Black Liberation Theology

by: Mary Ann Boulette

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright teaches “black liberation theology”. Liberation theology as it has expressed itself in the African-American community seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the burden of white oppression. The question that confronts these black theologians is not one that is easily answered. "What if anything does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men”, whose existence is "threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power?" If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message.

Since this minister has been Senator Obama’s spiritual mentor for 20 years, will this hurt Senator Obama’s race for the presidency? I believe it should since it goes directly to the issue of his “judgment”. His campaign and especially the Senator knew this could become an issue and for that very reason did not have Rev. Wright at Obama’s announcement of his presidential run. Yet the Senator and his campaign were not prepared for this issue when it became a problem for the campaign. If you are running for president and you know there are two or three problems that could become negative issues for you, shouldn’t I, as a voter,expect you as a candidate to have made some preparation to counter these issues? An experienced Statesman should have been prepared for this. The Senator should have known that if the Democrats did not bring this issue up – the Republicans most certainly will. It is my opinion, that Obama can not win the presidency with this issue hanging over his !
head.

What if Senator Obama were a white man and attended a church where the Senior Minister preached against the inclusion of blacks into our society? I would be outraged and I maintain this candidate would not even be in the presidential race to begin with.

This goes to the issues which Obama is running on “judgment, experience, and association.” Senator Obama said he did not realize – after 20 years, how could he not realize his minister’s beliefs? Many will see this issue as going against his campaign of bring “blue America and red America” together. He looks to many now as if he is only another cheap politician. If he is going to be the party’s nominee, “swift boating” will destroy his campaign and the Democratic Party will lose the best opportunity to take back the White House in many years. Every super delegate needs to think about this as they are making their decision. As the popular vote stands now – Obama is the party’s nominee unless the delegates and the votes of Florida and Michigan are allowed to stand. Yes, the Democrats will lose the youth vote but the youth vote usually stays home anyway and the black vote will either stay home or go back to Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton has a chance now to come back but needs to release her tax returns as quickly as possible as that is becoming an issue for her. And the Democrats should just pray that there is not some issue lurking there. There has been talk about how President Clinton raised the money for his library – her campaign better be ready with the answer.

Words do matter. “God damn American” – words do matter. “911 was America’s chickens coming back to roost” – words do matter. The aids virus was a United States experiment to kill off the black community – words do matter. Blacks are ruled by rich whites – words do matter. “Hillary has never been called a n____!” Words do matter. This is what happens when a campaign is built on fine speech and eloquent words.

After Obama’s speech this morning – in the end the speech was just words which I believe is all that Senator Obama is. I feel as if I still don’t know the man or perhaps this man makes me see something inside of myself that I still don’t know or understand.

My support still stands with Senator Clinton.

About The Author

Mary Ann Boulette
maboulet@swbell.net
http://maboulette.blogtoolkit.com/
Cute, witty and charming

I Report - You Decide

by: Mary Ann Boulette

I have found some interesting facts while watching C-Span last night. The minority leader of the Florida legislature was on.

He said that every state which moved up their primaries were originally told that their votes would not count but after a DNC meeting in Atlanta, these same states were granted an exemption except for Michigan and Florida.

The Democratic minority in Florida Legislature tried to get a bill passed moving the primary back to February 5th put the bill was voted down by the majority Republicans in the legislature.

All candidates signed an agreement that they would not campaign in Florida but all candidates names were left on the ballot – everyone!

Over 1.75 million Democrats voted in that primary every knowing that their votes might not count and they voted overwhelming for Hillary. If this vote was counted, Hillary could be in the lead in the popular vote.

So, who is pulling the strings here? Is it the Republican’s because they know they will not be able to beat Hillary or is it the Democrats who don’t want Hillary to be the party nominee?

I report – you decide.

About The Author

Mary Ann Boulette
maboulet@swbell.net
http://maboulette.blogtoolkit.com/
Cute, witty and charming

Who Is Playing The Race Card?

by: Mary Ann Boulette

Wall Street Journal Week in Review on Fox News said that Obama is playing the race card. The next show Beltway Boys also on Fox news said Clinton is playing the race card. Hey Fox – you can’t have it both ways.

Let’s examine what racist statements have allegedly been said. President Clinton said that when a black candidate is running in South Carolina, they will win the state. That is a fact and it was not said in a racist way. It was just said as a fact – which it is. Jesse Jackson won the state twice and Obama this time.

Next statement – Geraldine Ferraro said that if a woman of any color or a white man was running, they would not be enjoying the lead that Obama is enjoying. This is a fact – Obama’s lack of experience would stand in his way if he were either a woman or white male. In my opinion this is a true statement.

If a black male runs for high office their campaigns have to stop saying every statement they dislike, is a racist statement. If we expect Obama to “transcend the race issue” then his campaign needs to stop looking at every statement of criticism as a racist remark.

Next subject is Rev. Wright of Obama’s church who preaches “separation of races”. If any racist statement is truly racist, it is his sermons. Now Obama has been listening to this man for the last 20-25 years. Can we not believe that some of this racist rhetoric had not permeated some of Obama’s thinking? We know that is has his wife’s.

So you decide – Clinton or Obama or both using race card?

About The Author

Mary Ann Boulette
maboulet@swbell.net
http://maboulette.blogtoolkit.com/
Cute, witty and charming

Open Letter to Senator Clinton & Senator Obama

by: Mary Ann Boulette

Are both of you crazy? If you both keep up the gender and race issues, you just might as well hold the door open for President McCain as he moves into the White House. I am so disappointed in both of you. I am one of the unheard voices that I expect both of you to be listening to. But you can’t be listening if you are so busy apologizing for your campaigns! Can’t you manage the people around you? Well, if you can’t, how can I trust either of you to manage the White House? I am having immense doubts on this point with both of you.

Maybe it is better that we only have white males to run for this high office because it has become obvious that if you are black or a woman, you can’t stop name calling!

Senator Obama – Ms Ferraro was correct – if you were a white male, you would not be running because you do not have enough experience. And don’t throw that “I had the judgment to be against the war before anyone.” If you were so against the war, why have you voted for every funding bill that the President has asked for? Why did you vote “not present” on 140 votes in the Illinois legislature? Besides being against the war before you were for the war, what exactly have you done? Show me your good judgment because after this last week, I am beginning to doubt that judgment.

Senator Clinton – I am so very disappointed in you. Send President Clinton on a vacation until the convention. He is not doing you any good in the role he has been given. And how could you throw Ms. Ferraro under the bus? Stand up to the people who are managing your campaign and stand up for yourself. Jeri Ferrero paved the way for you and other women just so that you could have the right to be running for the position that you are and you turn your back on her?

