Editorials

by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Global Research, August 21, 2010

The debate is over! There is a consensus! The time for discussion has ended and the need for action is paramount!

We have all heard this before.

Yet it is important to keep in mind that these types of statements are inherently inimical to scientific inquiry; the debate and discussion should never be over. As new information surfaces, it should be taken into consideration, analyzed, discussed, debated and ultimately it will aid in the advancement of knowledge and scientific understanding. To declare the debate as over is to declare information and knowledge as irrelevant. Progress has never come from holding onto antiquated ideas. The attainment of knowledge does not come from the refusal to reflect. Climate change is no exception. In light of events of the past year, it has become clear that there was a concerted effort on the part of a small clique of elite scientists at the UN and in supporting institutions, governments and universities to concoct the climate change “consensus” to pressure governments and public opinion into supporting the political, economic and social agenda of elites.

By Dana Gabriel

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the Russian Federation Air Force conducted a cooperative air defense exercise from August 8-11 that focused on combating terrorism.

Vigilant Eagle was hailed as a milestone exercise between the Cold War era rivals. It included Russian, U.S., along with Canadian Air Force personnel operating from command centers inside Russia and the United States directing fighter jets, as well as civilian air traffic controllers. It took several years to stage the drill which centered around, “an international air terrorism scenario exercised over the Pacific Ocean consisting of forces from the U.S. and Russia responding to the simulated hijacking of a B-757 en route to the Far East.”

Across the Western World a deregulated lawlessness prevails.  The BC Rail Scandal criminal case may be playing out as a part of "The New Lawlessness".

By Dana Gabriel

The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is another one of those international agreements that the U.S. has yet to ratify. President Reagan rejected the treaty, but a revised version was signed by President Clinton in 1994. As a result of intense opposition, LOST was never brought before the Senate for a full vote. Several failed attempts were also later made by the Bush administration to galvanize support for the accord. The Democrats are now laying the groundwork to finally ratify LOST. Proponents view ratifying the treaty as an opportunity for the U.S. to further promote global security and stability. Critics maintain that under LOST, the U.S. would be forced to surrender more sovereignty to the UN.

By Daniel Leblanc

The Conservative publicity machine scrambled into action as a common confrontation between Canadian and Russian military planes turned into a campaign for $16-billion in new fighter jets.

The story started on Wednesday when NORAD officials spotted two incoming planes, identified as Russian TU-95 long-range bombers, heading toward Labrador.

TechNewsWorld.com

July 26, 2010   02:18:32 PM PDT

WIKILEAKS PLUNGES POLITICAL WORLD INTO TURMOIL By Katherine Noyes

Wikileaks  has  opened  the  spigot  on what appears to be the biggest intelligence leak in history, but opinions are sharply divided as to whether it constitutes a courageous act of patriotism or an irresponsible act of treason. One thing that seems certain, though, is that the days when the government could exercise tight control over dissemination of information are gone.

In what's been called the "biggest leak in intelligence history," more than 90,000 classified military documents about the war in Afghanistan came to light on Sunday and are wreaking havoc in political circles around the globe.

Covering the period from January 2004 to December 2009, the reports were published Sunday by whistle-blowing site Wikileaks while analyses of the included  material  appeared simultaneously in The New York Times, The Guardian and German outlet Der Speigel.

Gordon Campbell’s “Review” of B.C.’s Special Prosecutor Appointment Process - and The BC Rail Scandal.  A Continuing Policy of Public Fraud?

Nothing, it appears, is done honestly in the conduct of public affairs in British Columbia. 

Yesterday’s ‘Campbell Group Lies’ have to be covered up today.  Day after day after day … after day.

The sludge of corruption gets deeper ... and deeper.  Mainstream Press and Media grovel shamelessly.  “Cover-up” and collusion, are, apparently, their only remaining expertise.

By Sheila Pratt

Two Edmonton artists are shocked that part of their internationally renowned work, The Gun Sculpture, was subject to censorship at a United Nations exhibition in Vienna this summer after pressure from the Chinese delegation.

   Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie of the B.C. Supreme Court and the Insane Publication Ban on B.C Rail Scandal Matters.  Democracy in Canada Under Attack.

The draconian publication ban imposed by Associate Chief Justice Anne Mackenzie (March 2010) on most B.C. Rail Scandal pre-trial processes and all present trial processes without the presence of the jury is, in my opinion, scandalous.  It joins an increasing move, under the Stephen Harper government, to strip freedoms from Canadians and to teach them that a ‘police state’ is the best guardian of democracy.

Mainstream Press and Media people will doubtless say the ban is normal, ordinary, pro forma, nothing to be alarmed about.  But the Mainstream Press and Media people are losing their credibility so fast we may almost assume that whatever they support has to be resisted by the general population.  One member of the committee that denied me court accreditation as journalist was employed by CTV.  A report, now, on the internet, alleges (with apparent visual proof) that CTV used Vancouver Olympic footage, offering it as part of the mayhem scenes at Toronto’s G20 demonstrations - to make the G20 mayhem look worse.

NEAL CONAN, host:

We'd like to believe that most of what we know is accurate and that if presented with facts to prove we're wrong, we would sheepishly accept the truth and change our views accordingly.

A new body of research out of the University of Michigan suggests that's not what happens, that we base our opinions on beliefs and when presented with contradictory facts, we adhere to our original belief even more strongly.

The phenomenon is called backfire, and it plays an especially important role in how we shape and solidify our beliefs on immigration, the president's place of birth, welfare and other highly partisan issues.