"Don't bring-a-gun to a snow-ball fight" --- chant, members of the public (US policeman 'draws gun' at Washington snowball fight)

Not that I know anything about the game, but couldn't that have been a scene straight out of Grand Theft Auto?

"It's clear this game isn't just about pursuit and combat. It plays on your morals... What makes the game so arresting, is that you choose how to get to the top... GTA has tapped into our national obsession with Americana. This modern wild west is both alluring and a bit ridiculous, an irresistible combination to a generation that has grown up on the films of Tarantino." [Games Brittania - 3. Joystick Generation]

GTA is in fact a very British invention, from 2 public school educated gamers in West London. It was shortlisted for the Great British Design Quest (2006). I'm sufficiently intrigued to try out GTA III (before GTA IV). We'll see.

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2009/12/next-showdown.html

While GOP Senators couldn't defeat Obama care (it's amazing how many votes Harry Reid can buy with a few billion tax dollars), there is another showdown they actually have a chance of winning--providing, of course, they stick together and don't give in to compromise.

We refer to the looming battle over President Obama's plans to cut the nation's nuclear arsenal, part of a strategic arms reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia that is currently being negotiated. While final details have not been worked out, a "preliminary understanding" between the two countries promises to reduce operationally deployed nuclear warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675, a one-third cut from present levels.

And, the final deal may go even lower. According to Reuters, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told an audience in Uzbekistan that the two nations are planning "radical cuts" in their stockpiles of nuclear warheads, suggesting that both sides may agree to even greater reductions.

The planned agreement will replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expired in early December. That accord has been extended, as work on the treaty continues.

As we noted earlier this year, the arms treaty is a bad idea, for a number of reasons. First, it essentially grants nuclear parity to the Russians. Our strategic triad (land-based ICBMs, strategic bombers and ballistic missile submarines) is larger--and in some regards, more capable than its Russian counterpart, which fell into disrepair after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, Moscow's strategic forces are now essentially built around its modernized ICBM force, with lesser contributions from its nuclear capable bomber fleet, and SLBM force, which is a mere shadow of its former self.

Obviously, the U.S. will have to make greater cuts to reach the force levels mandated by the new treaty. We'll also predict that the new deal will target areas of U.S. strength (including our ballistic missile subs), reducing both the number of threats that the Russians have to account for. Reducing the number of missile boats will save Moscow billions in ASW and related naval programs, allowing that money to be re-directed to other efforts, including strategic modernization.

Did we mention that Russia has spent much of the last decade upgrading its ICBM force? The new SS-27 is deployed in both silo and mobile versions, and its far more accurate than anything Moscow has produced in the past. Tracking down the road-mobile variant of the SS-27 is a near-impossible task, even in an era of satellites, UAVs and real-time intelligence. That ensures survival of a Russian counter-force, missiles (and warheads) that could survive an initial nuclear exchange and deliver a second--or third--strike.

Meanwhile, our ICBM force consists of silo-based Minuteman III missiles, assigned to bases in North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana. The accuracy of those weapons has also improved over the past 20 years, but their location is anything but a state secret. If the missiles aren't used immediately in a Doomsday scenario, they are little more than sitting ducks. Additionally, our "newest" Minuteman IIIs were built in the 1970s, and as they age, the missiles are becoming more difficult to maintain.

Other elements of our nuclear weapons infrastructure are getting long in the tooth as well. We haven't designed--or built--a new warhead in more than 20 years. Many of the scientists who produced those weapons are reaching retirement age, and there's been little effort to replace their expertise. The research labs and production facilities responsible for nuclear warhead design and fabrication have also suffered from years of neglect, raising questions about our ability to quickly field new weapons, if the need arose.

That's where Senate Republicans enter the picture. Last week, all 40 GOP members of the Senate (plus Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut) sent a letter to Mr. Obama, reminding him that current defense authorization language links the a new START treaty to modernization of our own strategic arsenal. As a bloc, the 41 Senators could block the planned START agreement, which needs 67 votes for ratification. As Bill Gertz of the Washington Times reported:

The 41 senators stated in the letter that they agree with the defense legislation's language that says modernizing the aging U.S. nuclear stockpile is critical to further U.S.-Russian arms cuts.