Oh, by the way, please make sure you clarify what you have done in your career because I am tired of having to go thru your career for my family and friends. If you want their vote, you tell them what you have done because I believe you have changed our country in many ways but it is not up to me to tell others – that is your job. I have enough problems just keeping my head above water economically right now.

Also, I have the solution for who should be our party nominee. It is not the popular vote or how many states you have won – it is the Electoral College votes that counts. Add the Electoral College votes for every state that each of you have won and use that number.

Most of all I can’t believe that this simple answer has to come from me – who is not getting a paycheck from either of your campaigns.

Good night and good luck!

About The Author

Mary Ann Boulette
maboulet@swbell.net
http://maboulette.blogtoolkit.com/
Cute, witty and charming

Gender Bias vs Race Bias Still Alive In America?

by: Mary Ann Boulette

Afro-Americans are lining up behind Obama and white females over 50 are lining up behind Hillary and both demographics are threatening to walk out of the Denver convention if their candidate is not the nominee. Now if this isn’t an example of gender and race bias, then I don’t know what it is.

It seems the Democrats can screw-up a “two car” parade. And of course, Florida is right in the middle of this train wreck again. They are talking about a “do-over” primary, a “mail in” primary or any of a number of ways to resolve Florida – which might even end up in court again. My question is - if Florida Democrats knew their votes would not be counted because they moved up their primary date, why did 1.7 million voters line up to vote? And overwhelmingly for Hillary?

Then there is my home state of Texas where we get to vote twice. Now I have voted in every Texas election in the last 38 years and I never knew that!

Taking this impasse all the way to convention is dangerous for the Democrats. The last two brokered conventions in the recent past have led to Republican victories in the general election. So, the door is wide open for a President McCain whose foreign policy is what we have right now and he has admitted that he knows nothing about economics.

Being the forward thinking person I am I have come up with the solution. Remember Bush v Gore? Florida, 2000, court? The Electoral College trumps the popular vote. So – take all the Electoral College votes for all the states that Obama won and do the same for Hillary and viola – most Electoral College votes is the nominee.

Oh, and did you know that McCain is older than Ronald Reagan was when he became President? Let’s just throw age bias into the pot to really stir things up.

About The Author

Mary Ann Boulette
maboulet@swbell.net
http://maboulette.blogtoolkit.com/
Cute, witty and charming
Writer, poet, photographer. old lady!

Healthcare - Why Congress Can't Fix It

by: Bob Kinford

Hillary Clinton says she will fix our health care system. Barack Obama says he can fix it better. The fact is that neither of them will “fix” anything. Either of them will change system, but there are some serious issues as to why neither of their plans will actually do anything to lower the cost of health care in the United States. The reason is very simple when you stop and think about it rather than get emotional about the issue.

You cannot solve a problem until you know what the cause(s) of the problem are. As with most problems of the self-inflicted kind, no one in the government can look in the mirror and see himself or herself as a part of the problem. Are drug companies, insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors regulated? Yes, they are, and guess who creates the legislation to regulate them. Congress does. Who are the people claiming to have the plan to fix health care? The very people who have been regulating it in the first place. Until Congress can look itself in the eye and realize that it is the cause of our health care problems, the problems will not be fixed. The problems in our health care system are multi-layered and Congress is at the center of every layer.

Nearly everyone agrees the cost of health care in the United States is dramatically higher in the United States than either Canada or Mexico. Just how much so is astounding. A prime example was when I was working in Montana on the Canadian border. I injured my leg, and as the closest medical facility was i across the border in Canada. The total cost of the visit (including doctor’s fees for stitching my leg, admittance, and drugs) was under $50. In the United States, we pay that much just for the local anesthesia. It does not stop there. I have worked in the livestock industry for over thirty years. We use many of the same drugs in cattle that are administered to people for respiratory illness. If it cost twenty-five dollars to treat on a three hundred pound calf on a five-day treatment, we consider it an expensive medicine. This is about the same as treating two average sized people. The drug dexamethasone, purchased through a veterinarian, costs roughly five and a half cents per mil-liter. It your child is born prematurely, he/she will be administered the same medicine for a hundred dollars a mil-liter. Even giving consideration to the fact there are different strengths of this drug the markup for the higher strength (at $0.25 per ml) is still a four hundred percent markup

Over charging the American people for drugs is just one layer. While I have nothing against drug or insurance companies making a profit, a four hundred-time markup is more akin to robbery than it is to profit. If drug companies make a profit on the drugs they sell in Canada and Mexico, they should be able to sell them at the same price here in the United States and still make a decent profit.

Another layer is malpractice suits and the costs of malpractice insurance that is passed on to the consumer through higher prices in actual medical costs, and medical insurance as well. The biggest problem with malpractice suits is that the insurance companies want to save the money of going to trial so they settle out of court. This protects doctors from actually being found, in court, of being negligent. It also encourages attorneys to take on frivolous malpractice suits on a contingency basis because the odds show that it will be settled out of court. Congress needs to pass legislation demanding that all malpractice suits go to trial and that if the doctor is not found guilty, that the attorney filing the suit cover all court costs and legal fees.

Along this same line, currently if a doctor loses their license due to malpractice in one state, they simply go to another state, get a new license and start over. Congress needs to pass legislation requiring all doctors to have a federal license to practice medicine. Before a state could issue a license to practice medicine they would need to cross reference the doctor with the federal data base. In this manner, a doctor guilty of malpractice could not just start over in another state.

The third layer is health insurance. While the advertised purpose of health insurance companies is to provide you with health care, the real reason behind these companies is for them to turn a profit for their shareholders. When you buy a policy, the company is gambling that you will pay more into the system than you take out. Your premiums are combined with those of others buy from them as well as other investments they make in order to hedge against their losses. Most will not pay for pre-existing conditions because that is a bad bet. Your pre-existing condition assures them that they will have to pay out more than you will put into the program. This is a perfectly understandable practice. However, setting limits on how much they will pay, or canceling your policy, if and when you do have a catastrophic illness shows only a concern for the bottom line and not for the customer. The bottom line is that cancellation should only occur if a client does not pay the premiums for reasons other than catastrophic illness. There needs to be provisions made to protect the policies of those who become so sick they cannot work enough to pay their policy premiums.

Along the same lines, if you lose your job, you also lose your company provided insurance. Help is available with the COBRA plan, but it is expensive and unaffordable for many of those being forced to live on unemployment while searching for another job. It is just another quasi safety net to make it look like the government understands, and is taking action on the problem. Something needs to be done to assure that if one loses their job, that their company provided insurance would not lapse. Legislation could be passed to continue covering employer provided insurance through unemployment.

