Green Homes Are the Place To Be

When we as Americans think of the oil industry and the subsequent energy crunch coming in the years ahead, we tend to think of only the automotive industry as the one needing reform. Certainly there as been much ado over the various companies racing to create cars that run on renewable energy such as biodiesel, ethanol, and the Holy Grail of eco-cars, hydrogen power. As anyone that reads this column knows, there are already cars on the market that are either oil/electric hybrids (Toyota Prius), or some other combination of ethanol/biodiesel et. al.

While renewable energy in the automotive industry is certainly one concern it is not the only concern. What people don’t realize is that socio-economic topics like energy or the environment are islands of concern simply isolated from one another. Cars that run on finite sources of energy also cause environmental damage and health problems. It’s a vicious circle. We support products that are cheaper in the short run but inevitably harm us and the environment, costing homeowners more money down the road (in health costs, environmental clean-up costs, and weather-related catastrophic damage to communities). Between the cars we drive, the food we eat, and the seemingly innocuous products we purchase (like beauty products containing carcinogenic ingredients or even t-shirts made with cotton most likely containing large amounts of herbicides and insecticides, many of which are known carcinogens) modern society has driven the cost of living sky high.

Beyond food, oil and consumer products lies an even greater source of mans economic and environmental woes. The very house you live in is probably toxic to one degree or another. That very same house is costing you extra in utility bills by running all of its various parts (appliances, heating/cooling apparatus, electricity etc.) on finite energy. In other words, the very homes we live in are killing us and stealing our dough.

A study of vacuum dust by he Citizen's Environmental Coalition and the Learning Disabilities Association of New York found the following results:

According to the Citizen's Environmental Coalition and the Learning Disabilities Association of New York, our homes are full of at least six dangerous chemicals.

The study examined vacuum dust from 70 homes throughout seven states.

According to the report, all 70 homes had evidence of the six chemicals.

The chemicals have been linked to cancer, developmental disorders and according to doctors -- may even alter the hormone levels in young children.

Sick of Dust report: Alkylphenols: found in laundry detergents, textiles, hair-coloring, pains and all-purpose cleaners.

Organotin Compounds: Found in PVC, polyvinyl chlorid, water pipes, PVC food packing materials, glass coatings, polyurethane foams, and many other consumer products.

Perfluorinated Organics: Used to make Teflon, Goretex and other oil-, water- and stain-resistant materials for nonstick frying pans, utensils, stove hoods, stain-proof carpets, furniture and clothes.

Pesticides: apply in and around homes for controlling infestations of various insects and used in carpets.

Pesticides include a wide range of chemicals.

Phthalates: Used primarily in vinyl products such as shower curtains, raincoats, toys, furniture and flooding.

Polybrominated dephenyl ethers: applied to textiles or incorporated into plastics, foams and electrical goods to prevent or slow the spread of fire.

Group leaders said the chemicals come from everyday products, such as house ware and cleaners.

16 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are generated from the energy used in houses nationwide. It is estimated that 50,000 people in the United States die each year from heart and lung disease due to air pollution linked to the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity for their homes.

Even if our homes weren’t cancer batteries, the cost of fueling them is causing many to go broke or avoid buying new homes in a labor environment where consumer costs is outpacing wages at an exponential rate. In short, even if the homes weren’t killing us, younger generations of workers are finding it infinitely more difficult to maintain them once we’ve moved in.

Like all problems there is a viable solution and its color is green. Green homes are not only environmentally friendly but the long term costs of fueling them will greatly lighten the economic burden we’re all carrying as well.

Built Green, is one of the growing numbers of companies dedicated to building healthier, safer, and energy efficient homes in the US. “Built Green promotes use of more durable building products. This not only saves resources, but also reduces maintenance and replacement costs and saves the owner valuable time.”

According to their site there are many features they employ to accomplish the above stated goals:

Quality Enhancing Features Of Built Green

Controlled Ventilation and Filtration - goes beyond code to provide a safer and healthier indoor environment.

"Friendly" Paints, Sealers, Adhesives and Solvents - low-toxic formulas reduce exposure to harmful chemicals.

Extra Energy Efficient Shell - going beyond code, the home provides a quieter, more comfortable interior prized by homeowners.

Recycled-Content Carpeting - looks and performs like conventional synthetic carpeting; is highly resistant to fading, stains, and static shock.

Natural Alternatives to Wood Flooring - in flooring and countertops, bamboo, cork, linoleum, for example, offer a natural look while being more stable and more long-lasting than conventional products.

Innovative Bio-Composite Products - new products add decorative flair to a home on the market.

Recycled-Content Ceramic Tile - performs like conventional ceramic tile.
"Friendly" Insulation - a variety available including low toxic, recycled content, and high density options.

Quality Enhancing Exterior Features

Fiber Cement Siding - lasts 30 years longer than conventional siding products and is easier to maintain.

Drought Tolerant Landscaping - protects and beautifies the site, reduces water consumption and routine yard maintenance.

Erosion Control and Preservation of Topsoil during construction not only protects soil from washing away into streams, but reapplying topsoil after construction helps plants grow better and require less irrigation.

Dollar Saving Features of Built Green

Advanced Framing Technique - provides more insulation while saving lumber costs by 10% or more.

Passive Solar Siting and Design - uses nature's energy, not the utility's, to supplement heating and lighting.

Radiant Floor Heating - generating an ambient temperature of 65 degrees can provide the same comfort as a forced air system generating an ambient temperature of 72 degrees, shaving 20% to 40% off heating bills.

Compact Fluorescent Lighting - uses one-quarter to one-third as much electricity as incandescents and last 10 times longer.

Front Loading (Horizontal-Axis) Clothes Washers - use one-third as much water as conventional washers, reducing water and energy use by two-thirds. They are also quieter and cause less wear on fabrics.

Native Landscaping - reduces water consumption as much as 50%, requires less maintenance and little or no chemical treatments.

Water-conserving Showerheads and Faucets - can cut hot water use in half, saving a family of four 14,000 gallons of water a year and the energy required to heat it.

The federal government is attempting to take lead in endeavoring to move toward Green homes and building via the Evironmental Protection Agency (EPA). First there is ENERGY STAR, which is a joint program of the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy helping us all save money and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices.

Their site states that if you want to save your life and the environment, in so few words, you should follow these guidelines:

If looking for new household products, look for ones that have earned the ENERGY STAR. They meet strict energy efficiency guidelines set by the EPA and US Department of Energy.

If looking for a new home, look for one that has earned the ENERGY STAR.

If looking to make larger improvements to your home, EPA offers tools and resources to help you plan and undertake projects to reduce your energy bills and improve home comfort.

In fact, the EPA has become the first federal agency to be powered %100 by green technology. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has closed a deal making it the first federal agency to purchase renewable energy, or "green power," equivalent to 100 percent of its annual electricity needs. The agency signed a contract with 3 Phases Energy Services to purchase more than 100 million kilowatt hours (kWh) in renewable energy certificates, effective Sept. 1. The arrangement extends annual green-power purchases to more than 190 EPA facilities nationwide.

This green-power purchase brings the agency total to nearly 300 million kWh per year, which is equivalent to 100 percent of the electricity EPA uses nationwide annually. It is enough electricity to power 27,970 homes for a year. (source)

One of the simplest ways to save money on heating and cooling is to replace your old insulation with environmentally friendly products. You can purchase insulation made from old denim scrap or recycled newspaper and the costs post-installation range in the $700 area.

There are options out there for people who are ready to get serious about their health, their wallet and the environment. Simply Google searching the term “Green House” will bring 100’s of advertisements for “green” products and contractors not to mention all the news that fit to print in newsletters and papers that don’t make the mainstream news cycle.

If you are planning to build a new home, are interested in just trying to cut some costs, are interested in having a house that isn’t slowly killing you, or are interested in a hot and rising investment opportunity, you should check out what’s new in the world of Green Homes.

The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks

There's nothing much more to say on this subject. At this point all I can be is a mini-portal a la Drudge Report and post articles that I deem important on the subject until that fateful day when the bombs (like the MOAB in the upper right corner) begin to drop on Irans nuclear facilities.

Iran is bracing itself for an expected American-led air campaign. The latter is in the advanced stages of military planning.

If there were to be war between the United States and Iran, the aerial campaign would unleash fierce combat. It would be fully interactive on multiple fronts. It would be a difficult battle involving active movement in the air from both sides.

If war were to occur, the estimates of casualties envisaged by American and British war planners would be high.

The expected wave of aerial attacks would resemble the tactics of the Israeli air-war against Lebanon and would follow the same template, but on a larger scale of execution.

The U.S. government and the Pentagon had an active role in graphing, both militarily and politically, the template of confrontation in Lebanon. The Israeli siege against Lebanon is in many regards a dress rehearsal for a planned attack on Iran.1

A war against Iran is one that could also include military operations against Syria. Multiple theatres would engulf many of the neighbors of Iran and Syria, including Iraq and Israel/Palestine.

It must also be noted that an attack on Iran would be of a scale which would dwarf the events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Levant. A full blown war on Iran would not only swallow up and incorporate these other conflicts. It would engulf the entire Middle East and Central Asian region into an extensive confrontation.

An American-led air campaign against Iran, if it were to be implemented, would be both similar and contrasting in its outline and intensity when compared to earlier Anglo-American sponsored confrontations.

The war would start with intense bombardment and attacks on Iran's infrastructure, but would be different in its scope of operations and intensity.

