As much as I was attempting to avoid the FIFA World Cup...

... I can't.

Gawd... I can't stand soccer, or football, or whatever you call it these days. But that's just me. I fully understand the passion that overtakes fans.

Anyway, this little bit came out of the recent loss of Spain to Switzerland. (My emphasis)

Some have pointed to their lack of cutting edge. Some have pointed to their opponents' rugged determination. But many in Spain have blamed their defeat to Switzerland in their opening World Cup game on Sara Carbonero, the partner of the Spain captain Iker Casillas.

Casillas was at least partly at fault for Gelson Fernandes's goal that gave Switzerland their 1-0 win and fingers have already been pointed at Carbonero, a journalist at a Spanish TV station, who prior to the game was filming footage to camera behind Casillas's goal.

Hmmm... Brooks Speck gives it a little more perspective.

Maybe.

Stop the ball? Gaze at Sara?

What ball?

A very simple question

Me and my old combat medic are going to bugger off for the weekend. We do that. I pay; he holds up an index finger and says, "Your external carotid artery."

I'll pay. Happily.

So... I have an unrelated question. Well... sort of related, in my warped little mind.

If your cable provider or satellite service pissed you off enough, would you tell them to disconnect you? Could you live without.... geez, I don't know the programs anymore.

Could you live without pay-TV for perhaps 60 days?

What if it was, y'know, a movement, intended to send a message. Would you do it?

No piped-in TV to send a message. You'd still have your internet connection.

Hell, it might improve your sex life. Protest can have its benefits and doesn't have to involve throwing rocks.

And that, George, is why we have a comments section. Go for it.

It could be worse

Every time I get frustrated and think that Canadian politics are completely screwy and the country is doomed by ignorance, stupidity and apathy, all I have to do is look south and remember that it could be worse, a lot worse. I could live in this dingbat's district.




I'm not sure if he's running for Congress or promoting an armed insurrection to stop poor people from seeing a doctor. The scary part is that this is a professionally done television spot, so he obviously has some money behind him.

(hat tip to Enormous Thriving Plants)

Yes, it's warmer out there

Unless you live in areas bordering the mid-latitudes of the Eastern Pacific. (That would be BC, Washington State, Oregon and some of California in the Northern Hemisphere and the western shore of central South America.)

This is just Canada. (click on any image to enlarge)


That is the departure from "normals" and it produces a startling rise in spring temperatures. The redder it is, the greater the increase from the 63 year normal. From Environment Canada (where you can also get a copy of the Throne Speech)

[S]pring temperatures have warmed over the last 63 years by 1.7°C. The winter season shows the greatest warming of any season, but all seasons have shown a warming trend since 1948.

And that is causing a rapid melt of a lower than average snow pack, which lowers the albedo effect, which in turn causes the ground to absorb and retain more heat... well... fried eggs anyone? Not to mention what's happening in the Arctic, (which I will do shortly).

Here is what's happening globally over the same period. (Spring 2010).The above graphic constitutes just the land surfaces. We can make that even prettier by blending land and sea surface temperatures.Now you get a picture of a warming globe but the alarming part is what's happening to the northern most landmasses. Temperatures in the Arctic were 5 degrees C (9 F) above the seasonal normal. In fact, of eleven climate regions in Canada, five set new records for spring temperatures. Even the Pacific coast, which had the least above normal temperatures, was 0.7 degrees C above the 63 year normal.

Despite some people clinging to winter ice production in the Arctic as something significant, the spreading ice sheet was primarily first year ice or new ice. What happened in May was either shocking or depressing, depending on your mood. Arctic ice had experienced a late season growth through April and reached seasonal maximum almost a month late. In May the decline in Arctic ice showed how thin it was and the Arctic has experienced the fastest decline in the satellite record.

The rate of decline through the month of May was the fastest in the satellite record; the previous year with the fastest daily rate of decline in May was 1980. By the end of the month, extent fell near the level recorded in 2006, the lowest in the satellite record for the end of May. Despite the rapid decline through May, average ice extent for the month was only the ninth lowest in the satellite record.

What we do not know is whether the Arctic sea ice extent will reach a new record low. It is simply too early to make that forecast and depends on varying meteorological conditions.