Another big cost of health care is advertising prescription drugs. Billions of dollars are spent by drug companies advertising in multi media formats like modern day snake oil salespersons. Drugs are advertised along with their symptoms to get people to visit their doctors and ask for the drug. It should be the other way around. If you don’t feel well and go to the doctor, you should be able to tell him/her what your symptoms are and he should tell you what kind of drug you need. These advertisements only add to the healthcare problem by increased costs, and by instilling general hypochondria in the general population.

While this is but a short version of the problems with our health care system, it shows some of the biggest flaws. It also demonstrates that, at the middle of each problem, is our very own Congress. Before Congress can develop a health care program there is a list of things they need to do:

1. Determine the cost of drugs in neighboring countries

2. Regulate drug costs in this country to be more in line with our neighbors to the north and south of us (as well as in line with the rest of the world.)

3. Have a national program to register doctors and keep doctors who lose their license from starting practice in a new state

4. Prevent malpractice lawsuits from being settled out of court, with the attorney filing the case paying court costs and doctor’s legal expenses.

5. Standardize insurance policies

6. Pass legislation to preventing insurance companies from canceling policies for any reason other than non-payment (for reasons other than hospitalization or being disabled from medical conditions)

7. Pass legislation preventing insurance loss from job loss by paying premiums through unemployment benefits

8. Cut billions out of the cost of drugs by prohibiting the advertising of prescription drugs

Congress could, and should have addressed all of the above items to lower the price of healthcare. Yet they have not been addressed. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both claim to have the cure for our healthcare crisis yet they have not mentioned any of the above problems within our healthcare system. Before you can fix anything, you have to know what the problem is. Fixing our healthcare system by instituting a national healthcare system (paid for by taxpayers) is akin to painting a car to fix a faulty transmission. It may look better from the outside, but it does not fix the problem. The only way to fix the problem is to actually address the issues causing the problems. While this is only a partial list of what needs to be done, it does address the real problems behind our healthcare issues. These are all problems which need to be addressed by Congress. The only way to get Congress to look at the situation in a different manner is to change Congress. We need to level the power base in Washington.

The only way of doing this is to set term limits on all Washington held elected offices. This is a Constitutional amendment we can make as provided by article V of the Constitution You may visit my website and download a copy of a petition to do just that from my Constitutional Conventions page. Be sure to read the requirement for this petition to be legal. Check the threads in the forum. If there is not one for circulating the petition in you state, start one by clicking on “post” and you will be able to start the thread. Inform all of the people in your email address book about this campaign and urge them to join and notify their friends and family.

Government for the people, by the people is dependent upon the people. If we do not take individual action for change, we will be dependent upon change from those whose main interest is their own power, and their own place in history. We have the tools imbedded in our Constitution to change our government for the better. We also have the tools of communication to efficiently use those tools. The only way our government can go against our will, is for us to allow it. If we do not work towards change, than we cannot complain when government does not follow our wishes.

Next week, why we need to prevent lawyers from being legislators.

About The Author

Bob Kinford is a common working man who looks through the facade of modern politics. He is also a man who is giving "we the people" a chance to change teh face of American politics at http://www.bobkinford.com

Canadian Military Missions Since WW2

by: Delores Woodley

Canadian Military Missions Since The End Of The Second World War

1947 - South Korea. United Nations Temporary Commission in Korea (UNTCOK). 2 soldiers acted as observer elections. 1947-1948.

1949 - Kashmir. United Nations Military Observer Group in Indian and Pakistan. (UNMOGIP) Up to 39 observers served here until 1979. Canada also supplied an aircraft to headquarters until 1996.

1950 - Korea. United Nations Command Korea. 6,146 troops. By the end of the war in 1953 over 26,000 troops served. From 1953 to 1978 we participated with the United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission with a very small number of personnel. After 1978 the military attach in the South Korean embassy assumed this responsibility.

1954 - Middle East. United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. (UNTSO). 11 personnel. One of Canada's longest peacekeeping missions helped enforce the ceasefire between Israel and its new neighbours. This mission continues with 8 personnel. *

1954 - Indochina. International Commission for Supervision and Control (ICSC). 133 military observers in Vietnam to supervise the French withdrawal and monitor border incursions. In 1973 the number of personnel was reduced to 20.

1956 - Sinai. United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF I). 1,007 troops helped stop hostilities after Israel, France and Great Britain attacked Egypt over the Suez Canal. The mission lasted from November 1956 to June 1967.

1958 - Lebanon. United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon. (UNOGIL). 77 Observers to monitor arms smuggling across the Lebanese border. The mission lasted from June to December 1958.

1960 - Congo. Organisation des nation unies au Congo (ONUC). 421 troops helped maintain law and order in this African country from July 1960 until June 1964.

1962 - West New Guinea. United Nations Security Force in West New Guinea (UNSF). 13 RCAF personnel served from October 1962 to April 1963 to help maintain peace in this Indonesian island.

1963 - Yemen. United Nations Yemen Observation Mission. (UNYOM). 36 troops and observers monitored disengagement between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates from July 1963 to September 1964.

1964 - Cyprus. United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). 1150 troops. Canada maintained a strong presence in Cyprus until 1993 when troops were withdrawn for other uses. There is currently one staff officer still with the mission. Over 25,000 personnel served in Cyprus during our forty-year mission. *

1965 - Dominican Republic. Mission Of The Representative Of The Secretary-General in the Dominican Republic. (DOMREP). 1 observer served with the mission from May 1965 to October 1966.

1965 - India and Pakistan. United Nations India-Pakistan Observer Mission (UNIPOM) 112 troops served at any given time from September 1965 to March 1966 to monitor a ceasefire.

1968 - Nigeria. Observer Team Nigeria (OTN).2 personnel monitored a ceasefire between the Nigeria government and Biafran rebels.

1973 - Middle East. United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF II). 1,145 troops served from October 1973 to July 1979, again to supervise a ceasefire between Israel and Egypt and control the buffer zone between the countries.

1973 - Vietnam. International Commission for Control and Supervision (ICCS). 248 personnel helped monitor the ceasefire and return of prisoners to Vietnam. Completed in 1974.

1974 - Middle East. United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). 190 personnel just withdrew on March 24, 2006 ending three decades of peacekeeping on the Israel-Syrian border involving 12,000 troops stationed near the Golan Heights. 4 personnel remain for now, that will be reduced to 2 by July. *

1978 - Lebanon. United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. (UNIFIL) 117 troops served between March and October 1978 to assist with Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

1986 - Middle East. Multinational Force and Observers. (MFO) This mission was created after the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt in 1979. Canada began contributing personnel to this non UN mission in 1986, when 1,800 troops were sent. Twenty years later we still have 31 personnel stationed in Egypt. *

1988 - Iran and Iraq. United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group. (UNIIMOG). Up to 525 personnel supervised the disengagement of the two sides from August 1988 to February 1991.