The characteristics of such a conflict would also be unpredictable because of Iran's capabilities to respond. And in all likelihood, Iran would launch its own potent attacks and extend the theatre of war by attacking U.S. and American-led troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf.

The United States must also take into account the fact that Iran unlike Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon would be an opponent with the capability to resist the US sponsored attacks on the ground, but also on the sea and in the air.

Unlike the former opponents faced by the United States and its partners, Iran would be able to target the military launch pads used by the United States. Iran would also be able to attack the U.S. supply and logistical hubs in the Persian Gulf. American ships carrying supplies, troops, and warplanes would be vulnerable to Iranian counter-attacks by way of Iranian missiles, warplanes, and naval forces. It is no mere coincidence that Iran has been demonstrating its military capabilities during the “Blow of Zolfaqar” war games conducted in late August .2

Iranian Preparations for an American-led Air Campaign

The United States has continually threatened to attack Iran. These threats are made under the pretext of halting the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. The development of nuclear weapons by Iran is something the IAEA and its inspectors have refuted as untrue3, but the United States insists on continuing the charade as grounds for a military endgame with Iran.

The threat of an American-led attack against Iran with the heavy involvement of Israel and Britain, amongst others, has primed Iran to prepare itself for the anticipated moment. Over the years, this has led Iran to stride for self-sufficiency in producing its own advanced military hardware and the development of asymmetrical tactics to combat the United States.

Iranian defense planners have stated publicly that they have learned from the cases of neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq. They are acutely aware of the U.S. military’s heavy reliance on aerial strikes.

August 2006 saw the start of the virtually unprecedented events of the Blow of Zolfaqar war games throughout Iran and its border provinces.4 These were similar to those conducted in April 2006.
The latter were also held during a period of tense confrontation between Iran and the United States.

April 2006 was a period that could have resulted in military conflict between both the United States and Iran. In April 2006, Iran had not only dismissed the deadline set on its nuclear program, but it announced in defiance to the United States that it had successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

Iran has taken the opportunity of the launching of both the April 2006 and Blow of Zolfaqar war games to display its preparedness and capability to engage in combat. Additionally, Iran has taken the occasion to fine tune its defenses and mobilize its military apparatus. This exhibition of Iranian military might is intended to deter America's intent to trigger another Middle Eastern war.

During the war games, the Iranian military has adjusted and modified its air defense shield for maximum dexterity and efficiency in preparation, to stop incoming missiles and invading aircraft..5 The war games have been an opportunity for testing of Iranian capacity to wage war in the air
The Iranian military has also reported the testing of laser-guided weaponry, advanced torpedoes, ballistic missiles, anti-ship missiles, bullets that pierce through bullet-proof vests, and electronic military hardware during the Blow of Zolfaqar war games.6 Surface-to-surface and ocean-to-surface missiles (submarine-to-surface missiles) in the Persian Gulf were also tested in late-August 2006. These included missiles that are invisible to radar and can use multiple warheads or carry multiple payloads to hit numerous targets simultaneously.

Iran has also tested a “2,000 pound guided-bomb with long-range capabilities.” This “2,000 pound bomb” is said to be a “special weapon developed for penetrating military, economic and strategic targets located deep underground or on the soil of the [impending] enemy.”7 In the case of war, this weapon could be directed against Anglo-American military infrastructure in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. This guided bomb is an unmanned aircraft carrying an explosive warhead. Following the execution of the Blow of Zolfaqar war games, the Iranian Defense Minister stated that “Iran now joins the few countries that possess guided missile technology,”8

Iran has also been manufacturing its own warplanes,9 submarines, attack helicopters, tanks, torpedoes, and missiles. This includes remote-controlled modified Maverick Missiles.10 Brigadier-General Amini, the Deputy Commander of the Air Branch (Air Force) of the Regular Forces, has highlighted that Iran has starting the development and manufacturing of new types of warplanes besides the “Lighting fighter jets” that have been showcased in Northern Iran.11

To discourage the United States in its plans to attack Iran, the Iranian military has additionally been showcasing its abilities to dog fight in the air with its fighter jets.12 Iranian fighter and bomber jets have been progressively equipped with advanced software and hardware, developed in Iran or by way of technology transfers from China, the Russian Federation, and the republics of the former Soviet Union.

Iranian Commanders have also stated that Iran can track and hit warplanes without using conventional radar. Iran has also been showcasing its signal jamming devices and electronic military hardware, which it compares to NATO standards13. Continued

Mexican Oil and Buying Power

Two stories out of Mexico today that seem to indicate just how the US will be dealing with our neighbor to the South in the coming years. The first one deals with their oil company PEMEX and the second, deals with the purchasing power of Mexican-Americans in the US.

Mexico Third in World Oil Production

Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) oil company is now third in world crude production as it reached 3.7 million barrels per day (mbd) this year.

The Mexican entity slightly surpassed its own average in 2005, identifying it as a leader in the energy sector, according to a bulletin edited by the PEMEX Social Communication and Information Management.

Ahead of PEMEX are the Saudi ARAMCO and National Iranian Oil (NIOC) of Iran, occupying the first and second places, respectively. The 2006 Statistical Yearbook of PEMEX recognizes Venezuelan state-run PDVSA in fourth place, followed by Exxon Mobil of the US, the British BP, Kuwait´s KPC and the consortium Royal Dutch Shell of Dutch and British capitals.

The list of the first ten is completed by PetroChina and INOC of Iraq. As for the output per country, Mexico holds the sixth place, ahead of Norway, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Nigeria, Canada and Venezuela.

The first place is held by Saudi Arabia with a volume beyond the 9.3 million barrels per day, followed by Russia, which also goes beyond the nine million mark, the United States with 5.1 million, Iran and China, with almost 4.0 million barrels per day each.

As for total sales, PEMEX went up from eighth to seventh place worldwide, boasting revenues of over 86 billion dollars in 2005.

The PEMEX yearbook also indicates that referring to primary destilation of hydrocarbons, the Mexican company was 12th in world ranking with an average of 1.5 million barrels per day.

As for proven crude reserves, Mexico holds the 14th place with around 15 billion barrels, while Saudi Arabia is first with over 264 billion barrels. The source estimates Mexico has 54 billion barrels of oil equivalent yet to be discovered, of which around 60 per cent is thought to lie in deep waters and the rest in land or shallow waters.

Latin American firms eye U.S. market

Three weeks out of every month, Luis Almeida sits in his office in Cicero, Ill., thousands of miles away from his family in Mexico City. The businessman suffers through his absence from them — and puts up with the state's famous bone-chilling winters and humid summers — for one reason. Actually, for billions of reasons: the dollars spent each year by Hispanics in the United States.

"The market is very big," said Almeida, whose firm sells Mexican food products to Hispanic grocers in the Midwest. "Consumption of the 40 million Hispanics in the U.S. is the same as the gross national product of Mexico, and Mexico has 110 million people."

Hispanics in the United States are expected to spend nearly $800 billion this year, according to a study released last month by the Selig Center for Economic Growth at the University of Georgia. By next year, their economic power should top $863 billion — outpacing blacks as the biggest spending minority group in the country, according to the study.

Mexico's gross domestic product is estimated at $811 billion this year, according to the
International Monetary Fund.

Almeida's company, Super Bodega Dona Lupe Inc., is one of more than 100 foreign businesses — mostly from Mexico — represented at the annual convention of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, held this week in Philadelphia. That is the highest number of foreign firms ever to participate in the convention, a chamber spokesman said.

Super Bodega Dona Lupe, which has an office and warehouse in Illinois, caters to Hispanics in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan and Minnesota. Almeida calls these states "emerging markets," with a fast-growing Hispanic population migrating from traditionally Latino-heavy states such as California, New York, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico.

While big companies in Mexico hawking brand name products already sell into the U.S. market, Almeida is an example of the smaller entrepreneurs seeking a niche in the Hispanic market. He started his business nearly four years ago, but sales of his Campo Mio, or "My Field," brand really got going last year. He ships 15 containers a month from Mexico to Laredo, Texas, and on to Chicago by rail.

Part of the delay in launching his products has been making sure the goods meet U.S. standards. Labels have to contain nutritional information and manufacturers have to meet U.S. quality standards.

One of his products, a Mexican gelatin, uses only food coloring approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In Mexico, he said, manufacturers use any type of food coloring — and usually opt for cheaper ones.

Almeida also has to compete with U.S. companies catering to Hispanic tastes. For example, he wanted to bring in salsa, but many U.S. companies already make it. So Almeida decided to bottle a kind of salsa that looks like chili paste, but with more oil in it. People can smear it on eggs or tortillas, he said.

Almeida also tries to make his products quick-cooking, since many Hispanics have adapted to the convenience cooking lifestyle prevalent in America.

"Although they are originally from Mexico, they are no longer Mexican in the way they are living and in their consumption," he said.

People are seen at the registration tables for the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce' annual Convention & Business Expo at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia, Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2006. The convention has attracted over 100 foreign firms who want to market to Hispanics in the U.S. due to their estimated buying power of nearly $800 billion this year.

Russia Returns to Africa

From Wikipedia: Cold War conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as the policies of the International Monetary Fund, also played a role in instability. When a country became independent for the first time, it was often expected to align with one of the two superpowers. Many countries in Northern Africa received Soviet military aid, while many in Central and Southern Africa were supported by the United States, France or both. The 1970s saw an escalation, as newly independent Angola and Mozambique aligned themselves with the Soviet Union and the West and South Africa sought to contain Soviet influence. Some countries were ruled by communist parties that sought to impose Soviet policies resulting in atrocities such as the Ethiopian famine of 1985-89.