"In fact, we don't believe further reductions can be in the national security interest of the U.S. in the absence of a significant program to modernize our nuclear deterrent," the senators stated.

A Republican Senate aide said the letter is intended to put the White House on notice that formal ratification of a new START accord must include specific plans and funding for upgrading U.S. nuclear weapons outlined in Section 1251 of the Democrat-drafted 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law by Mr. Obama on Oct. 28.

[snip]

The senators stated that a bipartisan commission headed by former Defense Secretary William J. Perry and former Energy Secretary James R. Schlesinger first drew the linkage between proposed new arms cuts under START and modernizing U.S. nuclear weapons.

The commission members "were unanimously alarmed by the serious disrepair and neglect they found [in the nuclear arsenal], and they made a series of recommendations to reverse this highly concerning situation," the letter says.

In their letter, the Senators call for life-extension upgrades to the B61 and W76 warheads; funding for a "modern warhead" that is easier to update, and replacements for aging uranium and plutonium plants.
</span>
Is the Obama Administration paying attention? So far, the answer seems to be "no." While the President has made strategic arms reduction a top priority, he has paid little attention to the nuclear modernization, despite pleas from the Perry-Schlesinger Commission, and the leader of U.S. Strategic Command, General Kevin Chilton.

If the Senate Republicans hang together, they can greatly influence the future of our strategic forces. Mr. Obama wants a new START treaty as a "signature" accomplishment, but GOP Senators must be clear and resolute; any replacement agreement must not be a U.S. "giveaway," and any cuts in our arsenal must be linked to the modernization of the nuclear weapons that remain.

***
ADDENDUM: Russian negotiators are also trying to get the U.S. to cut missile defenses as part of the new accord. GOP Senators must also make it clear that such concessions are a non-starter, if President Obama wants a new arms deal.

Media Week has declared -
RADIO PERSONALITY OF THE DECADE: RUSH LIMBAUGH

Funny, all these years I haven't seen this nativity art. Was there at Trafalgar Square on Sunday. The carol singing was rubbish, so we walked over to view this. I laughed at it when I first set eyes on it. The figurines were seemed to be all out of proportion to one another, e.g. the donkey (or sheep?) was twice as big as the reclining male figure (Joseph?). But the more I looked at them, the more "alive" they seemed, and the more interesting.


Nativity scene: "In 2005 Tomoaki Suzuki was commissioned to produce the nativity at Trafalgar Square which will be re-erected annually. On loan from St Martin in the Fields, the church which stands on the edges of Trafalgar Square itself, the nativity scene consists of several large wooden figures, inspired by people and cultures from around the world, including the crib and the model of the baby Jesus. The church holds its own service for the dedication of the crib before the model in place in Trafalgar Square."

( Read more... )

i_hope_that
For many of us, the holidays can be kind of rough. If you're searching for a network of understanding friends, this ultra-nurturing community encourages you to express your heartfelt wishes and offer other members encouragement and acceptance. Not for the terminally snarky or emotionally-challenged, this is a good-spirited place to lend comfort and support.

diygifts
Feeling crafty? If you've got a few last folks on your holiday gift list, this is a great place to seed your creativity and generosity. You'll also discover wonderful DIY tips to decorate your home and entertain guests. Offering a no-frills-no-skills attitude that welcomes the cash-challenged and arts-phobic, you're sure to get ideas and make friends in the process.

cooking_club
A fun and friendly community dedicated to those who love to cook, whether you're a meat-and-potatoes type, an aspiring gourmand, and/or a vegan. In search of a brilliant dish to use up those weekly leftovers? Post your ingredients and you'll be whipping up a feast by dinner. You can also share favorite recipes. For Type A chefs, you can spice up your culinary repertoire with exciting cooking challenges.