1988 - Afghanistan and Pakistan. United Nations Good Offices Mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan (UNGOMAP). 5 observers monitored the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan from May 1988 to March 1990.

1989 - Central America. United Nations Observer Group in Central America (ONUCA) 174 personnel helped verify compliance with the Esquipulas Agreement signed between Nicaragua and its neighbours to end conflict in the region. Canada participated from November 1989 to January 1992.

1989 - Namibia. United Nations Transition Assistance Group Namibia (UNTAG). 301 personnel served between April 1989 and March 1990.

1990 - Kuwait. (The Persian Gulf War) 2,700 personnel including three ships and a squadron of CF-18s and a medical unit helped a UN force push Iraq out of Kuwait. Through 1991.

1990 - Haiti. United Nations Mission for the Verification of the Elections in Haiti. (ONUVEH). 11 election observers served from November 1990 to February 1991.

1990 - Afghanistan and Pakistan. Office of the Secretary-General in Afghanistan and Pakistan (OSGAP). 1 military observer from March 1990 to 1995

1991 - Iraq. United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). This organization was created to disarm Iraq, especially weapons of mass destruction in 1991. Over the course of the mission from April 1991 to December 1999, 100 personnel participated. After American air strikes against Iraq in late 1998 a new UN agency was created to hunt for illegal weapons. Two Canadian Forces personnel were posted to the New York headquarters for this mission from 1999 to the spring of 2000 when they were replaced with civilians.

1991 - El Salvador. United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL). Up to 55 personnel investigated human rights complaints and assisted military reforms and elections. The mission lasted from July 1991 to April 1995

1991 - Angola. United Nations Angola Verification Mission II (UNAVEM II). 15 observers monitored a ceasefire from July 1991 to April 1993.

1991 - Cambodia. United Nations Advance Mission in Cambodia (UNAMIC) that became United Nations Transition Authority in Cambodia. (UNTAC) . 7 military observers served from November 1991 to February 1992 with UNAMIC, then another 240 with UNTAC from February 1992 to September 1993. Part of the latter mission was de-mining and disarmament.

1991 - Western Sahara. United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara. (MINURSO). A maximum of 35 personnel helped monitor the ceasefire and supervise a referendum from May 1991 to June 1994.

1991 - Kuwait. United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKON) 5 observers monitored the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait from 1991 until September 2001.

1991 - Red Sea/Arabian Gulf/Persian Gulf. Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF). Canada contributed one vessel to this international force frequently from 1991 to September 2001. The purpose is to enforce a United Nations embargo against Iraq.

1992 - Yugoslavia. European Community Monitoring Mission in the Former Yugoslavia (ECMMY). 48 personnel monitored a ceasefire between January 1992 and August 1995 under the auspices of the European Community and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

1992 - Somalia. Canada contributed to three separate United Nations missions in this country from October 1992 and January 1994. United Nations Operation in Somalia I and II (UNOSOM I and UNOSOM II) and the Unified Task Force (UNITAF). Approximately 1,300 personnel participated, most between December 1992 and March 1993. It was during this mission that a few peacekeepers tortured and killed a Somalia youth, leading to a Royal Commission that described a breakdown of discipline, deep problems at Headquarters and a nadir within the Forces.

1992 - Balkans. United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) followed by United Nations Peace Forces Headquarters (UNPF). Close to 2000 personnel served in a variety of missions in the former Yugoslavia from the February 1992 until December 1995. They secured the Sarajevo airport, provided humanitarian relief, and protected demilitarized zones around Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. 13 personnel were also involved in monitoring "no fly zones' over Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 -1995). From 1993 to 1996 one frigate with 210 personnel were used for the enforcement of maritime sanctions against the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. In 1995 some staff participated in the United Nations Confidence Restoration Organization mission (UNCRO) as well. Several personnel and aircraft were also involved the Sarajevo Airlift from 1992 to 1996. In 1995 NATO replaced the United Nations as the sponsor of this mission.

1992 - Former Yugoslavia. United Nations Committee of Experts (UNCOE) (1992-1994). At any given time, Canada was providing up to seven legal and military police officers to UNCOE in Operation Justice, to report on the evidence of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.

1993 - Uganda and Rwanda. United Nations Observer Mission Uganda-Rwanda (UNOMUR) followed by United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) 115 personnel from June to October 1993 then December 1993 to February 1996. The missions were to monitor the Rwandan border then assist displaced persons and protect relief supplies following a civil war. A further 247 personnel also provided humanitarian assistance during 1994 but not under mandate from the U.N.

1993 - Mozambique. United Nations Operations in Mozambique (ONUMOZ). 4 observers monitored a ceasefire and kept warring sides apart. The Mission lasted from February 1993 and December 1994.

1993 - Haiti. Haiti Embargo Enforcement followed by United Nations Mission in Haiti (UNMIH). 750 personnel, civilian police and one navy vessel enforce the embargo, train police, protect international personnel and maintain security from September 1993 to June 1996. This included a small observer group along the border with the Dominican Republic in 1994.

1993 - Cambodia. Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC). 7 personnel from 1993 to June 2000.

1995 - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. United Nations Preventative Deployment Force in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (UNPREDEP). 1 officer from March 1995 to February 1999 then a further 55 personnel helped set up the NATO Extraction Force headquarters, December 1998 to April 1999.

1995 - Azerbaijan. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) sponsored a peacekeeping mission in the former Soviet area of Nagorny-Karabakh. 3 personnel assisted this mission from 1995 to 1996.

1995 - Former Yugoslavia. NATO Implementation Force (IFOR). This mission replaced the United Nations in the Balkans in December 1995 with 1,029 Canadian troops. In 1996 the mission was renamed SFOR and became a stabilization force. The number of Canadian personnel was gradually reduced after 2001 to 650 members by October 2004. In 1996 we contributed one frigate to enforce an embargo. The United Nations did continue some work in Bosnia-Herzegovina, called United Nations Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (UNMIBH) (December 1995 February 2000). Canada contributed two Canadian Forces members to de-mining and police training. From August to November 1997, 112 personnel providing tactical air support to enforce the Dayton Peace Accord.

1996 - Zaire. African Great Lakes Multinational Force. 354 personnel to assist in the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Rwandan refugees and facilitate their return to Rwanda. This mission lasted from November to December 1996.

1996 - Haiti. United Nations Support Mission in Haiti (UNSMIH). 750 personnel supported UN peacekeeping and institution building mission from July 1996 to July 1997.

1996 - Croatia. United Nations Observers in Prevlaka (UNMOP). 1 officer from February 1996 to September 2001.

1997 - Guatemala. United Nations Mission in Guatemala. (MINUGUA). 15 observers and civilian police went to help enforce a ceasefire. The mission lasted January to May 1997.

