A general update today.

First of all, I really love the protests going on with the Olympic torch relay. Does it even still count now that they've put the flame out twice? They're even considering stopping it. The IOC, in giving Beijing the 2008 olympics, stated that they hoped it would help open up Chinese society and maybe be a positive influence on Chinese politics, so they cant exactly complain that protesters are politicising the games. Also, China is pretty clearly using the opportunity to show off China to the world as a world power and a successful developing state, so they cant complain when people point out it isn't that nice to live there (assuming you aren't rich anyway). Kevin Rudd has also exposed himself again as a dickhead on the issue, directing away criticism by claiming China is a lot better now than 25 years ago. So what? That doesn't mean its a good place to be. I don't think that sportspeople should boycott the games, but political leaders certainly should, so hopefully Rudd will get in on the act already, rather than avoiding the issue by leaving it up to his suposed 'schedule'. 

Secondly, this report has just been released by USIP, and details the situation and options for the US in Iraq, and manages to put a positive spin on the fact that security levels are back to 2005 standards. It doesn't paint a very attractive picture.

Thirdly, the SIPR arms transfer database has been updated with 2007 information. Apparently arms sales were down on last year, but overall continuing their upward trend since 2000. it shows Australia as one of the 20 biggest arms importers, and Sudan has imported 87% of its conventional weapons from Russia between 2003-07, so we cant accuse China of being that bad. Its a really useful resource, check it out here.

And lastly, to the Age. I admit I can give some leeway, what with it being the opinon pages and all, but to print such zionist propaganda does require a certain suspension of rationality. Danny Lamm's article on the 7th was a blatant piece of Zionist propaganda. And Danny isn't entirely to blame, we can blame editors for the title 'Israel is taking all the right steps along the pathway to peace', and starting from that, it only got worse. He gets off to a good start, ignoring the problems that are inherent in a two state solution, and moves on to the big guns...

"This solution, however, has its opponents, particularly those groups led by Iran and its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and terrorist movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah which reject the peace process and maintain a fanatical commitment to destroy the state of Israel.

This would deny the Jewish people's right to self-determination..."

Invoking 'self-determination' in the defence of the Israeli state? I dont even know how such hypocrisy can function. Has Lamm completely ignored the fact that Israel is a colonial state? Is he completely blind to the Palestinian population being militarily and economically oppressed? Yes, Israelis should have a right to self determination, but has he considered the reasons why so many people want the Israeli state gone?

Lamm then moves on to defend some of the useful state myths surrounding Israel's beginnings, such as Israel's 'David and Goliath' view of the first Arab-Israeli war.He then attempts to discredit the work of Walt and Mearscheimer thesis, which, if you look at it objectively, would seem to confirm their arguments about the Israel lobby. Lamm is clearly eager to fit into this lobby, and his willful ignorance of the perspective of the oppressed in this situation can only discredit his arguments. 

Why is The Age even publishing this crap?
 

The only show on TV worth watching has returned this week. 

Newstopia, 10pm Wednesday SBS. 

Watch it!

Seeing that its a monday, and the real version finished last week (why does it ever finish?) I'll do my own review of the weekend news, mostly The Age. First of all, the Sunday newspapers are shit, so I wont really bother looking at them. Second of all, The Herald Sun isn't as bad as every one says it is, considering that its only a tabloid anyway. at least it gets the facts right most of the time, even if the editorial is a little skewed.

Thirdly, most importantly, The Age is a mixed bag. While the opinion articles are usually quite good. There is some actual range of opinion, and regular writers, such as economics editor Kenneth Davidson, or Robert Manne, are consistently good. Waleed Aly's article in Saturdays Age, 'Too tough for our own good', on the war on terror, was fantastic, and I recommend it. (I would link to it, but I can't find it anywhere)

However, The same mistakes The Age made in supporting the war on Iraq in 2003 are being made right now. Marko Beljac has already made a few (justified) complaints against the Age here and here, and now they're at it again over Iran's Nuclear program. While some of the Age's writers are probably completely rational, a few others a clearly pushing for war.

The story in Saturdays Age was titled 'Iran a Year off nuclear warhead, says UN'. Now this is serious bullshit being peddled out here. Firstly it was the IAEA that said it, not the UN, although it is considered a UN watchdog, so that can be excused. Secondly, and most importantly, that is not what the report stated, and it is not even what the story itself stated. The story goes...

"The installation of 3000 functioning centrifuges at Iran's enrichment plant at Natanz is a "red line" drawn by the US across which Washington had said it would not let Iran pass. When spinning at full speed they can produce enough weapons-grade uranium (enriched to more than 90% purity) for a nuclear weapon within a year..."