I got a new mytouch today. I heart it very much.

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2009/12/skipping-grade.html

Pending confirmation by the Senate, Air Force Brigadier General Richard C. Harding is set to achieve something rare in the military--or perhaps we should say something that was once rare in our armed forces.

Once approved by the Senate (a mere formality at this point), Harding will become the next Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, and be promoted two grades, to Lieutenant General. In other words, he'll earn his second and third stars at the same time, and advance two ranks at his pin-on ceremony.

As Air Force Times explains, Harding's unusual promotion is the result of a grade change for his new job. In 2008, Congress mandated that the service's top attorneys be three-star generals. At the time, the USAF only had two legal officers at the two-star level; one of them (Major General Jack Rives) was elevated to lieutenant general. With the projected retirement of Rives and his deputy, Major General Charles Dunlap, the Air Force had to dip into the ranks of one-star JAG officers to find a replacement.

And, oddly enough, this isn't the first time an Air Force officer has catapulted two grades in the flag ranks. Last year, Colonel Kimberly Siniscalchi was promoted to Major General for her new job as Assistant Surgeon General for Nursing Services and Force Development.

Call us old-fashioned, but we've always believed this type of promotion should be limited to the most pressing circumstances (read: wartime), and given to individuals of exceptional merit and ability. No slam against Generals Harding, Rives or Siniscalchi, but their resume hardly compares to that of an Army Air Corps officer, who advanced from Lieutenant Colonel to Brigadier General in 1942.

This individual was an aviation pioneer who led the development of instrument flying. After joining the Army during World War I, he found time to earn both a Master's and Doctorate in Aeronautics from M.I.T. He was also an accomplished air racer, winning all of the major competitions of his day. As a Major in the reserves, he was also instrumental in planning the wartime production of aircraft, work that helped secure victory during World War II.

Recalled to active duty (and promoted to Lieutenant Colonel) after Pearl Harbor, the officer volunteered to plan--and lead--a retaliatory attack against Japan. In April 1942, with American fortunes at a low ebb, he led a squadron of B-25 bombers on a raid against Japan. The medium bombers were launched from an aircraft carrier, a feat that most experts deemed impossible. But the resourceful Lieutenant Colonel found a way to take off from the deck of a carrier, and trained his crews for the mission in minimum time. For his efforts, this individual received the Congressional Medal of Honor and was advanced to Brigadier General.

By now, most of you have guessed the name of this airpower legend--Jimmy Doolittle. He went on to command Eighth Air Force in Europe, leading campaigns that smashed the Luftwaffe. General Doolittle retired from the Air Force Reserve in 1959, but he continued to serve his country in various capacities for years. Jimmy Doolittle was promoted to full general (on the retired list) by an act of Congress in 1988. General Doolittle died in 1993, at the age of 96.

Those are the achievements of someone who deserved to skip a grade in his military career. By comparison, the bureaucratic requirements that dictated the recent promotions are no substitute for merit. The Air Force managed to function for more than 50 years with its senior JAG in the rank of Major General; surely, the service could have survived with a two-star in the Lieutenant General billet until enough qualified candidates could compete for the promotion.

It's also worth remembering that the service has long operated with a "one up or down" rule in the lower ranks, meaning that most billets can be filled by someone one grade higher (or lower) than the desired rank. We understand that the requirements are different in command billets and the flag ranks. But we still argue that a two-grade advancement should be limited to individuals with the accomplishments of a Jimmy Doolittle. Sad to say, but the Air Force hasn't produced one of those in many, many years.

AP: 3 people killed and almost 300 injured after strong earthquake in Malawi. The 6.0-magnitude quake struck the southeast African country at 1:19 a.m. Sunday, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The quake, 9.4 miles deep, followed a series of tremors in the same uranium-rich Karonga district. Last week a quake killed a one-year old and injured two people.