I mentioned earlier that the snow pack was melting rapidly. In May the North American snow pack melted faster in May 2010 than in any other May since records have been kept. In fact, Canada experienced the most rapid overall spring meltdown ever recorded. The change in the radiation reflection co-efficient further speeds heating at the surface.

There's a lot more interesting stuff that I could discuss but suffice to say, it's hot out there, and it's likely to get a lot hotter. And with heat the Earth will engage its natural cooling system - rapidly rising and expanding air. That can kick off some fairly significant meteorological events.

Rex... it didn't snow in Vancouver this year.

Because it has done such great things for American politics

It is unavoidable. Soon there will be a Fox News North based around the Sun newspaper chain. Goodbye reasonable discourse, nice knowing you.
Let be clear here - this is not going to be a channel dedicated to reasoned, objective journalism from a conservative perspective, this is going to be the television version of the Blogging Tories. The former press flak for the sitting PM will be running the network --- anyone care to place bets on how long it is before Michael Coren has a show? Or whether such august personages as Kathy Shaide are regular commentators?
It isn't as if Canada didn't already have a couple of conservative networks - how about CTV or Global? Hell even the eeeeevil liburl CBC gives regular airtime to Rex Murphy and Kory Teneycke. And this isn't a matter of people being able to pick and choose what channels they get at home -- they are applying for a "must carry" licence. Imagine the screeching that would ensue if the Playboy channel or some other kind of  porn network applied for a "must carry" licence that meant it would be seen in most Canadian homes. And make no mistake, this is going to be ideological porn, and it will have the same kind of effect that all porn has: It will arouse and excite by pandering to base instincts, while at the same time desensitizing viewers to non-mainstream content, pushing them to crave more extreme content to get their jollies.
Five years from now, when you wonder how in the hell the network that is screening "Alberta Uber Alles with Ralph Klein" or "Honky Night in Canada with Ezra Levant" ever got a licence, remember the  "freedom of speech" arguments that are being made now, and shed a tear for those well-meaning bloggers as Canada's Lowest Common Dominatrix Kate McMillan reads out their addresses on the air and urges her hordes of flying monkeys into action.

And Justice for All . . .

SLATE HAS AN OPINION ON THE US SUPREME COURT'S refusal to hear the appeal of Maher Arar, and it's not good for the Supremes and American jurisprudence: "Ignoring Maher Arar won't make his torture claims go away." The article, by Dahlia Lithwick, contends that

With the Supreme Court signing off on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to kick Arar to the curb, he has nowhere left to turn in the American courts. As Arar said in a statement issued by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the "decision eliminates my last bit of hope in the judicial system of the United States." Nor did it take any time at all for the Supreme Court's latest torture smoke signals to travel through the rest of the court system. The very same day the Supremes declined to hear Arar's case, a panel of judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was hearing arguments about former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo and his alleged role in the state-sanctioned abuse of another accused terrorist, Jose Padilla. Already one of the appeals-court judges was likening the denial of certiorari in Arar's case to the problem in John Yoo's case, worrying aloud about the courts wading in and "imposing liability on a non-policymaking lawyer."

The Yoo and Arar cases thus became mirror images of each other in just a few hours: A torture lawyer cannot be held responsible for authorizing torture, and an innocent victim of torture cannot get restitution. Torture slowly becomes a singular act for which nobody will ever be held to account and nobody will ever be made whole.

Each time an American court declines to address this issue because it's novel, or complicated, or a matter best left to the elected branches, it reaffirms yet again that there is no precedent for doing justice in torture cases. By declining to find torture impermissible, they are helping to make it acceptable.

No wonder President George W. Bush can now openly brag about the water-boarding policy he once denied even existed. The courts have become complicit in the great American cop-out on torture. As Arar's attorney Cole explains, in a 2009 speech arguing against the creation of a commission to investigate torture, President Obama insisted that torture suits being filed in the courts would offer sufficient accountability. But since then his administration has acted to thwart every one of those lawsuits and weighed in on the side of the torturers. The courts now refuse to consider the torture issue because it's for the president and Congress to set policy. The president promises that vindication will come from the courts. Each branch of government hides behind the others. This is the separation of powers turned into a constitutional shell game that exists only to evade responsibility.

