GM crops

Australian Democrats: GM canola approval shows regulator is ignoring the evidence.

ìSeveral other major studies have shown that it is likely to be impossible to segregate GM and GM free crops, but the Regulator has deemed that to be outside her Act as well.

√¨Recent research from the United States shows that herbicide tolerant GM crops, has lead to an increase rather than a reduction in the annual application of herbicides. But the Regulator deems this evidence to be outside her Act as well.”


Yay! I’m not sure how much posting will be happening over the next week and a half as I am heading up north to spend some time with folks and friends in Caloundra. Looking forward to it soooooo much…

More on Libya

Joshua Marshall: “Talking, in itself, means nothing. It’s only a way of lubricating or finessing the application of different kinds of force or pressure. And the pressure applied to Libya has been fierce. Only it wasn’t principally military, but economic.

Libya has been under fierce UN-sanctions for a decade. And the strangling pressure of those sanctions, combined with rising internal political strains which magnified their effect, prompted the shift of course.”


I’ve been using categories for some time now, but only just got around to working out how to list the blighters with an entry., unsurprisingly had the answer.

So now you can click on the link(s) next to “Filed under:” (“Blogging on Blogging” for this one) for each post to see related posts.

Kev – this is what I was talking about. If you want it, let me know and I’ll wire it up.

What rights?

Guardian: ‘Secret’ detainee tells of jail despair.

“A man detained in Britain without charge or trial for two years on the basis of secret evidence he can neither know about nor challenge has told of his despair at his treatment under anti-terrorist legislation.

Exactly two years after he was arrested at his family home in the early hours and taken to Belmarsh high-security prison,”

Hypocrasy in the extreme

Un-f&$^ing-believable – read this.

“Acting in the greatest secrecy, diplomats and weapons experts had been shown by the Libyan authorities evidence of a well advanced nuclear weapons programme in 10 sites as well as chemical weapon agents. Libya also disclosed that it was working to produce a nuclear fuel cycle to enrich uranium.

In a bid to end decades of isolation from the international community, the Libyans also admitted they possessed aerial bombs to drop chemical weapons, as well as stocks of nerve gas. Western weapons experts were given access to scientists working in dual use facilities and on missile research and development.

Government sources said Libya did not possess a nuclear weapon, but was on the way to developing one. Its programme, officials said, represented a threat to Europe, as well as the Middle East.”

Emphasis mine.

Where’s the war? Where’s the sanctions? In my mind this completely destroys any credibility that Bush or Blaire ever possibly, minisculy had on their justification for war with Iraq. Here is a middle-eastern country with known WMD capabilities and known intent to further develop them – and yet they choose to take a diplomatic approach. Further evidence, IMHO, that Iraq never had WMD capability (see here for a brief explanation of why I say that).

They’ve known this for nine months! The war on Iraq began in March. Let’s see – hey, that’s nine months ago. I can’t believe this… I’m not a fan of either the Bush or Blair adminstrations, but this has got to take the cake for blatant double-standards and hypocrisy and lies. Turf both of them out!

Oh – the good news is they’ve managed to convince Libya to stop developing the program and allow inspections. I had someone ask me today if there was an alternative to launching a war on Iraq. I responded that there were a number of things that could have been done to diffuse the situation and to create a safer world. This just proves the point.

The article concludes:

Mr Blair will be delighted by the Libyan move, as it becomes increasingly clear that the US- British Iraq survey group is failing to locate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He will be able to argue that his hardline stance on Iraq has at least forced Libya to come forward, and that he has not only used military means to bring rogue states into line.

Heh – talk about spinning the situation to political advantage. “Oh well, we were wrong about Iraq, but look, we have Saddam, and hey, Libya have come around too – so it was worth it”.

Where are those weapons?

Guardian: Iraq weapons hunter to quit early as hopes of finding arsenal dwindle.

Looks like David Kay, leader of the US weapons search team, may be calling it a day.

I think this excerpt from the article is telling:

When an interviewer for ABC television, Diane Sawyer, reminded him of claims of the “hard fact that there were weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons”, Mr Bush asked: “What’s the difference?”

He added: “If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.”

Asked what it would take to convince him that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, the president said: “Saddam Hussein was a threat. The fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.”

“It’s unbelievable to me,” David Albright, another former UN inspector and a Washington expert on nuclear arms.

“He can’t possibly have meant it. Because it means we can hit you if we don’t like you.

Believe it David – I’m sure he meant it…