Clearly that does not mean that Iran will, or even can, have a warhead within a year. There is alot more to building a nuclear warhead than having the Uranium for it, and currently Iran does not even have that. Then a delivery vehicle is even more trouble on top of that. Clearly TheAge is not too concerned that its readers get the correct impression as to what is actually happening in Iran, only that they get what the editors consider the 'right' impression. The impression that lead to war. 

All the current discussion in The Age and elsewhere rests on the dubious assuption that Iran WANTS a nuclear weapon, and is ACTUALLY pursuing it. As I have blogged about before, this is based on nothing, and leads to irrational and alarmist assumptions like these.

The article seemingly attempts to discredit the parts of the IAEA report that document Iran's cooperation with the agency by attributing them to 'Russian officials' rathet than looking at the report itself. It also waits until the end to mention that the 3000 centrifuges are not even up and running properly yet, so at the current rate the supposed warhead is very far away. 

The article was taken from a Guardian story by Julian Borger which was titled 'Decision time for US over Iran threat', which is editorialising enough in labelling Iran a threat, but is not as bad as The Age's take on the issue. 

Within the current international political climate, with the US persistently pushing for strong action, including war, against Iran, it is dangerous and reckless for The Age, supposedly the paper for progressive opinion, to be arguing a line like this one. The Age seems determined to provide assitance to those trying to convince us that war is necessary, has it learnt nothing from the invasion of Iraq? 

How may poeple have to be killed, and how much larger must the conflict in the Middle East get before The Age will stop supporting these imperialist advenures?

That's about 10 times the energy we could get from mining all the fossil fuels on Earth, without the smog and acid rain. If we torched all our uranium in liquid metal fast breeder reactors, we could generate about half this much energy, and have some interesting times storing the waste..."

A rough estimate of its value as an energy source, given we already have an existing electrical grid, would be approximately US$3 billion per tonne.

So it is obviously an incredibly valuable commodity.

Now, this all fits nicely within the increasing weaponisation of space, and the renewed emphasis on missions to the moon.

Andy Thomas, the Australian astronaught who is leading the renewed NASA mission to the moon, says.. 

"There are no programmes in any of the space agencies in any countries that have firm plans to min(e) resources such as helium 3 on the moon at the present time."

But notice how he says "firm plans...at the present time"? Other countries ARE thinking about this opportunity. And while the US is launching this mission without much real metion of Helium-3, Russia has openly said "the main purpose of its lunar programme is the industrial extraction of helium-3…"

The US mission to establish a base on the moon is also going to be a relatively solo effort, and they have refused offers on help and internationalisation from Russia. Clearly this is more than just a few experiments in zero gravity that we're talking about.

China's Lunar probe is also now officially on its way to the moon, and China and Russias growing strategic ties seem to be getting closer in regards to space their space programs.

The first state to control the moon, would therefore gain control of the most significant source of energy near earth. And much like strategic control of the Middle East for oil resources, this would be a hotly fought over contest. In the future it may well be that "whoever controls the moon controls the earth". These 'energy wars' are only going to intensify  and become more and more significant as time goes on and as hydrocarbons on earth continue to decline. 

The Outer Space Treaty, ratified in 1967, lays the basis for the militarisation of space, and it specifically forbids the weaponisation of space, and the using of outer space territories for military purposes, including nuclear weapons and so on.

But in the current climate, following a Chinese space missile test earlier this year and increasing US action, how long can this treaty, and the accomanying internationalisation of space, continue? 

Even more importantly, how long till we see Total Recall style space wars come true?

Counterpunch is the best. Seriously. If you want to regularly check out one US focussed news/opinion website, this is it. A daily selection of articles from various places over the net, put together by the fantastic Alexander Cockburn along with Jeffrey StClair. A great alternative media source.

Have a look at yesterdays story Logical Lies on Bin Ladens Wealth. Where else would you find this?

PLUS: check out this article on why the US WONT go to war with Iran. Interesting yes?
(Zmag is another great source of Altenative media)

I woke up this morning ready to console mysllf about the fact that neither The Age or Herald Sun had published my letter to the editor. I figured a rant against the corporate owned media, or the suppression of free speech, or maybe even a reflection on my own lack of grammar and nuanced argument was on the cards. But no!!!

The herald sun published my letter under the heading 'Uranium Sale irresponsible' on pg21. It was edited down to only the first three sentences, so it therefore leaves off any mention of regional security or the NPT, which are pretty important points. The Herald Sun isnt really known for its journalistic finess, but im still happy to have been published at all.  

YAY!!!