1997 - Haiti. There were two missions to this country in the same year. Mission de Police des Nations unies en Haiti. (MIPONUH) contributed vehicles and driver instructors from November 1997 to February 2000. The United Nations Transition Mission in Haiti (UNTMIH) sent 750 personnel to train police and protect UN staff from August to November 1997.

1997 - Italy. Canadian Air Component in MAMDRIM. 14 personnel supported the SFOR mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina by providing weather briefings, intelligence briefings and aircraft maintenance. From February 1997 to February 1998.

1998 - Honduras. Joint Task Force Central America (JTFCAM) 290 personnel performed humanitarian work and the DART (Disaster Assistance Response Team) deployed from November to December 1998.

1998 - Kosovo. Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission/Verification Mission. 23 personnel supported the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe with treaty compliance from October 1998 to May 1999

1998 - Central African Republic. Mission des Nations unies en Republique Centrafricaine (MINURCA). 80 personnel maintained security in the capital, Bangui, and then provided support during elections. This mission lasted from March 1998 to December 1999.

1999 - Kosovo. Canada participated in several missions in this region. United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) 1 liaison officer followed by 1,450 personnel with the NATO Force Kosovo (KFOR). Two aircraft were also used in the Humanitarian Airlift in Support of Kosovar Refugees from April to August 1999. A further 4 personnel served with the United Nations Mine Action Co-ordination Centre in Kosovo for six months from June to December 1999. From January to April 1999 there were 8 personnel serving with the Kosovo Verification Coordination Centre in the Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia.

1999 - Turkey. Joint Task Force Serdivan (JTFS). 200 personnel from the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) deployed after an earthquake. The mission lasted from August to October 1999.

1999 - Mozambique. United Nations Development Programme's Accelerated Demining Programme. (ADP). 3 personnel served on this mission from April 1999 to July 2000.

1999 - East Timor. International Force in East Timor (INTERFET). 650 personnel, including a navy vessel and aircraft, were sent to restore stability as the country voted for independence from occupying Indonesia. This mission lasted from September 1999 to February 2000. The remaining few personnel with the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) finished their mission in May 2001.

1999 - Congo. United Nations Mission in the Republic of Congo. 1 officer was initially assigned but there are currently 9 personnel on this assignment to enforce a ceasefire between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and five regional states that was signed in 1999. This is a United Nations sponsored mission, MONUC. *

1999 - Sierre Leone. United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) was created by the United Nations after years of civil war. 5 observers went to this African country in November 1999 to monitor disarmament. The mission was completed in July 2005.

2000 - Sierra Leone. International Military Advisory Training Team (IMATT). 8 personnel initially deployed has increased to 11. The British led mission to restore peace and stability in this war ravaged West African country began in November 2000 and continues. *

2000 - Ethiopia and Eritrea. United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) 450 personnel deployed to verify a ceasefire. The mission lasted from August 2000 to June 2003.

2000 - Albania. The Rinas airport recovery project. Albania's main airport was damaged when it was used for the Kosovar airlift. Together with the Canadian International Development Agency, National Defence helped rebuild runways, parking aprons and taxi-ways. This mission lasted from September 2000 to September 2001.

2001 - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. NATO Operation "Essential Harvest" involved 200 personnel and lasted from August 2001 to September 2002.

2001 - Afghanistan. International Campaign Against Terrorism. 2,000 personnel was reduced to 1,000 in 2002 under this American led international mission to remove the Taliban from government in Afghanistan and support a democratic government. Our troop numbers enlarged again in 2003 when NATO assumed command.

2003 - Afghanistan. NATO led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). 2,250 personnel were stationed in Camp Julien near Kabul. In November 2005 Camp Julien closed, and the troops began redeployment to the Kandahar region in southern Afghanistan. Over 6000 personnel saw duty at Camp Julien. About 85 personnel continue to serve in Kabul, and Bagram. *

2003 - Senegal. Special Representative of the Secretary General in West Africa. 1 colonel on a peace support mission that lasted for one year from March 2003 to March 2004.

2003 - Democratic Republic of Congo. Interim Emergency Multinational Force. Canada contributed two aircraft and about 50 personnel for the month of June to the French led operation.

2003 - Liberia. United Nations Mission in Liberia. (UNMIL). 4 personnel from September to November 2003 to aid in the transition from regional peacekeeping mission to a United Nations sponsored mission.

2003 - Iraq. United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI). One military observer is assigned to this mission lead by the Secretary General Special Representative for Iraq. The mission is continuing. *

2004 - Haiti. United Nations Multinational Interim Force followed by the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti MINUSTAH). 602 personnel. Mission from March to August 2004. Since 2005, 6 personnel continue with the UN mission. *

2004 - Sudan. United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMISUD). The two personnel originally assigned to this mission have been increased to more than 100. About 60 personnel are currently still in theatre with the United Nations and the African Union Mission. They are providing support in headquarters and training in the use of military vehicles in the troubled Darfur region. *

2004 - Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the fall of 2004 a European military force assumed command from NATO. There are about 24 personnel still in the Balkans with the Task Force Balkans and EUFOR Liaison and Observation Teams. Since 1992 more than 40,000 Canadians have served in the Balkans. *

2005 - Sri Lanka. Operation Structure sent the DART to provide disaster relief following the Asian tsunami. January to February 2005.

2005 - Gaza. Eight personnel are providing military advice to the Palestinian Authority. They are based in Jerusalem and the mission is continuing. *

2005 - United States. Operation UNISOM. 900 personnel including navy divers, three vessels and engineers provided relief to the Southern United States after Hurricane Katrina. Completed in one month October 2005.

2005 - Pakistan. Operation Plateau. DART disaster assistance team deployed to the Kashmir region of Pakistan following an earthquake. October to December 2005.

2006 - Afghanistan. In February Canadian troops moved from Kabul to Kandahar to assume command of the Multi National Brigade for Regional Command South. There are 2,300 personnel serving at Kandahar Airfield (KAF) and with the Provincial Reconstruction Team at Camp Nathan Smith located right in Kandahar City. In addition to providing security in the region the mission is to assist the transition from an American led coalition to NATO command. *

* denotes a current mission

Home - http://www.MothersOfCanadianSoldiers.com

About The Author

Delores Woodley is a former serving Member of Canada's Military and now has a son that is serving.

