, who helped organize a ticket rally on July 19 that sold 800 season tickets in one day. "There is a strong fan base here. It's just that after the lockout a lot of people reduced what they were doing and we never got it back. It's very exciting to see Nashville step up, and we think we had something to do with raising awareness, getting people out and finding new leads."
The revived support not only diminished Mr. Balsillie's chances of re-entering the picture, but also cut out William (Boots) Del Biaggio, who had offered $190-million with the intent to move the team to Kansas City.
Mr. Leipold and representatives of the local ownership group met with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman on July 18 in New York.
Richard Rodier, Mr. Balsillie's lawyer, had no comment on the prospect of the local group's anticipated announcement today. This is the second time Mr. Balsillie has been left at the altar in his attempt to purchase an NHL team. Last fall, his $175-million offer to buy the Pittsburgh Penguins also fell apart when he and the NHL couldn't agree on terms that would allow him to move the team.
Whether he'll be back for a third try is an interesting question. The NHL has made no secret of its disdain for the way Mr. Balsillie aggressively pursued relocating the Predators to Hamilton. Meanwhile, Mr. Rodier has publicly accused Mr. Bettman of scuttling the deal because of his anti-Canadian bias.
Others in hockey circles are convinced Mr. Balsillie's Hamilton deal died because the NHL is wary of a legal fight over territorial rights that might come from Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, which owns the Toronto Maple Leafs.
While the Predators won't be moving any time soon, its new owners will have a significant challenge ahead of them.
Mr. Leipold has apparently lost $70-million over 10 years, including $27-million in the two seasons since the NHL lockout ended.
The local ownership group isn't sure it can ever break even on hockey business. But it believes there are other ways to cut the losses on the arena management side of the business.
The group is also negotiating for a fixed annual contribution from the City of Nashville of roughly $5-million.
********************
Balsillie group accuses Bettman of forcing Preds to break off talks
Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie has accused NHL commissioner Gary Bettman of forcing the owner of the Nashville Predators to break off discussions about the sale of the team to Balsillie, ESPN.com has learned.
The Canadian ownership group also alleges Bettman directed Predators owner Craig Leipold to focus on closing a deal with William "Boots" Del Biaggio III, who is the front man for a group trying to bring an NHL team to Kansas City.
"We were advised by Mr. Leipold that the commissioner had found out about the existence of the negotiations and ordered him to immediately cease any further communications with us," Balsillie's legal representative, Richard Rodier, told ESPN.com this week.
AP Photo/Mark Humphrey
Craig Leipold confirmed in late May that he signed a letter of intent to sell the Preds to Jim Balsillie after losing $70 million in 10 years of ownership.
In a series of e-mails obtained by ESPN.com, Leipold and Rodier discuss Bettman's alleged involvement in the breaking off of negotiations between the two sides and the commissioner's uneasiness with the prospect of a deal being signed between the two parties.
Bettman has denied the allegations. Still, the accusations raise questions about whether the commissioner overstepped his bounds. The issue could lead to a showdown with the NHL's board of governors over whether Bettman acted appropriately and with the best interests of the league. The board is scheduled to meet next in September, likely in Chicago.
At the heart of the matter is a team whose sale will have repercussions for the NHL for years to come. The battle for ownership of the Nashville Predators might be the single-most important moment for the league in decades, even eclipsing in importance the lockout that scuttled the 2004-05 season.
On one side is Bettman, whose vision of the NHL continues to be one that includes teams scattered across America, even if many of those American markets are floundering. The failure of the Predators reflects badly on Bettman's vision. Their failure is his failure.
On the other side is Balsillie, who wishes to make the Predators the seventh Canadian team in a country whose love of the game seems to know no bounds. Balsillie has made it clear he would like to own an NHL team in Southern Ontario, specifically Hamilton, a blue-collar city west of Toronto. The six Canadian teams -- Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver -- currently generate one-third of the 30-team league's revenues.
Many players have told ESPN.com they believe a new team in Hamilton would generate significantly more revenue than a team in Kansas City. Governors and GMs have told ESPN.com in the past year they believe a second team in Southern Ontario would be a surefire success. Phoenix Coyotes coach Wayne Gretzky, still one of hockey's most influential figures, recently said he thought a team in Hamilton would be a success.
In between these two solitudes sit Leipold and the Predators.
Leipold was sold on the league and the city of Nashville by Bettman a decade ago, but has since lost $70 million, $27 million in the two years since the end of the lockout. Even with one of the most active marketing departments in the NHL and one of the most exciting teams in the league, the Predators' average paid attendance last season was 13,815. After failing to find local investors to help shoulder the economic burden, Leipold decided to sell the team.
Enter Balsillie, the Canadian businessman who became wealthy beyond his wildest dreams by developing the BlackBerry personal technology device. A long-time hockey fan and player, it is Balsillie's dream not just to own an NHL team, but own a team in Canada.