"It seems the world is souring on President Obama nearly as quickly as America is. The U.K.’s Guardian reports that Obama “looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders.” Fringe gaggle of environmental freaks known as “Friends of Earth” claimed that Mr. Obama had “disappointed the whole world.” Another observer remarked candidly that perhaps “Copenhagen isn’t Mr. Obama’s city” after his other failed visit here in an attempt to score an Olympic hosting job for Chicago." [Examiner.com - An Angry President Obama loses his cool as Copenhagen freezes]

[Obama should have taken my advice and stayed away. Instead, he's proved himself to be ineffectual both in deeds, and words. Why am I not suprised?]

Plus:

"The most progressive US president in a generation comes to the most important international meeting since the Second World War and delivers a speech so devoid of substance that he might as well have made it on speaker-phone from a beach in Hawaii. His aides argue in private that he had no choice, such is the opposition on Capitol Hill to any action that could challenge the dominance of fossil fuels in American life. And so the nation that put a man on the Moon can't summon the collective will to protect men and women back here on Earth from the consequences of an economic model and lifestyle choice that has taken on the mantle of a religion." [Independent - Joss Garman: Copenhagen - Historic failure that will live in infamy]

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?&Greg-alogue%3A%2012%2F19&RED%20EYE%20GREGALOGUE&Lay%20off%20the%20dumb%3A%20Leave%20%27Jersey%20Shore%27%20alone&Greg%20Gutfeld&-1&Opinion&Video%20Launch%20Page

Lay off the dumb: Leave 'Jersey Shore' alone

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2009/12/double-dipping.html

Being a retired general or admiral has certain fringe benefits.

First, there's the pension. A retired Brigadier General or Rear Admiral (Lower Half), with 30 years of service, will collect a monthly payment of $7935, before taxes and other deductions. Factoring in annual cost-of-living increases, that pension will be worth upwards of $3 million, over a 30-year retirement.

There's also the prestige that comes with being a retired flag officer. That rank certainly looks good on a resume (and) coupled with decades of networking and contacts, it opens doors that are simply unavailable to most military retirees.

In fact, those retired generals and admirals (along with their active-duty counterparts) have created something of a cottage industry within DoD. It's called the "Senior Mentor" program, which hires former flag officers to serve as advisors in wargaming, weapons procurement and strategy matters.

The pay, as you might guess, is quite good. A typical mentor is paid hundreds of dollars an hour for his or her services. Additionally, many of the retired officers also consult or work for defense contractors, raising questions about possible conflicts of interest between their relationships with defense firms, and their role as military advisors.

USA Today "exposed" the program last month, and their first article suggested that senior mentors represent a relatively new Pentagon program. But that's hardly the case; during one of my final active duty assignments, I worked for a military wargaming center. Over the course of a typical year, there was a veritable parade of senior mentors who participated in our simulations and specialized training courses for flag officers. They represented all branches of the military and they were well-compensated for their efforts.

Former politicians were part of the program, too. Just months after his retirement from Congress, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich turned up at my base, as a guest speaker for flag officers attending a joint commander's course. Mr. Gingrich also commanded a hefty fee for his appearance. But, in fairness, the former speaker gave a dynamic, two-hour presentation, providing a detailed assessment of various global issues--without notes.

To be fair, the "senior mentor" program has its merits. Outside of the military's "charm school" for newly-selected flag officers (and a few specialized courses after pin-on), there is no program that teaches generals and admirals how to do their jobs. Given those realities, it is often beneficial for new flag officers to interact with retired component and joint commanders, who gained valuable strategic, operational and geopolitical expertise during their careers.

Obviously, that type of expertise doesn't come cheap. Compensation rates for the mentors are roughly based on what they would earn (or actually earn) as senior defense contractors or consultants. But that may be changing.

Responding to the USA Today report, Defense Secretary Robert Gates described the mentor pay scale as "obscene," and ordered an internal review. Mr. Gates is also concerned about potential conflicts-of-interest; according to the paper, at least 130 participants in the mentor program also worked as employees, consultants or board members for defense firms. The defense chief believes the mentors should be motivated by "service" rather than "profit."