Why is this important you might be asking? I read an article today that stated that Russia would be developing diamond minds throughout Africa:

Russian diamond giant ALROSA said on Wednesday that it was in talks to develop local diamond deposits in Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

ALROSA President Alexander Nichiporuk told a news briefing the company also planned to team up with Russian state-run oil firm Zarubezhneft to develop oil fields in Angola as part of a strategy to diversify its business away from diamond extraction.

"We have now launched work in Guinea and we have plans for other countries as well. As for Guinea, we have made real progress and we are now in talks with the government to obtain licences," Nichiporuk told Reuters after the briefing.

Nichiporuk, speaking in the northern town of Udachny in eastern Siberia, did not give further details on these planned deals or say how much they would be worth.

"The main thing is to have political stability in those countries. We're now considering possibilities of doing business in the Democratic Republic of Congo. They are gearing up for an election right now and we hope for stabilisation there," he said.

This reminded me of Soviet-era expansion into Africa, only this time capitalism is their ticket to ride.

Upon further exploration I found the above titled article that I think makes all the points I would have made about Russia's expanding interest in Africa.

Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, relations with African countries were relegated to the bottom of Russian priorities.

Cooperation with fifty or so African nations seemed to be of little value for the new market economy. Does this belief still hold true today?

In the early 1990s, Russia's own economic problems forced it to leave Africa. The transition from inter-state to business-to-business relations in foreign trade did not lead to immediate positive results. By 2000, Russia's trade with African countries fell 3.5-fold from $2.7 billion in 1994.

As the economy recovered and businesses developed, interest in Africa began to return. In Russia, the government traditionally lobbies any large business projects abroad. President Vladimir Putin's recent visit to African countries, including sub-Saharan Africa (he is the first of Soviet and Russian leaders to have ventured there), gives hope that the trend has finally been reversed. So what is Africa's current place in Moscow's foreign economic relations?

According to customs statistics, the entire continent accounted for 1.5% (over $900 million) of Russia's foreign trade (except the CIS countries) in 2002. By comparison, China's trade with Africa amounts to tens of billions of dollars. Chinese leader Hu Jintao said the country had become the fastest growing export market for African nations. International experts believe that in recent years China has been pursuing deals in Africa in order to gain full control over the supply of such commodities as copper and oil.

Today, Russian-African trade amounts to $2 billion, which is less than 1% in the continent's $250 billion trade turnover. This figure may not be completely accurate, however, because Russian statistics do not take into account the fact that a significant amount of Russian products - trucks, tractors, machines and industrial equipment - is supplied via Europe and Dubai by intermediaries from France and Belgium or by Russian offshore firms. Nevertheless, comparison with other developed countries clearly shows how far Russia has fallen behind in its trade with Africa: French-African trade turnover, for example, amounted to $26.6 billion in 1999.

This is a huge difference. Perhaps, Alexei Vasilyev, director of the Institute of African Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, was referring to this state of affairs when he described the last ten years of Russian-African cooperation as a decade of "lost opportunities".

It is also important to bear in mind some specific features of trade with Africa that have become prominent in the last 15 years. Vladimir Lopatov of the Institute of African Studies says that there is a stable trend of Russian exports prevailing over African imports. This testifies to African consumers' interest in Russian products. And, unlike the West, they are interested not only in commodities.

Moreover, while imports from industrialized countries are to a large extent aggressive, as they block the development of domestic industry and agriculture, purchases of commodities and products of tropical and subtropical agriculture in Africa serve to cover the shortage that cannot be bridged by home production.

It is also important that Russia, which acts as an energy and commodities supplier for the West, has traditionally supplied technologies to Africa. These are energy and construction equipment, trucks, tractors, machines, and modern weapons. Every dollar invested in Africa yields much bigger profits than investment in Asia and Latin America, to say nothing of developed countries. Hence the surge of foreign investment in the African economies.

President Putin's promise that Russian businesses will invest billions of dollars in African economies proves that Russia has serious plans about the continent.

At a meeting with ambassadors last June, President Putin said that the end of the Cold War had eliminated the previous division of Africa into east and west, opening up the entire continent to cooperation with Moscow. Russia did not have to start from scratch in rebuilding its economic relations with African countries. The Soviet Union built over 300 major economic facilities in Africa and trained tens of thousands of qualified specialists. In addition, in 1998-2004 Russia wrote off $14 billion of Africa's debt and gave trade preferences to 50 African nations. Africa appreciates it and knows that it needs Russia as much as Russia needs Africa.

Iran, France to sign $2.7b gas deal Wednesday

This was too good to pass up. The Iranian oil bourse (which will be backed by Euros instead of dollars) is about to start and now, as the title states, the French are about to sign a new gas deal with our good friends, Iran. Gee, I wonder why Chirac is now all of a sudden backing away from sanctions?

Despite the U.S. sanctions and business restriction on Iran, the coming Wednesday is to witness the inking of a finance agreement between National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) and French Societe General Bank for development plans in oil- and gas-rich southern Iran.

The $2.7b figure is going to finance the development projects at phases 17 and 18 of the South Pars Oil and Gas Field and the capital return will be satisfied by the revenues coming from gas and condensate sales.

Two drilling platforms equipped with water treatment units will bore 22 offshore development wells and two 32-inch pipelines are going to transfer the gas to onshore installations for refining and processing. Construction of flare stands and bridges, testing the wells and related services are among the works to be performed in these operations.

Phases 17 and 18 are anticipated to offer 56 million cubic meters of gas, 400 tons of sulfur and 80,000 barrels of condensates per day while the ethane and liquid gas production should hit one million tons each per annum.

Wheat allergies could become a thing of the past

I realize that we could be going to war with Iran any day now and I should be concentrating on that but hey, the main stream media has finally picked up the ball that I started writing about over a year ago so I suppose I can move on to other topics.

My wife has spent most of the night crying about her latest medical issue; she's allergic to wheat. A piece of bread or glazed donut won't kill her, however she will get flemmy and eventually have to go on antibiotics due to being congested. In the middle of her sobbing she cried that she can't even eat the wheat-free products we just bought because if she loads up on carbs she'll develop diabetes (she also suffers from insulin resistance, which she found out today her insulin was dangerously high). While there may be no easy answers for my dear sick wife, the world of food allergies may in fact be coming to an end in the not too far future.

The market for nut or wheat-free bakery products could see a slump within the next decade if research into the eradication of food allergies is successful.

Allergy sufferers, forced to shun wheat products and nuts, could be able to indulge thanks to new scientific findings, Dutch researchers have told the BA Festival of Science in England.
Such news however may put the dampeners on the free-from food market that has been enjoying sales growth of over 300 per cent in the UK since 2000, according to market analyst Mintel.

An estimated 4 per cent of adults and 8 per cent of children in the 380m EU population suffer from food allergies, according to the European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients' Associations and the specialised free-from baking industry has adapted to meet demand from sufferers.

However, while the eradication of wheat and nut allergies would reduce the free-from snacks and baking market, it could bring about a corresponding rise in standard products.

Wheat allergy is caused by a reaction to proteins found in the grain, it is not known how many suffer from the condition.

Dr. Ronald van Ree from the University of Amsterdam told attendees in Norwich that recent advances in biotechnology have identified the specific molecules in foods that induce food allergies.

Such knowledge could also lead to genetic engineering techniques to change these molecules so that they no longer cause an allergic response, said van Ree.

“Importantly, this allows scientists to develop hypo-allergenic variants of these molecules for application in safer immunotherapy that will induce little or no side-effects.”

Allergen labelling regulations that came into force on 25 November require companies to label all pre-packed foods if they contain any of the 12 listed allergenic foods – a list which includes cereals containing gluten, peanut, soybean and sesame seeds.

“Han Shot First,” and the Iranian Nuclear Program: an Essay on Geopolitical Ethics

Ever since September 11th, 2001, my friends and I (usually at my behest) will enter into a discussion about the news of the day, centering on mostly the latest happenings in the Middle East. More to the point, while most people were centered on Iraq, for obvious reasons, I’ve been more apt to follow events in Iran. Iran has intrigued me not only because of its sordid history with the US and allegedly modern Islamic terrorism, but also its culture as portrayed in books such as “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” and “Lipstick Jihad.” I spent most of last year reporting on the development of its nuclear program as well as its attempt to solidify economic and strategic partnerships with Russia, China, India, Venezuela, Cuba and of course Syria.

In that time I’ve written about the possibility of war against that country ostensibly to prevent them from arming themselves with an atomic bomb. Other reasons have come as well from wanting to prevent the opening of Iran’s Euro-based oil bourse (a threat to the US economy) to using an attack against Iran to bolster the Republicans chance of keeping control of Congress in 2006.

To recap, I’ve stated that I too believe that Tehran should not have an atomic bomb. Hell, I don’t even think it should have ballistic missiles, regardless of whether or not they can arm them with nuclear bombs. I have stated that because of former Searle CEO and current Defense Secretary Donald “McNamara” Rumsfeld’s illogical approach to total war in Iraq, that I did not trust this administration executing another “hearts and minds-type” war against any country, let alone Iran. Instead I thought that instigating revolution and arming Persian rebels on the ground was a better plan.