Balsillie had been unanimously approved by the NHL's board of governors last winter as the new owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins. But when the league tried to enforce a number of last-minute stipulations on Balsillie's ownership, including restricting his ability to move the team and allowing for the league essentially to take control of the Penguins under certain circumstances, Balsillie walked away.
The Penguins, thanks to the intervention of Bettman and deputy NHL commissioner Bill Daly, ultimately were able to secure a new arena deal for owners Mario Lemieux et al. A short time later, unbeknownst to Bettman, Balsillie entered into discussions with Leipold to purchase the Predators.
In late April, the two sides were discussing the possible sale of the team to Balsillie at a price of $200 million. That figure was about $10 million more than the amount Del Biaggio's group was rumored to have been offering.
Contacted by The Sports Network of Canada hockey analyst Darren Dreger about the negotiations, Bettman denied there was any activity. According to Rodier, when Bettman found out they were on the verge of signing a letter of intent, he angrily called Leipold and told him to back off.
In e-mail communication during the first week of May, both Rodier and Leipold refer to the situation as Bettman's "cease and desist" order. In one communication dated May 4, Leipold writes, "I would say the cease and desist order is still in play."
Bettman declined to speak to ESPN.com directly. But in response to questions from ESPN.com about the e-mail exchanges NHL spokesman Gary Meagher said, "the commissioner never issued a cease and desist order to Mr. Leipold."
When pressed further about whether Bettman had ever asked Leipold to back off in his negotiations with Balsillie, Meagher said he "absolutely" did not, and further, "there is no e-mail properly read and understood that would indicate to the contrary."
But in another e-mail to Rodier on May 3, Leipold wrote that he needed time "to smooth things over" with Bettman. A few days later on May 6, Rodier asked Leipold in an e-mail: "Will you be talking to gary [sic] to calm him down some more??.[sic]"
The other issue is whether Bettman was trying to freeze Balsillie out of the purchase process.
On May 6, Rodier wrote to Leipold: "If we are to break off because Gary wants to kill any possible deal for a team in Hamilton, then let us know now … and we can move on and you can take the deal with the KC group which is inferior to ours in every way except one."
In response, Leipold wrote, "the 'cease and desist' analogy (my language not Gary's), applies to your situation because of the leak that generated from your side."
The response seems to suggest that Leipold was forbidden from speaking to Balsillie, but not any other parties.
Shortly after these e-mail exchanges, Balsillie elected to bump his bid to the current $238 million offer in an effort to keep the negotiations on track. Leipold reportedly went back to Bettman and said he couldn't afford to pass up an offer at that amount. Leipold later signed a letter of intent to sell the team to Balsillie.
Negotiations subsequently went off the rails in part after Balsillie secured a lease for Copps Coliseum in Hamilton and took 14,000 deposits for season tickets over a two-day period. Both activities received widespread media attention and prompted a number of NHL sources to complain Balsillie was being too brash. Others noted Balsillie's actions were an attempt to level the playing field with the other main contender in Kansas City, where an arena is ready and suites have been sold. That arena is operated by the Anschutz Entertainment Group. The Anschutz family owns the NHL's Los Angeles Kings.
Having an arena and proving that the market can support an NHL franchise are both requirements spelled out in the NHL's bylaws as requirements for applying to relocate an NHL franchise.
In a series of e-mails with ESPN.com this week, Leipold insisted the e-mails between him and Rodier do not tell the whole story and the full disclosure of communication between the two sides would tell a different story. But Leipold would not provide further information and described Rodier as a "rogue lawyer."
Rodier told ESPN.com there was no other communication that would alter the perception of these e-mails.
What happens now is anyone's guess.
On Wednesday in New York, Bettman met with Leipold and a group of Nashville-area businessmen who would like to buy the team. But sources close to the talks say the local bid will be millions of dollars lower than even the Del Biaggio bid, which is said to be shrinking as this drama unfolds. Further, Del Biaggio is said to be more interested in a possible expansion franchise than trying to untangle the Predators' web and move the team to Kansas City.
Even local Nashville ownership hopefuls have acknowledged that simply hitting the 14,000-average paid attendance threshold needed for the coming season to keep the current lease alive isn't enough to secure the team's future in Music City. The Tennessean hockey writer John Glennon has reported that potential owners say the team would need to average 16,000 in paid attendance over 41 home dates to break even. The team has never approached that number since its inception.
Leipold has been seen as a model owner. He marketed the team aggressively, at least until this season when the marketing budget has been reduced, and hired top hockey people such as David Poile to manage and Barry Trotz to coach. The Predators drafted well and developed talent patiently. Still, it is almost certain to continue to be a financial failure for as long as the team remains in Nashville.