But there are some problems with that approach. First, all branches of the federal bureaucracy employ consultants, who earn big bucks for their services. And, if you dig a little deeper, you'll find that many of those hired guns are consulting for the same agency or department they retired from, or once worked for. It's the nature of the business; consulting firms--and their clients--want experts with recent experience in that particular program or agency.

So, a former flag officer usually has a 4-5 window to establish himself (and make big bucks) as a mentor. As they move deeper into retirement, their "expertise" becomes more dated, and of less value to DoD.

But that fact is lost on the media; USA Today reported breathlessly that retired Army General Dan McNeill made $281,000 as a "senior mentor" between December 2008 and August of this year. What the paper fails to mention is that McNeill is a former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan; as the military debated the "way ahead" in that conflict, McNeill's experience was viewed as particularly valuable. As that war evolves, it's likely that McNeill won't be earning as much as a senior mentor. Of course, he still has a $200,000 pension to fall back on.

Still, there is room for reform within the mentor program. Mr. Gates--and USA Today--are correct in highlighting the potential conflicts of interest facing many retired officers who work as mentors. Simply stated, they should not be on the federal payroll--and that of a defense firm--at the same time. Under those circumstances, it becomes too easy to recommend the systems or services of your company to DoD.

Fixing the problem should be easy: hire the mentors as full-time federal workers, and force them to sever ties with defense contractors. Pay them as members of the Senior Executive Service (SES), which will guarantee them a six-figure paycheck. Those earnings, along with their military pension, should be enough to provide a comfortable lifestyle. Additionally, the full-time mentor cadre would be smaller (and less expensive) than the current "contractor" arrangement.

The second step in the reform process is equally straightforward: implement a mandatory, three-year "cooling off" period for participants in the mentor program. In other words, someone leaving a mentorship post would have to wait three years before signing on as a defense consultant, executive or contractor. Retired flag officers would be forced to choose between employment in the federal sector or the private sector, with none of the "back-and-forth" or "double-dipping" that goes on now. More importantly, the cooling off period would help prevent the conflicts of interest that jeopardize the current mentor program.

There is, of course, a certain irony in all of this. Fifty years ago, men like Admiral Ray Spruance were regular speakers at the war colleges and other military forums. As far as we know, Spruance and other retired flag officers (from that era) never accepted a fee for their services; any compensation from the government was probably limited to their travel expenses.

Sadly, those days are long-gone. Today's generation of retired generals and admirals are interested in maximizing their earning power, and they're willing to take what the market can pay. If Mr. Gates believes he can attract--and retain--mentors at cut-rate prices, he is sadly mistaken. Many former flag officers have expertise needed by DoD and they're entitled to a wage commensurate with professionals in other fields. Institutionalizing the program (and making mentors full-time federal employees) is the best way to access their knowledge and eliminate potential conflicts-of-interest.

One more thing: someone ought to ask Gannett (parent company of USA Today) about the number of former employees and executives who now consult the newspaper division, or one of the company's many TV stations around the company. Those consultants have an enormous impact on what you read in a Gannett publication, or see on their TV outlets. You see, the journalism world has its own "mentors;" they just work under a different job title.

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2009/12/predator-channel.html

There's something troubling about yesterday's Wall Street Journal report on insurgents accessing video feeds from U.S. drones operating over Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's bad enough that terrorists can watch the same live, unencrypted video as our troops on the ground, using inexpensive antennas and computer software that costs as little as $26.

But it's even more disturbing that the Pentagon has known about the problem for more than a decade, and is only now making a serious effort to secure line-of-sight video signals. With a little luck (and sufficient funding) those feeds should be fully encrypted by 2014. Until then, intelligence analysts, special forces operators and other military personnel can only hope their terrorist targets aren't watching the same pictures from Predators, Reapers and other battlefield UAVs.