I have also been of the belief that while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears to be a nutcase (i.e. Holocaust denials and such) he had to be more pragmatic than he was presenting himself to be. I proposed that he as well as the mullahs he serves were actually more interested in keeping power in Iran than they were in actually having a nuclear war with the West starting with Israel.

But what If I’m wrong?

There’s a rumor floating around out there that these negotiations the EU/UN and Iran keep engaging is actually a rather elaborate stall tactic while Tehran executes its real plan. This alleged plan is as follows: Tehran is currently in the process of enriching uranium to maximum potency, then shipping this enriched uranium to Hezbollah in Lebanon by way of Syria. Once the Hezbollah terrorists have their much sought after booty, they will strap it to RPG’s and other projectile weapons and fire their new jury rigged nuclear devices from Lebanon into Israel.

Again, rumor has it that the US has solid intelligence of the above and is currently preparing for a pre-emptive attack against Iran to prevent this attack on Israel. The US response will be deadly, destructive, unpopular all over the world (accept in Israel), and a complete shock to the Iranians. The word around Washington is that we will be hitting Iran with weapons yet unknown in the modern world.

You can choose to believe this cryptic story or you can reject it as yet another glaring example of Internet hooey. We’ll know soon enough if this rumor has any credibility or not. That’s not what I want to deal with right now. Instead, I want you to assume that all of the above is true for the time being because if it is, there are ethical and strategic questions to consider and debate.

The first and most obvious question is whether or not this administration (whose record on the subject of intelligence and military response is spotty at best) should act pre-emptively on Intel it obtains when the cost to allied civilians (Israeli’s) is this high. In other words, when we have it on good authority that Iran will be directing their mercenary army (Hezbollah) to attack Israel with crude nuclear weapons is it our duty to attack Iran and Hezbollah first?

That’s not nearly as easy a question to answer as it sounds. Certainly without conducting any sort of poll one can conclude that on that question alone there would be a three way split. One camp would forgo the past blunders and think only of the safety of the Western world and say yes, hit Iran before they Israel. The second camp would cite missing WMD’s in Iraq as proof that America has squandered its moral authority in the world and therefore should not be taking any action first. These are the people of the wait-and-see world where it would take several hundred if not thousand dead Israeli’s to motivate them to engage the enemy. The last camp would be asking why is it our responsibility to protect Israel when they are perfectly capable of defending themselves. They do have nuclear-armed ICBM’s after all and the wherewithal to use them if the occasion presents itself. These are the people touting the belief that the US should not play the role of the world’s police officer.

Now there will also be people from the far Left (or even in some cases far Right) that will suggest in the event of a dirty nuclear attack on Tel Aviv that we should negotiate with the leaders of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. Those people are lunatics and are not representative of any rational thinking. I only bring them to show just how muddled and convoluted this picture of what to do in the face of a possible imminent attack becomes when it is your hand on the big red button and you have to make life and death decisions.

The preceding camps however all have valid and logical reasons for why they would believe the way that they do. The first, the hawks we’ll call them, would argue that in a war (and this is a war against Arab and Muslim Nazis) you cannot win if you are always on the defensive. You must attack first and you must attack aggressively with every weapon in your arsenal (some would suggest even with your own nuclear weapons).

The second group is more attune with the realities of geopolitics in the modern media age. If you are President Bush and it is your call to make, you must know that a pre-emptive strike against Iran would not only start a war across the Middle East and Central Asia but also a war with the American media. The same people asking this administration where the WMD’s are would be looking for proof that the enriched uranium Tehran now possesses was really meant to be used to destroy Israel and would not get behind any confrontation without that solid proof. Stepping out of my core beliefs for a second and considering the point of view of roughly 1 third of the world that pays attention to this sort of thing, I can hardly blame them for being gun shy and distrustful of the Bush Administration. There’s a certain ringing truth to the notion of “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” etc. One cannot but sympathize with an entire group of people who feel that this administration is less than capable and honest in the world of geopolitics.

And the last group of people enumerated above who feel that we should not be relegated nor are capable of being the world police officer have a point as well. It’s not one I necessarily agree with because it flies in the face of Pastor Martin Niemöller philosophy of:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

It’s an arguable point at best that Iran would be satisfied with only obliterating Israel and therefore it is there responsibility to protect themselves. That is a whole other debate in and of itself.

The question of whether or not we should attack the enemy first or at all is not only encased in strategic concerns but ethical ones as well. As the title of this essay eludes to, there lies a philosophical context embedded into the notion of whether or not it is in a heroes character to shoot the bad guy before the bad guy takes a shot at you first.

Even before you can begin to deliberate on the question of whether pre-emption can be a trait in a hero’s psyche, there is the question of whether or not a stated hero is the hero in the first place. We have all heard the expression since 9/11 that ones mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Certainly I would, as well as many people whom I associate with, would liken the United States and the Western world at large as the heroes in this conflict with radical Islam. However, not everyone would agree with that assessment. Some folks from the US and across the globe would suggest that there are pocks on the American conscious namely the war against Soviet communist expansion to the exclusion of all else, recommendations and implementations of water privatization by the US of Latin American water resources, unfair trade policies, espionage resulting in the overthrow of democratically elected governments whom happen to be hostile to the US, gross neglect of the environment, and any number of other shameful acts our government has committed in the name of securing our economy. And I don’t think I need to explain why many throughout the world see Israel as a bad guy in the struggle against radical Islam.

While I do not think it necessarily fair to cast all of Western civilization as wholly unethical against those who purport to kill or convert the West to Islam, others are perfectly comfortable with this way of defining the sides.

Having said that, the rational universe does in fact hold the Western world and especially the US to a higher moral standard. We are expected to be the standard bearers of ethical behavior in the world and as such we cannot sink to the level of other less civilized nation states. We are supposed to be above torture, imperialism, gross negligence, and a whole host of other negative behaviors. It is expected that the Sudanese kill their own people. We are not supposed to be above that sort of thing. It is expected for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to try and conquer Kuwait. We are not. And it expected for Iran to initiate a war against the West while we are supposed to, as the good guys, wait to be shot at or even hit first before we can respond. And even when we do respond, we are expected to be humane and equilateral in our response. We are not expected to annihilate the Iranians, even though our extinction is the stated goal of many radical Arabs and Muslims.

In other words, the followers of the George Lucas philosophy that the hero does not kill their enemy in cold blood but only uses deadly force in defense of itself is part and parcel of the consideration in whether or not to act on the Intel that Iran via Hezbollah plans to initiate a dirty nuclear strike against Israel.

Now what would you do if you were George Bush? I could probably write another 2,000 words expounding on the many facets of that question. Instead I will leave you dear reader to your ponderings. Whom should we value more, innocent Persian and Arabs at the mercy of ruthless dictators and radical terrorists, or our brothers and sisters throughout Western civilization? Is waiting for Iran via Hezbollah to murder thousands of Israeli citizens worth having near iron clad integrity and reason to use all means to then attack Iran? If it were your hands holding precious Intel and your finger on the big red button, what you do? Does or does not the hero shoot first when the stakes are this high?

Ultimately none of us will have to make a decision on this subject. But, where will you stand when the hard decisions are made for you?

Men smarter than women: Study

There are many ways I could go with this story and many stories I could tell. However, when it comes to writing an article espousing the superiority of men over women, admittedly I'm a yellow bellied coward so I'll just let the article speak for itself. Though I will add this, my wife says I can be as smart as I want, according to her I can't multitask worth a crap...

Women all over may not like it but it has been proved that men are smarter than women.
A study of 100,000 17- to 18-year-olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) published in the September 2006 issue of the journal Intelligences confirmed a surprising new finding-that men have a 4 to 5-point IQ advantage over women by adulthood.

Because girls mature faster than boys, the sex difference is masked during the school years, which explains why the sex difference was missed for 100 years.

The new study, based upon an analysis of SAT scores that correlates to IQ, appears to confirm the similar earlier research, using a different methodology, that concluded adult men have IQs 3.3 to 5 points higher than women.

It also found that the g factor--the general factor of mental ability underlay both the SAT Verbal (SAT-V) and the SAT Mathematics (SAT-M) scales with the congruence between these components greater than 0.90, and that it was the g factor that predicted student grades better than the traditionally used SAT-V and SAT-M scales.

The male and the female g factors were congruent in excess of .99, and they favoured males to an equivalent of 3.63 IQ points.

The male-female differences were present at every socioeconomic level, and across several ethnic groups.

Hydrogen News

The biggest news today is the announcement by BMW that in 2007 they will be leasing to the public a small fleet of hydrogen powered cars. That is certainly a great step in the right direction but there is more going on with hydrogen power.

BMW to lease hydrogen cars in April

Eager to put its stamp on cars with green credentials, BMW announced Tuesday that it will roll out the world’s first hydrogen-burning car in serial production early next year.

Dubbed the Hydrogen 7, the specially equipped 7-Series executive cars emit only water vapor when running on hydrogen. That means zero emissions of pollutants and carbon dioxide, a gas that many scientists tie to global warming.

"The complete change from a fossil fuel infrastructure to a hydrogen economy will require decades," the German carmaker said in a statement, but the Hydrogen 7 "shows that bringing hydrogen technology to the road is indeed feasible."

There's more about the Hydrogen 7 in the article but it also states that GM will soon have its own model out on the market.

GM shows off hydrogen Sequel

BMW's announcement comes on the heels of General Motors on Monday unveiling a driveable version of the Chevrolet Sequel, a hydrogen fuel cell SUV that it called "the most technologically advanced automobile ever built."