Access to Health Care in U.S: Problems and the Bottom Line

by: Dr. Golam Md. Munir

Access encompasses both the ease and timeliness with which health services can be obtained (Office of Health Care Access, 1999; Millman, 1993). Metrics of measuring access to health services include:

* Having health insurance,
* Adequate income, and
* A regular primary care provider or
* Other regular source of care (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000).
* Utilization of certain clinical preventive services, such as, early prenatal care, mammography, and Pap tests, can also indicate better access to services.
* Rate of avoidable hospital admission

Health care models:

* Purely private enterprise: Exist in poorer countries with sub standard health care dominated by private clinics for wealthier population.
* In almost all the countries, a private system exists in addition to Government health care system (such as Medicare and Medicaid in U.S). This is sometimes referred to as Two-tier health care.
* The other major models are public insurance systems:

o Social Security Health Care model where workers and their families are insured by the State.
o Publicly funded health care model, where the residents of the country are insured by the State.
o Social Health Insurance, where the whole population or most of the population is a member of a sickness insurance company.

Models for access: access to health services can be impeded broadly by:

* Affordability: Economic barriers (no insurance, poverty),
* Availability: Supply and distribution barriers (inadequate or inappropriate services or primary care providers, geographic unavailability due to difficult infrastructure);
* Unavailability of services, lack of transportation and other infrastructure), and

Language and cultural barriers.

Discussion:
_________________________

A. Insurance coverage:
____________________

* Approximately 85% of Americans have health insurance.
* Approximately 60% obtain health insurance through their place of employment or as individuals,
* Various government agencies provide health insurance to 25% of Americans.[3].
* In 2004, 45.8 million (15.7%) Americans were without health insurance [1].
* According to 2000 U.S. census data [2], the percentage of large firms (200 employees or more) offering health benefits to its retirees fell between 1988 and 2001 (excepting a spike in 1995).
* Although most types of health insurance cover common treatment services and screening and diagnostic tests, many preventive services and interventions are not covered. For example, while most health insurers will pay to treat emphysema, lung cancer, and other tobacco-related diseases, for example, few will reimburse for smoking cessation programs or medications.

B. Economic condition:

Cost is a barrier. Cost is more likely to affect persons:

* Of Hispanic ethnicity,
* To affect unmarried persons,
* Those who did not graduate from high school, were four times more likely than college graduates to experience cost barriers to health care,
* People with income under $25,000

C. Availability:

Access barrier is intense in areas where the need is high but capacity of existing providers is insufficient.

* Hispanic is less likely than non-Hispanic respondents to have health-care coverage (76.2% versus 90.6%),
* They have one or more regular personal health-care providers (68.5% versus 84.1%), or
* They have a regular place of care (93.4% versus 96.2%).
* Hispanic has needs of medical care, but can not obtain it (6.5% versus 5.0%).
* Hispanics also are significantly less likely to be screened for blood cholesterol and for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers and to receive a influenza / pneumococcal vaccination.

D. Language factor:

Language can be an obstacle to health care access for:

* People who do not speak English and
* For the deaf and hearing impaired.

According to the 1990 U.S. Census, about nine percent of Connecticut’s population was foreign born and 15% of children and older spoke a language other than English at home. Of this group, 39% did not speak English “very well”. . According to U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, 6 percent of population is hard of hearing, and 25,500 residents are considered profoundly deaf (Connecticut Commission on the Deaf and Hearing Impaired, 2001).

The ability of Connecticut’s health care providers to communicate with non-English speaking people and is very limited. In 2001, 35 percent of total physicians and surgeons practicing medicine in Connecticut indicated that a language other than English was spoken at their practice location (Connecticut Department of Public Health, Bureau of Regulatory Services, 2001). Spanish was the most frequently spoken language.

E. Cultural factor:

Cultural differences between Hispanics and other minorities and health care providers affect health-related behaviors in certain minority groups:

* lack of knowledge about Western medicine,
* fear of public institutions (based on experiences with discrimination),
* modesty about their bodies, and
* The belief in minority women that their own needs are secondary to those of their husbands and children (True and Guillermo, 1996).
* Hispanics have less knowledge about cancer. Cancer is increasing among Hispanics [4], and cancer screening, an essential component of early detection and treatment.
* Many non-Western women do not go directly to a physician when they are ill. Instead, they first attempt to treat themselves, and if that fails, they follow the recommendations of friends, family, and in some cases, alternative or folk healers (Bayne-Smith, 1996).
* Many health problems of minority women thus go unreported and unrecognized, in part because the women do not communicate the problems, but also because providers cannot relate to the women’s cultural norms (Bayne-Smith, 1996).
* Lesbians are less likely than heterosexual women to seek health care and more likely to encounter barriers in access to care and preventive services. For example, many women who have sex only with women believe they do not need Pap tests, and confusion even exists in clinical practices about whether lesbians should be offered cervical smears routinely (Bailey et al., 2000).

? Do Medicare and Medicaid contribute to barriers to access so far we think about the delinquencies in reimbursement?
? Does it anyway refer to the question of availability of health care providers?

The U.S Health care ranking is very poor in relation to other industrialized nations in health care despite having

* the best trained health care providers and
* the best medical infrastructure

The ranking are as bellow:

* 23rd in infant mortality,
* 20th in life expectancy for women and 21st for men
* 67th in immunization, right behind Botswan
* Rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations on outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure.

The ranking is poor because, the access barrier is intense in U.S. Access to Health care. Difficulty in accessing to health care to 30% Americans is based on the ability to pay (disparity is directly related to income and race) [5].

Managed care organizations spend 20 % of their premium behind administration while it is only 3% in Medicare. Moreover, Managed care covers 60% of the population while Medicare and Medicaid cover 25%. About 17% of U.S population is uninsured of which, two-third has trouble accessing/paying for health care. As Medicaid covers mainly uninsured population, therefore, we may presume that high administrative cost of care providers and quickly decreasing reimbursement rate in Medicaid is a major cause of access barrier to minorities and disadvantaged so long we bark on ‘availability’ of care.

The bottom line:

Possible options to remove access barrier

* Reducing fundamental socio-economic inequities (almost absent in U.S),
* Expanding insurance coverage,
* Expanding access to Public health (preventive) services that reduce risk factors to chronic diseases and injuries.
* Prompt and effective primary care in a doctor’s office or other outpatient setting, followed by proper management can reduce the need for hospitalization for many medical conditions, such as asthma, dehydration, urinary tract infections, and perforated or bleeding ulcers (Foland, 2000; Office of Health Care Access, 2000). These conditions are referred to as “ambulatory care sensitive” hospital admissions.
* When early care is delayed or foregone, the result is often “avoidable” or “preventable” hospitalizations which can indicate:
o problems with access to primary health care services or
o Inadequate outpatient management and follow-up, because Three out of four “avoidable” hospital admissions occur through emergency rooms (Foland, 2000).
* Health Literacy and removing cultural barrier by social services and public health programs: Many patients lack the reading and comprehension skills helpful for maintaining a healthy lifestyle and to function in the U.S. health care system. These deficits result not only from poverty and low educational attainment, but also from differences in language and culture. Because of the inability of patients to read and understand health-related information:
o infants are being born with birth defects,
o diseases are being diagnosed at advanced stages, and
o Medications are being taken improperly.
* Removing cultural barriers to lifestyle and medication that have proven effective for controlling weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar should help reduce the large inequities in chronic disease.
* Universal health care (single or multi payer).