There will be interesting things that come of this, as the years pass.

Early sign of an ugly season

That... is Invest 92L. (click to enlarge) Luckily it weakened by late afternoon due to increasing wind shear. However, this is early in the season - very early. This little storm came close to reaching tropical depression status and both its formation and location have set off alarms in hurricane and cyclone warning centres around the Atlantic basin. As Dr. Jeff Masters says:

It's very rare to have a development like 92L in that portion of the tropical Atlantic this early in the season. The lower than average wind shear and higher than average SSTs that helped 92L get organized are more likely than not to carry over into the main portion of hurricane season, giving us a much more active hurricane season than normal.

Quick non-technical primer.
Wind shear measurement is the strength of the upper horizontal winds. If wind shear is low it allows the depression to gain strength. If wind shear is high it takes the top off the rapidly rising air well before it reaches the tropopause and squelches storm development.
SST is sea surface temperature. High SST results in rapidly rising air creating a low pressure centre which, if conditions are suitable, can result in a rotating tropical depression.

There is a lot of debate over what will happen in the Gulf of Mexico if one of these little units develops, moves over the spreading oil and then makes landfall. Jeff Masters' prog on the subject is worth reading.

It's looking now like we're possibly going to find out sooner rather than later what will actually happen.

In 2008 The House of Commons resolved....

To withdraw all Canadian troops from Afghanistan by July 2011. Right?

Wrong!

The motion adopted by the House of Commons on 13 March, 2008 says no such thing.

Having heard all the push-pull politics going on it is interesting to watch Harper yap on that there will be no turning back on the decision to withdraw since that was the decision of parliament.

He's playing a game. This is now the oft repeated line:

“we are working according to the parliamentary resolution that was adopted in 2008 by which Canada's military mission will end and will transition to a civilian and development mission at the end of 2011.”

Except that's not what the resolution says. The wind-down of the combat mission in the parliamentary resolution reads as follows: (my emphasis)

(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011;

That's reasonably clear.

So, why is Harper peddling a line which is so obviously inconsistent with his own past war-drumming and a resolution which, without having to stretch, allows the government to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan anywhere but Kandahar?

Comments?

I hate all politicians

And Libby Davies has just demonstrated why I feel that way.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper called on NDP MP Libby Davies to resign as her party's deputy leader after she suggested Israel has been occupying territory since the country came into existence.

Well, thanks, you silly bitch, for giving this, the worst prime minister this country has ever known, a legitimate opening into which he can lever his right-wing rhetoric.

Jesus H. Christ on a Popsicle stick. What does it take to remind them that everything they say counts?

Moron.

Resign and be done with it. For the good of the country.

Arizona one step closer to creating a "bag limit"

on "illegal aliens".

Now Arizona, seized of its egregious immigration law (requiring people to immediately produce "papers" on the demand of a police officer) has a new Republican bill under consideration. (Emphasis mine)

A new law under consideration in Arizona would deny birth certificates for children born in the US to illegal immigrants.

In a statement that would make an old Apartheid Afrikaner blush, one of the original sponsors of the current immigration law made the following noises:

State Representative John Kavanagh (R) argued that the law does not conflict with the Constitution, since the original drafters never intended the right of citizenship to be granted to children of illegal immigrants. "If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," Kavanagh said. In addition to supporting the proposed law, Kavanagh also supported the controversial law that gave Arizona greater authority to find and deport illegal immigrants.

Hmmm. I guess one would have to read the pertinent part of the US Constitution to determine that. Let's see what a Canadian can make of it.

Let's see... read Preamble, Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4... something interesting there, we'll get back to that*, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7. Nope! OK, down through the amendments... Ah! 14th Amendment.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Oh. That was ratified in 1868 and some people might call it "quaint". Prior to that, nothing was written nor even suggested as to who was legally a citizen. Perhaps this was because the drafters of the original US Constitution were actually, until 1784, British subjects, rebellious though they might have been at the time.

Kavanagh, somehow able to divine from the grave the "actual" intent of the drafters seems to be reading something which isn't and never has been there.