GM said the Sequel "is the first vehicle in the world to successfully integrate a hydrogen fuel cell propulsion system with a broad menu of advanced technologies such as steer- and brake-by-wire controls, wheel hub motors, lithium-ion batteries and a lightweight aluminum structure."

The Sequel can go 300 miles before refueling, GM said, well beyond the industry standard of 150 miles. And it does 0-60 in 10 seconds, the carmaker said.

"General Motors is proving that advanced technology can remove the automobile from the environmental debate and reduce our dependence on petroleum," Larry Burns, GM's research and development vice president, said in a statement.

"Sequel fundamentally changes the DNA of today's automobiles," Burns added, "exchanging an internal combustion engine, petroleum and mechanical systems for fuel cell propulsion, hydrogen and electrical systems."

Hydrogen is big business not just in California where construction is well underway on the Hydrogen Highway but there's also a story out of South Carolina, of all places, stating that SC intends to become ground zero for the blossoming business of hydrogen technology.

South Carolina and the new hydrogen economy

Using hydrogen as fuel could one day lessen the United States’ dependence on foreign oil, as well as do much to promote a “greener” way of life. Unarguably, however, much research and development is needed before the use of hydrogen as a fuel is a practical alternative to its fossil fuel counterpart. Still, South Carolina is more than willing to do the work and wants to lead the new hydrogen economy.

While practically every state has some sort of hydrogen initiative, lawmakers and business leaders in South Carolina believe they have an edge that other states do not: the Savannah River Site (SRS). The SRS officially opened its hydrogen research facility in February, 2006; it was designed to facilitate cooperative hydrogen research among the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), universities and industry.

The SRNL, at which work began in the 1950s, boasts of having the nation's largest collection of hydrogen experts. While the lab's initial mission was the study of tritium, a hydrogen isotope used to enhance nuclear bombs, its new specialty is separating hydrogen from sources such as water and safely storing the element onboard a vehicle.

"Because of SRS, we're ahead of the curve," said House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston. "Whoever cracks the nut first will probably be the center of the universe . . . This can be so powerful for South Carolina's economy."

Fred Humes, the director of the Economic Development Partnership in Aiken and Edgefield counties, believes the research and resulting investments could bring in $10 billion and tens of thousands of well-paying jobs in the next two decades.

The national facility is leasing half the center, built and owned by Aiken County; the rest is available for private industries. Toyota Technical Center USA became the first non-SRS company to lease space to perform research; General Motors, though not leasing, is working with the lab. With the assurance of President Bush’s 5-year $1.2 billion initiative announced in 2003, most car manufacturers are testing hydrogen-powered vehicles.

While public availability is likely a decade away or more, the impact of a viable hydrogen fuel solution would be immense. Using hydrogen as a fuel means cars will emit water rather than exhaust fumes, making it a clean, widely available alternative to fossil fuels.

"It's exciting," said Theodore Motyka, a hydrogen technology program manager at Savannah River. "There are not many places you can do something as important as this."

South Carolina’s statewide initiative resulted in the National Hydrogen Association choosing Columbia as the site for its 2009 convention, which should further propel South Carolina as a leader in hydrogen technology.

Well building hydrogen fuel cells is certainly better than building atomic bombs!

Lastly, in a hydrogen related story, it turns out that cobalt could make buying a hydrogen car feasible for us regular folks.

Cobalt could be key to lower cost hydrogen vehicles

Life just got really good for you if you have a cobalt mine in your backyard. Thousands of researchers around the world are working on finding innovations and developments that will help to make the widespread use of hydrogen in vehicles possible. This summer, scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have discovered a way to use cobalt as a catalyst for polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEFCs). Platinum has been the metal of choice in the cells until now, but cobalt will be much less expensive, and you need less cobalt in a cell as well. Platinum costs about $45 per gram, while cobalt rings in at 20 cents per gram, though that will surely rise if it is in wide demand. The cobalt cells don’t produce as much power as a similar platinum one does, but the cobalt cell is able to maintain the same power level for a significant amount of time, while platinum degrades rapidly, decreasing the power output.

The idea behind PEFCs is not new. They were used in the Apollo missions during the 1960s and 1970s.

9/12

Yesterday I woke up at around 9:00 AM. It was my day off but I had slept late the day before and today I needed to do things in the community and around the house. I did my usual morning net surfing - 411Mania, Haloscan, Drudge, my dads new blog, and finally Global Research. I scanned Google News for stories about Iran and Russia and when nothing caught my fancy I checked my e-mail, posted a story my wife had sent me and then got on with my day, which included filling out a job application to bring to Downtown Tampa and loading some old books in my car to sell at a used book store.

Somehow in the midst of all of this I managed to forget yesterday was 9/11.

Here’s the rub on that; while people were utilizing yesterday as a day of remembrance for the tragic terrorist attack by Al Qaeda, to me it was just another day. When I say that I am referring to the fact that for me, every day is 9/12. On 9/11 we were attacked and many innocent people died. That’s terrible and those who lost a loved one on that day should mourn and I don’t begrudge people that. I myself spent much of 9/11 trying to calm my co-workers down at the foster care agency I worked at in Brooklyn before I took the long train ride home. For people like my co-workers as well as many others, it marks a day to reflect. That is fine and to those people I say God bless.

However, the day that stands out to me now is not the day that we were attacked but rather the following day when those of that thought we were protected from enemies abroad by two large oceans and a stockpile of nuclear armed ballistic missiles woke up in a new world. It was the day many of us regular people learned for first time about Islamic fanaticism and terrorism. It was the first time that the importance of the struggle between Palestine and Israel to US survival was driven home and made very clear. 9/12 was simply the day we as a people started dealing with, albeit by force, the outside world.

I have said in articles passed that 9/11 changed my life and the way I think about things. 9/11 affected my decision-making, my likes and dislikes and how I regard people and whom I should continue to deal with. It began the process of maturing me from what Christopher Noxon calls a rejuvenile to someone prepared to be vigilant in world now shown to be tremendously dangerous. On 9/12 I along with many others began to confront the world rather than the typical American response to forget there is an outside world at all.

In the five years since 9/12, none of that has changed. This blog is an extension of the belief that I should be doing something to contribute to the global society. The fact that I concentrate so much on foreign affairs is a tribute to the idea of never forgetting that we are not alone in the world and that our decisions have repercussions and considerations that are as complex as they are far reaching.

I still spend a majority of my interactions with friends and co-workers talking about Iran, Iraq, war, the global economy, domestic elections and alternative fuels, much to the chagrin of many whom have either completely forgotten about the seriousness of 9/12 and everyday thereafter or just don’t have the gumption to follow any news besides celebrity gossip. I can’t even visit a sick friend at home without the topic of terrorist attacks coming up in casual conversation rather the old stock and trade of religion and homosexual jokes (you know who you are).

My point is this, why should I waste my time trying to remember an event that I haven’t forgotten in the first place? More to the point, why should I spend time trying to get you to remember an event that if you have forgotten it, apparently doesn’t have any meaning for you, as it does for me and many others? Each day that I interact with someone either in cyberspace or real life, I am reminding them of the importance of 9/12, the importance of staying informed and confronting the world outside of the US. It’s in my blood now.

Folks I bring up the importance of knowing and confronting to my drug addled teenage children in rehab on a regular basis. (BTW you haven’t lived until you’ve seen a half illiterate Mexican-American teenage girl try to teach political history to her peers.)

Granted the bigger reason I didn’t write about my reflections on 9/11 is because I just plum forgot and that should be rather telling. Commenting on what we should do about our enemies or what our enemies seemed to have planned for us has become so ingrained in my daily routine and so commonplace a thought for me that yesterday seemed like all other days. Frankly, I didn’t need to reflect and neither should any of you.

If by now you are not living in the world 9/12 and are instead still mucking about in the world of 9/10 then any sappy remembrance or call to action will fall on deaf ears anyway. If not then you don’t need my comments either. You already know the importance of staying informed and why we need to fight this war.

I will say that if I had remembered I might have gone with a bit more of an appropriate story instead of killer dildos. They can’t all be winners here.

Please keep in mind that I’m not saying that remembering 9/11 isn’t important but rather that remembering that we are still living in a world after 9/12 and beyond is more prevalent.

And just so I’m clear about what it means to live in the world of 9/12, it means that no matter what governments do at this point, the Islamic, Arab and Persian fanatics still want us dead. Many of their own people don’t necessarily agree with them but lack the will to confront them openly and so it falls to the West to fight them ourselves. But to many in the West, it is believed that humbleness; appeasement and cash will somehow quell the hatred our enemies have for us. Those “allies” are even more dangerous than our enemies.

On this day of remembrance, keep in mind that the enemy is still out there. It cares not for your opinions, wants or needs. It is like a great big and dangerous spoiled brat of a child. And this child has lots of friends.

Tomorrow we return to our regularly scheduled broadcast of Iran, killer dildo’s and stories about my wife.

Sex toys contain dangerous chemicals says Greenpeace

This is a rather odd addendum to my story on toxic beauty products. Apparently one of the substances most commonly found in dangerous products is also in childrens toys as well...as well as...er...um...well...adult toys. Yes, it's true, even sex with yourself ladies can lead to health disasters. I swear, one of my kids made a prophetic statement when he said, "Yeah but Mr. Mark, everything causes cancer, living causes cancer!"

Indeed.

Environmental group Greenpeace called on the European Union to ban the use of chemical plastic softeners in sex toys because they contained dangerous substances known as phthalates.