Sources:

1. "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004." U.S. Census Bureau. Issued August 2005.

2. Cunningham P, May J. "Medicaid patients increasingly concentrated among physicians." Track Rep. 2006 Aug;(16):1-5. PMID 16918046.

3. LS Balluz, ScD, CA Okoro, MS, TW Strine, MPH, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC 2002.

4. Villar HV, Menck HR. The National Cancer Data Base report on cancer in Hispanics: relationships between ethnicity, poverty, and the diagnosis of some cancers. Cancer 1994; 74:2386--95

5. The Case for Universal Health Care in the United States http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm, The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States Outline of Talk Given To The Association of State Green Parties, Moodus, Connecticut on June 4, 1999-By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D.

About The Author

Dr. Munir, MBA is a visionary leader who can create future for business startup and multinational operations. This transformational leader serves as a catalyst for change to adopt accelerating changes. You may directly write to him at divergingwisdom@yahoo.com .This transformational leader serves as catalyst to adopt accelerating change. Successfully scanning the challenges of shifting macro forces is important for businesses. Dr. Munir can be a developing partner in drawing strategic initiative that that adapt uncertain business dynamics and align organization to stay in business. Or,

* Need to read more articles similar to this?
* Business or tax consultancy?
* Education guide?
* Graphics design - software development?
* Resume / cover letter writing service?

Please visit http://www.divergingwisdom.com

Putin's Nation State Model

by: John Stanton

On February 8, 2008 President Vladimir Putin of Russia made an extraordinary speech at the Expanded Meeting of the State Council. The 13 page speech was titled Russia’s Development Strategy to 2020. The document is a template, a guide for the creation of the 21st Century Flex-State. A State with strong, even aggressive leadership that seeks to keep its story, its history, its people alive and prosperous in an era of competitive globalization where information about any organization, any individual, in any country is nearly impossible to hide. It is a bold, even historical document about Russia’s experience with a method of US economic torture called The Shock Doctrine (see Naomi Klein’s book of the same name), and its trials and tribulations with low birth rates and dismal healthcare. It is astonishingly open.

More than anything, though, it’s about the long-term. It is about country and national interest coming first, agency second.

Putin recognizes that only The State has the authority to wield power to protect the national interest, play referee when financial markets convulse, and ensure that a nation’s infrastructure, its culture, its people and its security come first. After all, those are the critical components of The State. It is vital that, as much as possible, The State should attempt to remain unincorporated. “We have rid the country of the harmful practice that saw state decisions taken under pressure from commodities and financial monopolies, media magnates, foreign political circles and shameless populists, a practice that was not only detrimental to our national interests but that cynically ignored the basic needs of millions of people,” said Putin.

According to Goldman Sachs, Russia has become a “remarkable” performing member of the BRIC’s (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) with its economy growing at an annual rate of 6.8 percent. Even so, according to Putin, much remains to be done and Russia can’t borrow and spend its way to national prosperity and security. In short, Putin’s “non-democratic” plan, much maligned in the world’s mainstream media, is working.

Putin’s Way

The American people would do themselves a big favor by reading his speech. The entire US economic, political, military, and diplomatic apparatus--presidential candidates included—would do their country a great service by taking the time to understand and heed the message behind the words. That message is clear: The State exists to serve the interests of the people. The State will not fade away, it can’t. Indeed, Evolutionary Psychology teaches that human beings are hierarchical creatures that in groups need structure, discipline, and unitary purpose. The State should be the guardian of the national psyche and not the captains of industry.

According to Putin, “Our children will no longer have to pay our old debts. The state foreign debt has shrunk to 3 percent of GDP – one of the lowest ratios in the world. What choice can there be between the opportunity to become a leader in economic and social development, a leader in ensuring our national security, and the threat of losing our economic standing, losing our security and ultimately even losing our sovereignty? Russia must become the country offering the best life, and I am sure that we can achieve this goal, not by sacrificing the present for some radiant future, but by working day by day to improve people’s lives.

The transition to an innovative development path calls above all for large-scale investment in human capital. Human development is the main goal and essential condition for progress in modern society. This is our absolute national priority now and in the future. Russia’s future and our success depend on people’s education and health and their desire to improve themselves and make use of their skills and talents. I am not saying this because presidential elections are just around the corner. This is not a campaign slogan. This is vital for our country’s development. Russia’s future depends on our citizens’ enthusiasm for innovation and on the fruit of the labors of each and every individual.

Political parties must not forget their immense responsibility for Russia’s future, for the nation’s unity and for our country’s stable development. No matter how fierce the political battles and no matter how irreconcilable the differences between parties might be, they are never worth so much as to bring the country to the brink of chaos. Irresponsible demagogy and attempts to divide society and use foreign help or intervention in domestic political struggles are not only immoral but are illegal. They belittle our people’s dignity and undermine our democratic state. Russia’s political system must not only be in accordance with our national political culture but should develop together with it. Then it will be both flexible and stable.”

Rice-Minded Arrogance

Much of the world’s mainstream media outlets focused their attention on the last two pages of Putin’s remarks in which he bluntly, but not surprisingly, indicated that Russia would respond to further military encroachments by the United States--and its NATO partners--by re-engineering its national security apparatus to counter US/NATO plans to encircle the Russian Federation with a ring of tripwire military bases. With its hand forced, Putin said that “Russia has a response to these new challenges and it always will.” He went on to say that “The use of new technology calls for a rethinking of strategy in the way our Armed Forces are organized. After all, new breakthroughs in bio-, nano-, and information technology could lead to revolutionary changes in weapons and defense.”

Officials from the US State Department, the Pentagon, US defense industry--and the many think tanks/interest groups they rely on--have carefully deconstructed and reconstructed President Putin's comments on national defense.

Their considered—and predictable--recommendations on Putin's remarks reads something like this: The US national security strategy of provoking Russia, and much of the rest of the planet, has been successful. Said provocation has produced additional and in some cases unforeseen threats, as the Putin speech demonstrates. Therefore, the out-year budget planning is already dated and inadequate for the previously anticipated threat scenario. To meet new and as yet undefined threats posed by the Russians—and the world—an increase in funding requests next year is an absolute certainty. We must lobby the US Congress and convince the US public that an increase in program funding for all the US military services and their contractors is essential to counter this new Russian belligerency and other threats we cannot at this time predict.

Right on schedule, the marketing campaign kicked-off. On February 13, 2008, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had this to say about Putin. “The unhelpful [remarks] and really, I will use a different word; reprehensible rhetoric that is coming out of Moscow is unacceptable.”