Give them time. Before long anyone who doesn't pass the Kavanagh "smell test" will be declared non-human and Arizona Republicans will be demanding to issue hunting licenses for them.

* Kavanagh, just so we're clear here, is sitting in Arizona yapping it up only by virtue of Article IV of the US Constitution. He is not a native of Arizona. He is a retired New York Port Authority cop from Queen's, New York.

Hitch and Chuck . . .

AND BOY, HITCH SURE IS STOKED. Seems Chuck prattled away recently at the Centre for Islamic Studies at Oxford U., and according to the Slate article, Chuck was rather disappointing.

So the speech made by Prince Charles at Oxford last week might bear a little scrutiny. Discussing one of his favorite topics, the "environment," he announced that the main problem arose from a "deep, inner crisis of the soul" and that the "de-souling" of humanity probably went back as far as Galileo. In his view, materialism and consumerism represented an imbalance, "where mechanistic thinking is so predominant," and which "goes back at least to Galileo's assertion that there is nothing in nature but quantity and motion." He described the scientific worldview as an affront to all the world's "sacred traditions."

• • •

One thinks of the painstaking, cloud-dispelling labor of British scientists from Isaac Newton to Joseph Priestley to Charles Darwin to Ernest Rutherford to Alan Turing and Francis Crick, much of it built upon the shoulders of Galileo and Copernicus, only to see it casually slandered by a moral and intellectual weakling from the usurping House of Hanover. An awful embarrassment awaits the British if they do not declare for a republic based on verifiable laws and principles, both political and scientific.

Chuck doesn't like science. Give 'im both barrels, Hitch.

"Touchdown" Jesus is toast . . .

ACCORDING TO JALOPNIK, where there's a report worthy of your attention: "Touchdown Jesus" Statue Destroyed By Lightning.

Good news from the underground . . .

THE INDEPENDENT newsandviews site reports that in the UK, "Mole numbers soar as strychnine ban checks pest control". And there are traditions to follow with the The British Traditional Molecatchers Register reporting increased request for mole-removal. Looks like a conservative fundamentalist, IMHO.

They let these people have firearms...

The take over of the Republican Party by the teabaggers seems to be nearing completion. Here are two separate examples.

Ever heard of Sharron Angle? No? Here, let Greg Sargent at the Washington Post tell you about her. She's the newly anointed Republican candidate running for senator from the state of Nevada.... against Democrat Harry Reid.

... the Reid operation is gearing up to paint Angle as, well, a nutjob, as a cross between Rand Paul and Orly Taitz. There doesn't appear to be a shortage of material.

And the thing is, they really only have to sit and let Angle do all the talking.

Yes... she is for real.

What's also real is the new Texas Republican party platform. You have to read Bud Kennedy's entire piece to gain a full appreciation of how loony the Republicans have become. And, they're all armed.

I know. It reads like a comedy piece, but it too, is for real.

As an added bonus, readers might want to gather in that the family-values, church-going, morality crowd that supports the tea bag revolution is also in this and still trying to sort out why their divorce rate has gone off the Beaufort Scale.

I am reminded of this quote from Peter Coyote:

... what would you call people that believe that fully automatic weapons and cop-killer bullets should be freely available; who bomb abortion clinics and advocate the murder of doctors who perform abortions; who believe that anyone who is not a Christian is doomed to Hell, and people who would elevate Creationism to the status of science? Give me a polite name and I'll use it.

Tip of the bonnet to Skippy, proof of intelligent life.

Unnamed sources...

Hugh Tomlinson at the London Times might be wanting to have a word with some of his "unnamed sources". It would appear that the story, which Ed picked up on yesterday may well have been a deliberate plant.

According to Bloomberg's Glen Carey, the Times' story is a crock.

Saudi Arabia rejects “the violation of its sovereignty and the use of its airspace or territory by anyone to attack any country,” the official Saudi Press Agency said late yesterday, citing an unidentified official at the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

Oh good! Another unnamed source.

It's as if Dimitri Soudas got loose with his Blackberry.

Who knows?

I sure hope not . . .

THE LONDON TIMES has a scary report: "Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites". Oh boy, a big, steaming bowl of Not Good, as it appears that the Sunnis have decided . . . 