"Adult sex toys contain the same toxic substances that the European Union banned from use in children's toys," Greenpeace said in a press release from its international headquarters here.

The environmental group said it was shocked to find that seven of the eight sex toys it had tested contained between 24 and 51 percent of phthalates.

"It is unbelievable that such toxic substances can be used in adult toys. We have tested many products in the last few years but never have we encountered such high concentrations," Greenpeace spokesman Bart van Opzeeland said.

Greenpeace research has shown that phthalates can disrupt the human hormonal system, diminishes fertility and adversely affects the kidneys and liver.

The substance is used to soften plastics and PVC plastic. Greenpeace stressed that a ban on phthalates would not mean the disappearance of people's favourite sex toys as there are plenty of non-toxic alternatives.

Iran says U.S., Israel ordered September 11 attacks

When Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi is done with Iran, he should consider running for Congress as a Democrat. Seriously, this sort of rhetoric is not too far removed from either Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton. There's not much one can say about a story like this other than to remind people that this is what we are up against. We have enemies overseas making vile and ludicrous claims about our government (which couldn't get the Katrina evacuation right, let alone plan 9/11) and enemies within making similar claims (Stanley Hilton for example).

While I'm at it, let me say this about recent events coming out of Iran with respect to their nuclear program; if you don't think the EU and the UN are complicit in allowing Iran to stall long enough to build a bomb, then you are out of your minds. If we decide to invade Iran (which is debatable as a strategy) we will do it practically alone while the rest of the world whines that we didn't give diplomacy enough of a chance. Assuming those of you reading this feel that way, let me ask you this; if we can't sanction Iran for flouting the will of the UN (because of Russia and China) and we shouldn't invade (because war is bad) just how exactly are we supposed to enforce any resolution that comes from the NSC? What good is the UN if it is only a paper tiger? Iran is not just a case where an enemy may be arming itself for an armed conflict, it's a test of wills to see how we as a global community rise to challenges when they come before. From my vantage point, right now we collectively are failing that test across to board as we are undermined by anti-Americanism, short-sighted business endeavors, and general naivete.

The Supreme Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps accused the Bush Administration and the Israeli security service Mossad of ordering the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, DC.

“The events of September 11 were ordered by U.S. [officials] and Mossad so that they could carry out their strategy of pre-emption and warmongering and unipolarisation in order to dominate the Middle East”, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi told military commanders on Tuesday. His comments were reported by the state-run news agency ISNA.

General Safavi said that Iran was the leading force of the “Islamic world”. “The geographic heart of the Islamic world is in Mecca and Medina. But, the political heart of the Islamic world is in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is the flag-bearer of the front of Islamic awakening and the fronts of the awakening of third world nations”, he said.

He said that Washington had been defeated in its strategy of “attacking Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon” and creating a new order in the Middle East.

“The U.S.’s neo-conservative strategy was to dominate the vast energy resources of the Persian Gulf in order to be able to control Europe, China, and India and drive the world to a unipolar state. Therefore, it planned to change undesirable regimes such as those of Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and Afghanistan”.

The IRGC general said that the Lebanese militia Hezbollah had defeated Israel during their recent war. “After many years, the political and military image and hollow might of the Zionist regime was broken and the real power of Hezbollah fighters was proven. Thus, Hezbollah defeated Israel”.

He described Washington and Tel Aviv as two “inter-continental threats” against Tehran. “The U.S. must be livid at Iran because of its disgraceful defeats in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. Regarding [Iran’s] nuclear dossier, it might try to create circumstances so that slowly but surely economic and political pressure is applied against Iran by the [United Nations] Security Council”.

He accused Washington of plotting a “cultural” attack on Tehran by setting up new radio and television stations broadcasting into Iran, supporting dissident groups, and stepping up intelligence operations. “Therefore, the armed forces must be completely prepared in order to combat any forms of foreign and domestic threats”, he said.

He charged that Britain and the U.S. were stirring ethnic and religious divisions in Iran, in particular in the provinces close to the country’s frontiers.

The IRGC’s primary task is to export the Islamic revolution to Jerusalem via Baghdad.

Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of many officials who stem from the IRGC.

Cleanliness is Next to Deathliness

I recently read the young readers version of “Fast Food Nation” entitled, “Chew On This,” by Eric Schlosser. In it he talks about how bad fast food is for you and why its preparation is so much different than the meal you might get from mamma’s kitchen. When you read a book like “Chew On This,” more often than not you might have the same reaction President Theodore Roosevelt did after reading Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” which is he threw up. Certainly after I read that book and having seen the documentary “Super Size Me,” I’ve taken to staying away from fast food, even going so far as to shout “Evil!” a la Abe “Grandpa” Simpson whenever I see those oh so familiar golden arches beckoning me to taste a Quarter Pounder with Cheese. (I’ve also adopted a wheat free diet but that’s a whole other story)

One can find all kinds of material spelling out the devilry of fast food and how it is causing a plague of obesity around the world. There’s at least dozens of books on shelves in every chain bookstore at this very moment covering food topics ranging from hidden hazards to every variation of diet imaginable. Now if you are into putting some years back on your life, you might very well read any one of those books, follow it religiously, hit the gym 4 – 5 times a week and go to sleep thinking that today you lived a very healthy day.

But here’s a question for you: Did you brush your teeth today? Men, did you shave your face? Ladies, did you put on makeup? Did you use styling gels, deodorants, hairsprays, or colognes? Did you bother to take a shower and use soap? If you did any of the above then you may have exposed yourself to a toxic, cancer causing substance. Yes it’s true; beauty products from makeup to dental care have ingredients that can cause cancer, autoimmune disorders, reproductive failures and even respiratory problems such as asthma.

Makeup is the most common culprit, as a new study out of the UK tells us:

The study discovered that every day the average woman applies 175 different chemicals to her body in the form of cosmetics and toiletries.

And out of those 175 cosmetic products, most of them contain a cocktail of different chemicals - many of which have been linked to various health problems.

The list of potentially harmful ingredients in everyday cosmetics includes chemicals linked to cancers, hormone problems and skin-irritations.

"Some of the chemicals in everyday toiletries may trigger irritant reactions or allergy. Reactions are particularly seen in patients with atopic eczema and those with sensitive skin,” the Daily Mail quoted Professor David Gawkrodger, a consultant dermatologist and spokesman for the British Skin Foundation charity, as saying.

"Most reactions will be to the face or hands, and sometimes on the arms and legs," he added.

The article goes on to list three particular ingredients that are damaging to consumers:

Preserving agents called parabens often used in moisturisers and body creams have been linked to breast cancer and also to skin inflammations.

Foaming agents such as sodium lauryl sulphate and sodium laureth sulphate used in shampoos are said to be skin irritants.

And lastly the disinfectant formaldehyde in shampoos and hand wash can make skin flare up and is linked to asthma and headaches.

Now my wife loves to put on makeup and use all kinds of other products to assist in maximizing her image. She was actually the one who forwarded me this article, which in turn got me thinking about what other dangers might be lurking in our bathroom.

According to the Environmental Working Group, there are a ton of products on the market with sundry toxic elements that are dangerous to human health. These are not strange and hard to find products either. For example, the EWG cites Gillette shaving cream as one of the most toxic on the market.

Gillette contains BUTANE, QUATERNIUM-15, CARRAGEENAN, ISOBUTANE (ingredients potentially contaminated with impurities linked to cancer or other significant health problems), TRIETHANOLAMINE (ingredient in chemical group called amines, that can form carcinogenic nitrosamine compounds, on the skin or in the body after absorption, if mixed with nitrosating agents - ingredient thought to possibly cause cancer in humans), FRAGRANCE (1 ingredient listed as "fragrance" - unspecified mixture of chemicals that have been linked to potential for immune and nervous system toxicity), BHT, BUTANE, QUATERNIUM-15, PROPANE, ISOBUTANE, TRIETHANOLAMINE (ingredients with potential to instigate immune system response that can include itching, burning, scaling, hives, and blistering of skin (sensitization)), TRIETHANOLAMINE (ingredient with potential to cause immune system response resulting in asthma attacks or other problems with the lungs and airways (lung sensitization)), BHT, QUATERNIUM-15, TRIETHANOLAMINE(ingredients potentially harmful to the immune system), BHT, SODIUM BENZOATE (ingredients posing potential gastrointestinal or liver toxicity hazards), BHT, SODIUM BENZOATE (ingredients posing potential kidney toxicity hazards), BHT, BUTANE, PROPANE, ISOBUTANE, SODIUM BENZOATE (ingredients posing neurotoxicity hazards), QUATERNIUM-15, SODIUM BENZOATE (ingredients posing cardiovascular or blood toxicity hazards), BHT, PROPANE, TRIETHANOLAMINE (ingredients posing respiratory toxicity hazards), BHT, QUATERNIUM-15, TRIETHANOLAMINE, SODIUM BENZOATE (ingredients posing skin or sense organ toxicity hazards) and propane which is not only considered toxic in one or more government assessments but is also a potential hazards for occupational exposures.

I get up in the morning and shave my face so that I can look professional on the job and kiss my wife without scarring her face with my five o’clock shadow and now I’m going to get cancer for my troubles. But that is nothing compared to my wife’s dilemma as she is a hair stylists daughter, one that has been exposed to all kinds of deadly products, namely OPI Top Coat. I realize this may mainly be read by men so let me explain what top coat is. Top Coat is a nail polish sealant. It gives a woman’s nails a nice glossy shine. Trust me fellas, it is important stuff to the ladies.