Unacceptable? Who does she think she’s talking to?

Soviet Model or Chinese Communist Model

Rice’s flippant statement is yet another example of the F***! You! US national security policy—an in-your-face mandate to corporatize and militarize The State for neocolonialist ends. This incendiary national policy has been wonderful for those who want to turn The State into a for-profit enterprise. As such, when Putin talks tough--because US national security strategy compels him to—he ends up providing the rationale for US corporatists/militarists who want to perpetually develop and market new weapons platforms, increase the centralization of national security systems to monitor public opposition, and use The State to justify shady practices (retroactively too!) from preemptive intervention and torture to US central bank policies that sanction Wall Street’s appetite for the Roulette Wheel.

It’s tough to gage whether those in power in the USA--and the many who are now seeking elected and appointed office--want to turn the US State into capitalist version of the former Soviet Union or today’s Communist China with its capitalist face. Perhaps they want the best of both. Whatever designs they have, this much is certain:

1.) the continued corporate takeover—encouraged by the three branches of the US government—of The State’s social, education, infrastructure and security functions, to include resource assets;

2.) increased militarization of the US economy;

3.) bigger defense budgets for kinetic overkill platforms for land, sea, space that ignore William Lind’s Nth Generation Warfare principles and consume a greater percentage of US GDP;

4.) unprecedented expansion and centralization of domestic surveillance and homeland security activities;

5.) widening income disparity and increases in cost-of-living;

6.) ignorance of America’s story--its good, bad, and ugly history—as it has struggled to live up to the ideals embodied in the US Declaration of Independence and US Constitution;

7.) loss of national and global identity;

8.) painful economic collapse/financial insolvency—a dramatic replay of the Soviet Union’s end—that terminates the American Nation State;

9.) violent anarchy as The State fails, the population disperses and pledges allegiance to whatever group or individual can provide food, shelter, clothing and security.

Putin offers a sensible means to avoid a nasty end.

About The Author

John Stanton is a Virginia based writer specializing in national security and political affairs. His most recent book is Talking Politics with God and the Devil in Washington, DC. Reach him at cioran123@yahoo.com.

The A-Z of Global Warming: Deforestation

by: Simon Rosser

Deforestation is basically the loss or destruction of forest habitat, primarily as a result of the action of human beings.

It is the single largest source of land- use greenhouse gas emissions, and accounts for around 18 -20% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

We know from a previous article, trees and vegetation act as sinks or stores for carbon dioxide, one of the most important greenhouse gases. Stored carbon taken out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis through decades of growth is released back into the atmosphere as vegetation and trees are cut down and burnt, or, as unburned organic matter slowly dies. This process contributes to atmospheric CO2 levels.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) who are the leading source for information on the status of the worlds forests define forests as, "land with a tree canopy of greater than 10%, and an area of more than half a hectare". The organisation defines deforestation as, " the conversion of forest to another land use or long term reduction of the tree canopy cover below the minimum 10% threshold."

Land change and co2.

Land use changes are driven almost entirely by emissions caused through deforestation, which is highly concentrated in a few countries. Indonesia contributes approximately 30% of land use CO2 emissions with Brazil around 20%. It is estimated that about 80,000 acres or 32,000 hectares are being lost every day. This is the equivalent of about 117,000 km2, (45,173 sq miles) each year.

Total world rainforest cover is now about 6 million km2, (2,316,602 sq miles), which equates to about 5% of Earth's land surface. Only a few thousand years ago, rainforests covered about 12% of the worlds land surface, around 15.5 million km2, (6 million sq miles). A quick calculation reveals that if forest cover is being lost at the rate of 117,000 km2 a year, then it will only take in the region of 51 years for the world's rainforests to be destroyed! (6,000,000 divided by 117,000).

Destruction at this level would lead to the release of vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, further thickening the CO2 "blanket" that surrounds our planet and no doubt lead to an increased warming of the atmosphere.

Between 2000 and 2006 Brazil lost nearly 150,000km2, (57,915 sq miles) of forest, an area the size of Greece, and since 1970 over 600,000 km2, (231,660 sq miles) has been destroyed.

It is now estimated that almost 20% of the Amazon has been destroyed, which is considerably alarming when one considers that the Amazon rainforest represents about 50% of the worlds tropical rainforests.

There are various causes for deforestation, and they include, Cattle ranching, Activities of farmers, fires, mining and road construction and of course logging and commercial agriculture.

It's not entirely fair to blame the developing nations for all the deforestation however. Whilst countries like Brazil and Indonesia may be the main culprits now, up until the early 20th Century emissions of CO2 through land use changes came from developed nations. It's a natural step for developing nations to clear forest-land for agriculture and habitation. The fact is that as developed nations have already deforested many areas long ago, there is more pressure on developing nations to preserve what is left. Of course population growth is another major factor which will be discussed in a later chapter. Another significant point is that trees in topical forests typically hold on average about 50% more carbon per hectare than trees outside the tropics. Therefore deforestation in these areas causes greater amounts of CO2 to be released into the atmosphere than deforestation outside of the tropics.

Future of the forests.

Remarkably when talking about land use change emissions, countries such as the USA, Europe and China were in the year 2000 net absorbers of CO2 as a result of their aforestation (planting new forests) and reforestation (re establishing old forest areas) programs. However, the planting of one tree does not offset the damage caused by the removal of another, as trees absorb CO2 very slowly. It could take 100 years for a growing tree to recover all the CO2 released when a mature tree is cut down!. For this reason, carbon offset programs which suggest planting a tress to offset co2 produced are pretty worthless, due to the time it would take for that tree to remove co2 from the atmosphere.

There is some good news however, as in 2006 the Brazilian government announced a sharp drop in deforestation. Loss for the year 2005/6 was 13,100 km2, (5,057 sq miles) down more than 40% from the year before. Its too early to say whether this is a declining trend, or just one good year out of the pervious eight where deforestation levels were all in excess of 16,000 km2, (6,177 sq miles).

As the worlds forests are being destroyed, huge amounts of CO2 are being released back into the atmosphere. The forests that were once able to absorb and store this potent greenhouse gas, will no longer be standing which will push CO2 levels up higher, thereby contributing to the warming of Earth's climate.


Copyright (c) 2008 Simon Rosser

About The Author

Simon Rosser

A lawyer by profession, I felt inspired to write The A-Z of Global Warming book, published in June 2008, after viewing Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth in Nov 2006. Based on the most upto date scientific information, this Deforestation extract gives a flavour of the books content. To pre-order the book from Amazon goto http://www.amazon.co.uk/Z-Global-Warming-Simon-Rosser/dp/0955809207/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206442671&sr=1-9