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

Timing is everything . . .

A crusty old Marine Sergeant-Major found himself at a gala event hosted by a local liberal arts college.

There was no shortage of young, idealistic ladies in attendance, one of whom approached the Sergeant- Major and asked,

"Excuse me, Sergeant-Major, but you seem to be a very serious man. Is something bothering you?"

"Negative, ma'am. Just serious by nature."

The young lady looked at his awards and decorations and said, ''It looks like you have seen a lot of action?''

''Yes, ma'am, a lot of action."

The young lady, tiring of trying to start up a conversation, said, "You know, you should lighten up a little. Relax and enjoy yourself."

The Sergeant-Major just stared at her in his serious manner.

Finally the young lady said, "You know, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but when is the last time you had sex?"

"1955," he replied.

"Well, there you are. No wonder you're so serious. You really need To chill out! I mean, no sex since 1955!"

She took his hand and led him to a private room where she proceeded to 'relax' him several times.

Afterwards, panting for breath, she leaned against his bare chest and said, "Wow, you sure didn't forget much since 1955."

The Sergeant-Major said in his serious voice, after glancing at his watch, "I hope not; it's only 2230 now."

(Gotta love military time)

BP to the rescue . . .

THERE'S AN OUTFIT BY NAME OF UCBcomedy.com, (wedgie warning: site not politically-correct) and they have this hilarious video of how BP handles a spill. In this case, coffee. BP Spills Coffee

The History of the Blogosphere

The latest installment of The Maple Syrup Revolution - In which RossK and Rev. Paperboy discuss the history of blogging  - is now available for your listening pleasure.

Hands Across the Sand as the Cons rewrite history

Go to your beach on June 26 at noon. Join hands. That's it. NO to Offshore Oil Drilling, YES to Clean Energy

Hands Across the Sand began in Florida in February to "protest the efforts by the Florida Legislature and the US Congress to lift the ban on oil drilling in the near and off shores of Florida." Well it's a global movement now - here's the Vancouver Canada page.

But don't we already have a ban on tanker traffic and offshore drilling in BC?

Nope.

Natural Resources Canada - Review of the Federal Moratorium on Oil and Gas Activities Offshore British Columbia

ERRATA :

The Terms of Reference for the “Report of the Public Review on the Government of Canada Moratorium on Oil and Gas Activities in the Queen Charlotte Region of British Columbia” state that “in 1972, the Government of Canada imposed a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic through the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound due to concerns over the potential environmental impacts.” However; the moratorium on oil and gas activities offshore British Columbia does not apply to tanker traffic.

Prior to 1972, a number of permits for oil and gas exploration were issued for offshore British Columbia. Due to environmental concerns, rights under those permits were suspended as of 1972 by way of Orders in Council, thus forming a de facto moratorium.

Thank you, Pierre Trudeau, for suspending those offshore oil and gas exploration permits in 1972.

However in 1982 the Canadian government brought in the Canada Oil and Gas Act which allows the permits to be "renegotiated into exploration agreements" and "the time frame for renegotiation to be extended and the rights continued to be valid." In 1987, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act grandfathered the waiting exploration agreements.

"Thus, the moratorium continues to be maintained through government policy. No activity can occur until the former permits are converted to exploration licences. The decision not to negotiate with industry to convert those permits is a pure policy decision. There is no statutory impediment to carrying out those negotiations."

Shorter Con : No laws against oil tankers or offshore drilling in BC

The above "Errata", by the way, were added to the Natural Resources Canada webpage just last year.

Meanwhile the Pacific Regional Advisory Council on Oil Spill Response is being gutted :

Of the seven member panel, five new members replaced last year had to sign a "Letter of Expectation" limiting their meetings to only two half days per year and Transport Minister Baird has denied them access to drafts of changes to marine oil safety regulations on spill response preparedness

just as Enbridge tells us it wants its Northern Gateway pipeline shipping tankers of tarsands to Asia via the BC port of Kitimat "in operation by 2016."

We're going to need a lot more than Hands Across the Sands here but it's a start.

h/t to co-blogger West End Bob for passing on the Hands Across the Sand link from a friend of his in Florida.