OPI Top Coat contains Butyl Acetate, Toluene, Acrylates Copolymer, Ethyl Acetate, Dibutyl Phthalate, Primary Amyl Acetate, Tosylamide, Formaldehyde Resin, Nitrocellulose, Cellulose Acetate, Butyrate, Isopropyl, Isopropyl Alcohol, Stearalkonium Hectorite, Benzophenone-1, CI 60725. Some or all of these ingredients can cause Gastrointestinal or liver toxicity hazards, Neurotoxicity hazards, Respiratory toxicity hazards, Skin or sense organ toxicity hazards, risks to human reproduction and development, linked to potential for reduced fertility or reduced chance for a healthy, full-term pregnancy, immune disorders and of course cancer.

You might be asking yourself, but what about the FDA? Surely the Food and Drug Administration tests for this sort of thing and wouldn’t allow grooming and beauty products to contain hazardous material. Much like other elements of big business, truth is stranger than fiction.

EWG reports that, ”Grossly underfunded and encumbered by a cosmetic safety law that renders the Agency nearly impotent, FDA's cosmetic office has no standing cosmetic review safety committee, cannot require testing of products or ingredients, cannot require companies to report injuries or even deaths from the use of their products, and cannot force companies to recall harmful products (FDA 1995). Instead, the Agency sends a liaison to the industry's safety panel meetings to observe and comment… According to the agency that regulates cosmetics, the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors, "...a cosmetic manufacturer may use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product without an approval from FDA" (FDA 1995). The industry's self-policing safety panel falls far short of compensating for the lack of government oversight. An EWG analysis found that in its 30-year history, the industry's self-policing safety panel has reviewed the safety of just 11 percent of the 10,500 ingredients used in personal care products. FDA does no systematic reviews of safety. And collectively, the ingredients in personal care products account for one of every seven of the 75,000 chemicals industries have registered for commercial use with the Environmental Protection Agency.”

So there you have it folks. The cosmetic industry polices itself and of course manufactures cheaper products by using ingredients harmful to its customers. The bigger issue here is that people such as my wife, with a life history of all kinds of unexplained disorders, to myself with no history, everyday put themselves at risk buying products that we assume are safe to consume. I certainly don’t go to the nearest supermarket looking for shaving cream that’s going to give me cancer or toothpaste that will cause me to have a low sperm count. My wife doesn’t put on makeup so she can contract an autoimmune disorder and slowly fall apart. Because we as Americans typically don’t take the time to use the internet as I have today, to research the products I consume for the purposes of trying to eliminate health hazards from my life, we have invited corporate interests to slowly mug and murder us. In short, rather than playing around on MySpace.com, take the 10 minutes of time it took me to find this article and the back up information and make sure you are buying products that will cause you the least amount of harm. Like my pappy used to say, fight back with your pocketbook.

For more information on how you can get involved in fighting against carcinogenic personal care items contact Safecosmetics.org or you can write your nearest congressman on this important issue.

Israel said eyeing Iran, Syria war

I'm very sad that Steve Irwin has died in a tragic stingray accident but there are more pressing news items to focus on. Here is just one of them:

Israel´s air force chief has reportedly been put in charge of planning for possible war with Iran and Syria.

Britain´s Sunday Times reported that Major-General Eliezer Shkedy was recently named officer in charge of the "Iranian front", a reference to expectations of a flare-up with Iran and its ally Syria in the wake of the recent Lebanon war.

According to the newspaper, Jerusalem believes that Tehran and Damascus have been buoyed by the perceived success of their Lebanese proxy Hezbollah against Israeli forces, and might therefore consider entering open conflict themselves.

Raising the stakes further is Iran´s refusal to abandon uranium enrichment despite the threat of U.N. Security Council sanctions. Israel has not ruled out military action as a last resort for denying its arch-foe the means to make nuclear weapons.

Israeli officials had no immediate comment on the report.

Progressive Conservatism University On-Line

Hey folks, I've installed a new Amazon store based on products I would recommend to my readers. The link can be found under the new book I'm reading, above the Amazon search box. You can also click the picture below.

Now due to some restrictions in design, the store isn't all that I wanted it to be but at least the featured section, Progressive Conservatism 101 is a collection of my favorite must read books. Happy shopping people and hopefully I will be able to post a full article for Friday.

Progressive Conservatism University Book Store

Russia and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats

There is a girl in my program, we'll call her Chicken Little, whom asks me on a nearly daily basis what is going on in the world. Of course every time I share some news with her she immediately proceeds to go running about the campus willy nilly screaming, "We're gonna die, we're all gonna die!"

I wish I could say that was an exageration, but alas, it is not.

Anywho, Chicken Little was asking me about Iran yesterday and I said that she needn't have to worry about having a war with Iran because Iran has no way of attacking the continental US. The war would be fought there, not here. However, after reading the below article, I'm starting to wonder if I've given this trusting girl with rather high anxiety sound political analysis.

According to this article, Russia and it's allies in Central Asia are ready to intervene when we attack Iran. Now that doesn't mean they'd attack us here at home necessarily, but imagine if they did...stranger things have happened in this world.

Barely acknowledged by the Western media, military exercises organized by Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan under the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, (CSTO) were launched on the 24th of August. These war games, officially tagged as part of a counter terrorism program, are in direct response to US military threats in the region including the planned attacks against Iran.

The Rubezh-2006 exercise, is scheduled to take place from August 24-29 near the Kazak port city of Aktau:

"It will be the first joint military exercise undertaken by CSTO countries, and will involve 2,500 members drawn from various armed services of member states, with Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan the principal participants. Uzbekistan, which has recently rejoined the CSTO, will send observers, while the two other pact members, Belarus and Armenia, will not be taking part .( IPWR News Briefing Central Asia)

Press reports from the region describe these war games as a response to US military presence and ambitions in Central Asia:

"The growing militarisation is connected with mutual mistrust among countries in the region, say analysts. Iranian media have speculated that the United States is using Azerbaijan to create a military counterweight to Iran on the Caspian. It is possible that the exercise conducted by the CSTO – in which Russia is dominant – represents a response to concerns about United States involvement in developing Kazakstan’s navy. Observers say Russia is leaning more and more towards the Iranian view that countries from outside should be banned from having armed forces in the Caspian Sea."

Experts say the US is trying to step up the pressure on Iran, as well as to defend its own investments in Azerbaijan and Kazakstan. It is also trying to guarantee the security of the strategically vital Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.

A military presence on the Caspian would give the United States an opportunity to at least partially offset its weakening influence in Central Asia, as seen in the closure of its airbase in Uzbekistan, the increased rent it is having to pay for the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan, and the diplomatic scandal that resulted in the expulsion of two Americans from Kyrgyzstan.

According to analysts, genuine security in the region can be achieved only if the military interests of all five Caspian countries are coordinated. At an international conference in Astrakhan in July 2005, Russia proposed the formation of a Caspian naval coordination group, but to date the initiative has not had much of a response.(Ibid)

The entire region seems to be on a war footing. These CSTO war games should be seen in relation to those conducted barely a week earlier by Iran, in response to continued US military threats.

While Iran is not a member of the CSTO, it has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which China is a member. The SCO has a close relationship to the CSTO.

The structure of military alliances is crucial. In case of an attack on Iran, Russia and its CSTO allies will not remain neutral.

In April, Iran was invited to become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Sofar no concrete timetable for Iran's accession to the SCO has been set.

This enlargement of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which also includes observer status for India, Pakistan and Mongolia counters US military and strategic objectives in the broader region.

The conduct of the CSTO war games must be seen as a signal to Washington that an attack on Iran could lead to a much broader military conflict in which Russia and the member states of the CSTO could potentially be involved, siding with Iran and Syria. Also of significance is the structure of bilateral military cooperation agreements. Russia and China are the main suppliers of advanced weapons systems for Iran and Syria. Russia is contemplating the installation of a Navy base in Syria on the eastern Mediterranean coastline. In turn, the US and Israel have military cooperation agreements with Azerbaijan and Georgia.

So I Married a Career Woman

Rush Limbaugh spoke yesterday (8/23/06) about an article that briefly appeared in the careers section of Forbes.com entitled, “Don’t Marry a Career Woman,” by Michael Noer. As per usual with Limbaugh, he used this article as a blunt object to bludgeon notions popularly held by radical feminists, or as he calls them, “feminazi’s.” The article was a collection of statistical citations from a bevy of studies that looked that at the correlation between marriage and income.

Shortly after the article went up, it caused such a brouhaha in the blogosphere that it disappeared almost instantaneously. By the time Limbaugh opted to talk about the story and post it on his website, the link no longer worked. Luckily for me and others who wanted to see the article for themselves a fellow blogger managed to track the story down and post it in its entirety on his/her blog. The content of the article was also covered on Slate.com, Mother Jones, CNET News.com, as well as other news sites and blogs. As you can imagine, in most cases the opinions of this mans work fell short of complimentary. As a matter of fact, most thought his views were downright misogynistic and outdated.

When I heard Limbaugh talking about the article and reading from it, my first reaction was hysterical laughter. In my opinion, some of the assertions Noer makes, sound to me downright absurd. What made the piece even more ridiculous to me was an accompanying slideshow (also gone from Forbes.com) that insisted that if you married a career woman you would live in squalor because she doesn’t have enough time nor the compulsion to clean house and you would get sick. The whole thing sounded more comical than it did scientific.