If that's the case, given Balsillie's claim of Bettman's alleged tampering in the sale process, it's hard to imagine a scenario under which Balsillie could become an NHL owner while Bettman is still NHL commissioner.
Ultimately, these will be issues decided by the league's board of governors.
Scott Burnside is the NHL writer for ESPN.com.
******************
Deposits for "Hamilton Predators" begins
Jim Balsillie
Canadian Press
6/14/2007 8:42:17 PM
There's no guarantee the NHL is headed to Hamilton but that hasn't stopped hockey fans from opening their wallets.
Ticketmaster began taking deposits for "Hamilton Predators" season tickets on Thursday even though Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie's purchase of the NHL team in Nashville has yet to be approved.
Balsillie's lawyer Richard Rodier was reluctant to comment on ticket sales when reached late Thursday afternoon, but did say that almost 60 deposits of $5,000 for corporate boxes at Copps Coliseum had been received.
Sources tell TSN that there have been more than 4,700 deposits for lower bowl seats and almost 2,500 deposits for upper bowl seats.
"I've put a cut-off on the suites because we're quickly approaching selling out the suites," said Rodier, before adding: "You can take that as a reflection of interest generally."
A Ticketmaster spokesperson said it was against company policy to release information on ticket sales.
The tickets are being offered on a first-come, first-serve basis and deposits will be refunded if the team isn't moved to Hamilton by December 2009. Those who put down money can also receive a refund for any reason in the meantime.
While $5,000 is required to reserve a corporate box, a $500 deposit will get you an upper bowl seat and $1,000 is needed for a seat in the lower bowl.
"The money's perfectly safe, it's kept in a trust fund with Ticketmaster, it's refundable for any reason whatsoever at any time," said Rodier.
Ryan Salter of Guelph, Ont., split the deposit on two upper bowl tickets with three friends.
Salter, 28, is a Calgary Flames fan and often travels to see NHL games in Buffalo, where his parents had four season tickets last year.
He wasn't concerned about forking out money for a deposit because his ticket group is "in for the long haul."
If the team ends up in Hamilton, Salter wants to be a part of the action. He feels the city can support an NHL franchise.
"The NHL pre-season games are always packed when they have them there," said Salter. "I don't think I'd have any trouble getting rid of my tickets on the off chance I didn't use them myself."
Salter's parents Ward and Diane Campbell also put down deposits on four season tickets in Hamilton. He also expected that other friends would be doing the same thing.
"There's been lots of talk over e-mail," said Salter.
The problem, of course, is that the team is still very much in Nashville and not even in Balsillie's control.
The NHL's board of governors has yet to approve Balsillie's proposed purchase of the Nashville team for between US$220 million and $238 million.
Rodier has said that Hamilton is a contingency plan in case things don't work out in Nashville. Despite having one of the best teams in the NHL last year, the Predators attendance was among the worst in the league.
Hamilton has long been rumoured as a potential NHL city and has actually held a ticket drive before. More than 13,000 season tickets were sold in 1990 when Hamilton was bidding for an expansion franchise.
Even with deposits being made through Ticketmaster, this could very well be another disappointment for those eager to see an NHL team in the city.
Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 17 grandchildren. 
Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.
The
Both agendas are based on the principle of the three North American countries working together to remove duplication and therefore reduce costs and burdens on exporters, importers and travellers. There is also a commitment to find consistencies ― for example, practices proposed or adopted in one country might address similar needs in the others. 
Both agendas are based on the principle of the three North American countries working together to remove duplication and therefore reduce costs and burdens on exporters, importers and travellers. There is also a commitment to find consistencies ― for example, practices proposed or adopted in one country might address similar needs in the others. 
The BIN IS IN and it’s going to change the way you think about garbage. Starting September 2007, your organic waste will be converted into rich compost for farming and landscaping instead of going to landfill. The Town strongly encourages use of the green bin to help the environment and to reach the Town’s diversion target of eliminating 65% of waste from landfill. Starting September, do something good for the earth and toss it in the bin. You'll be glad you did.
Continue to backyard compost! Backyard composting is an important part of Target Green. Green Bin collection simply expands your composting options by including items that can't be placed in your backyard composters such as diapers, meat and pet waste. 
Option #1: Line your small indoor container with a plastic, Kraft paper or biodegradable bag. Plastic grocery bags are ideal for this. Fill your indoor container with organics. Transfer your tied organic-filled bag into your Green Bin. Place your Green Bin at the curb on your collection day. 
Option #2: Line your Green Bin with a large plastic, Kraft paper or biodegradable bag. Fill your small indoor container with organics. Transfer loose organic material from your small indoor container into your lined Green Bin. Tie your Green Bin liner closed. Place your Green Bin at the curb on your collection day.
Member of the media looking for more information on the Town of 