Now I love a good marriage joke as much as the next man but this article was not meant to be satirical. Noer was attempting to put into words an argument for men to avoid marriage based on statistical evidence. From what I could glean while listening to Limbaugh, his evidence sounded contrary to my own beliefs, and if I might be so bold as to agree with Mother Jones, just a bit too patriarchal and misogynistic.

I sought out the article myself and here are some highlights:

While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner…If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill ( American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier ( Institute for Social Research).

Noer defines a career woman as she who earns $30,000 per year. Now by that definition I wouldn’t even be considered as having a career seeing working in social services in Tampa earns a mere $27,000 (before licensure). My wife makes about 30K, more if she has good sales month and makes high commissions. This would make sense as she chose a career in the private sector and earns her living as a licensed optician. She makes a fairly high salary because she is in the business of selling products. I however am in the business of sucking up yours and her tax dollars (you have to love social services!) and therefore because I am dependant on the public dole, I make less money.

Now if Noer is correct my wife should be unhappy with me because of my fiscal inadequacies. The fact is that she, by her own admission is perfectly happy working and doesn’t care one way or the other whom makes the higher salary. If anything she finds it ironic, as many of my less educated friends do that even with a Masters degree I can’t break into the 30’s until I get licensed.

His first assertion that if my wife were to quit her job and stay home with the kiddies (or in our current case the puppies) would eventually make her miserable, may be statistically correct but is in reality a flawed belief. My wife, as well as others, would utilize her time as a full-time mother to volunteer in a host of programs. My cousin is actually one of those people. She quit being a web designer to be a full-time mother of two children. Now many in her position end up just being a “mom” and that more than anything else may lead to feelings of unhappiness. My cousin is not just a mom though. Though her children are toddlers, she divides her time selling Mary Kay products (for mad money), baking and designing cakes, teaching cake design classes, leading a Brownie troop, and other assorted community functions. The problem with many former career women is that they rely totally on a job to give them purpose rather than finding civic functions to occupy their ambitions, along with being a mother to children. My wife has said on numerous occasions that if she were a full-time mom she too would be an active community volunteer.

I think the part that I find most offensive is the bit about having a dirtier house. Any man that marries a woman, career minded or otherwise, expecting her to do all of the housework is just an asshole. There’s no better way for me to put this. Only the most spoil brat slob of a man can’t cook and clean for himself and therefore shouldn’t expect is new wife to just take over that responsibility in total. I lived away from my parents for a collective total of about 4 years. I cooked my own dinners, did my own laundry, vacuumed and dusted. It’s not the worst thing ever and to this day, I don’t mind having to do those things. Just because I’m married now, I don’t expect my wife, regardless of her career aspirations to become my slave. Again, statistically men may be finding career women less exuberant about keeping a clean house but that’s probably because many men are spoiled brats whom are taking their loved ones for granted.

All in all, I’m mostly in agreement with the critics of this article in believing that his intentions were to make an argument against married working women. The fact remains that if you both are honest and communicate with each other, it shouldn’t matter who does the dishes and who pays the mortgage.

Marines to Recall Troops to Active Duty

Now I've been saying for quite some time that because of the Iranian oil bourse and other issues, the US would eventually attack Iran, irregardless of the cost in lives or strategic advantage. This was backed up by a story that stated Dick Cheney was depending on this front in the so-called War on Terror to gain political capital in the forthcoming midterm elections. Another story has emerged citing the former chief of ISI, Maj. Gen (R) Hameed Gul of Pakistan who predicts, "America would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October."

Some might say this is hogwash and the rantings of far left kooks or Islamic fanatics but you can't deny that the Marines recalling troops is more than mere coincidence. Granted the article says it's to back up the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but once cannot expect the DOD to outright admit they are deploying for an attack into Persia. Maybe I'm off, you be the judge:

The Marine Corps will soon begin ordering thousands of its troops back to active duty because of a shortage of volunteers for Iraq and Afghanistan _ the first involuntary recall since the early days of the war.

Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at a time, and there is no cap on the total number who may be forced back into service as the military helps fight the war on terror. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.

Advertisement
Advertising Info
The number of troops in Iraq has climbed back to 138,000 _ the prevailing number for much of last year. Troop levels had been declining this year, to a low of about 127,000, amid growing calls from Congress and the public for a phased withdrawal. Escalating violence in Baghdad has led military leaders to increase the U.S. presence there.

This is the first time the Marines have had to use the involuntary recall since the beginning of the Iraq combat. The Army, meanwhile, has issued orders recalling about 10,000 soldiers so far, but many of those may be granted exemptions.

Marine Col. Guy A. Stratton, head of the manpower mobilization section, estimated that there is a current shortfall of about 1,200 Marines needed to fill positions in upcoming deployments.

Some of the military needs, he said, include engineers, intelligence, military police and communications.

As of Tuesday, nearly 22,000 of the 138,000 troops in Iraq were Marines.

The call-up will affect Marines in the Individual Ready Reserve, a segment of the reserves that consists mainly of those who have left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligations.

Generally, Marines enlist for four years, then serve the other four years either in the regular Reserves, where they are paid and train periodically, or in the Individual Ready Reserve. Marines in the IRR are obligated to report only one day a year but can be involuntarily recalled to active duty.

To date, about 5,000 Army IRR soldiers have mobilized, and about 2,200 of those are currently serving, according to Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman. Of those 2,200, about 16 percent are volunteers, he said. A typical Army enlistment obligation is also for eight years.

According to Stratton, there are about 59,000 Marines in the IRR, but the Corps has decided to exempt from the call-up those who are either in their first year or last year of the reserve status. As a result, the pool of available Marines is about 35,000.

The deployments can last up to two years, but on average would be 12 to 18 months, Stratton said. Each Marine who is being recalled will get five months to prepare before having to report.

President Bush authorized the recall on July 26. It is the first such recall since early 2003, when about 2,000 Marines were involuntarily activated for the initial ground war in Iraq.

"Since this is going to be a long war," said Stratton, "we thought it was judicious and prudent at this time to be able to use a relatively small portion of those Marines to help us augment our units."

Cheney orchestrated Israel’s losing war

This is one of those articles that sounds too crazy to be true but if it is then boy are we in trouble. Let me make myself clear here, I'm necessarily opposed to a war against Iran, if it were to be fought correctly. That is to say that if we were to carpet bomb its cities without regard to innocent lives as we did in World War II. The problem is we haven't fought a war that way since. The Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars were all these protracted offensives where we attempted to limit civilian casualties and nation build as the bombs were still dropping. That has been proven to be a recipe for failure. However, since that's the only kind of war this administration seems capable (and I use that world loosely) to fight, then I oppose any aggresive move against Tehran. We have no will to win a war there, just as there's no will to win in Iraq. The other reason this article scares me and puts me squarely against military measures in Iran is that it appears to be motivated, at this time, by solely the mid-term elections. Thousands of Persians and Americans shouldn't have to die in order for the Republicans to continue to hold congress. As a strategic move to hamper world wide Islamic Nazism, it's fine if it is done correctly. As a political strategy for winning domestic elections it is a war crime.

Dick Cheney orchestrated Israel’s losing war against Hizbullah by authorizing George Bush and Condoleezza Rice to encourage Ehud Olmert to launch the war against Lebanon as a prelude to America’s forthcoming war against Iran.

Following briefings from top Israeli military officials, Cheney approved plans for an air war against Lebanon as a preliminary move to disarm Hizbullah in advance of America’s broader military objective - to launch an air war against Iran. Had the US launched its war against Iran without Olmert’s intervention in Lebanon, Hizbullah would have been free to attack Israel. Cheney’s plan was designed to disarm Hizbullah, but it was based on what now appears to have been a false assumption - that Israel would win their war in Lebanon.

According to Seymour Hersh, Israel’s tactical profile for disarming Hizbullah was modelled on US plans to disarm Iran. Following Cheney’s guidance, the Pentagon mapped out a comprehensive campaign of air strikes against Iran’s civilian infrastructure targeting airports, bridges, roads, power stations as well as military command and control centres and other key buildings identified as hostile territory. According to a former senior intelligence official who talked to Hersh, Israel’s attack on Lebanon and Hizbullah is a “mirror image” of US plans for its imminent war with Iran.

Responding to the pressure of time, Cheney and his circle of advisors urged the Israelis to launch their war against Lebanon at the earliest date possible in order to allow the US war against Iran to launch during George Bush’s presidency. Apparently, now that Israel has dealt its blow against Hizbullah, Bush and Cheney feel less constrained about ordering their war against Iran.

A former diplomat who talked to Hersh predicted that the Iran crisis “will really start at the end of August, when the Iranians will say no (sic),” to a UN deadline to halt their uranium enrichment project.

During the autumn campaign for midterm elections, it is becoming increasingly likely that Cheney will encourage Bush to order the launch of the Iran War – a ploy designed to rekindle support for their neoconservative strategy for world domination.

Following the defeat of Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the Republicans have seized on the war against terror as their most effective political message for attacking their Democratic Party rivals. Most Democrats now favour a smooth and certain withdrawal of US forces from Iraq rather than the open-ended policy favoured by the Bush-Cheney White House that would leave troops in the field indefinitely.

Even though the cessation of hostilities was scheduled to take place in the early hours of this morning, both sides are prepared for the ceasefire to fail. But, the continuation of war between Israel and Lebanon will make no difference to Bush and Cheney’s plans to attack Iran, a scheme that is driven by political factors rather than geostrategic calculations.