According to the Journal, commanders in Iraq discovered earlier this year that insurgents were, in fact, monitoring--and recording--video streams from our drones:

Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes' systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet -- to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.

With terrorists able to access UAV video signals, U.S. forces lose the critical element of surprise on the battlefield. By watching the video feeds, insurgents gain critical information about targets (and groups) under surveillance, helping them avoid planned raids by special forces teams and other units.

While most reports of intercepted feeds have come from Iraq, there is also evidence that terrorists in Afghanistan have employed the same tactic. And, with the simple technology required to pirate the video feeds, there's no reason that insurgents in places like Somalia and Yemen couldn't mointor the signals as well.

The discovery of UAV video on insurgent laptops in Iraq confirmed a known vulnerability in our drone network. While unmanned surveillance aircraft have been a part of military operations for more than a decade, the Pentagon elected to leave the video down link unencrypted, believing that adversaries in regions like the Balkans and the Middle East would be unable to exploit the video feeds. Leaving the signal unencrypted also allowed easier access by ground forces, which rely heavily on UAV surveillance in conducting raids on enemy strongholds.

But evidence of signal vulnerability began surfacing as the drones entered combat. During Operation Allied Force (1999), there were numerous reports of Kosovo residents with satellite TV using their dishes to monitor video feeds from first-generation Predator drones. Defense analyst Pete Singer told Air Force Times that the locals joked it was "harder to get the Disney Channel than watch U.S. military operations."

Concern about the video feeds continued as the combat intensified in Iraq. During 2004 and 2005, the Office of the Secretary of Defense held meetings about the problem. But former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne (who participated in those sessions) tells the Times that the emerging consensus was to "field the UAVs as quickly as possible." Mr. Wynne's account was verified by another participant, General Mike Moseley, who served as the service's Chief of Staff during that period.

Not all signals associated with the drones are unsecured. Command signals used to pilot the aircraft are encrypted, as is the video feed provided to commanders. Securing the line-of-sight signal to ground forces would have required additional hardware, added to the cost of UAVs, and slowed their entry into the inventory.

Luckily, few insurgent groups have taken advantage of the vulnerability. An assessment by U.S. commanders in Iraq indicates that only one group--the Iranian-backed Kata'ib Hezbollah--has the technical capacity to intercept the signals. While some elements of the hacking operation (most notably the software) are inexpensive and readily available, integrating the various components requires a certain degree of technical sophistication. American analysts believe Iran was only willing to give the package to their most loyal surrogates in Iraq, a main reason that Kata'ib Hezbollah would up with the equipment.

Still, there's no reason that other terrorist elements won't gain the same capability on their own, or through Iranian agents. Meanwhile, the U.S. is applying some interim technical fixes, such as narrowing the area in which the video feeds can be received. That would make it easier to detect insurgents trying to pirate the signal.

But that remedy only goes so far. In urban terrain, it's still possible for terrorists inside a building to intercept the video feed, while a U.S. patrol passes outside. We're guessing that American troops will find a few more insurgent laptops--with files of our UAV video--before the system is fully encrypted in 2014.

It's another testament to our hubris--the same mindset that (prior to World War II) assured us that the Japanese could never produce--let alone fly--a first-class fighter, and that the B-17 would not require fighter escort to reach enemy targets. In both cases, the cost of our arrogance was measured in human lives.

So far, we haven't paid a similar price in Iraq or Afghanistan. We can only hope that trend holds. Meanwhile, someone needs to ask former Bush and Clinton officials about their decision to leave UAV video feeds unsecured. Yeah, we saved a few bucks--but at what potential cost?

It's worth remembering that the same, unsecured links would be used in conflicts with more capable adversaries like North Korea and China. We can only imagine how Beijing or Pyongyang might have exploited our vulnerability. But a generation of military commanders and senior civilian officials were willing to take the risk. That sort of group think requires a further explanation.

Another day, another town, another lecture speech.

( rant-let )

We are experiencing a "big freeze". Severe weather warnings in place across Britain. Ice and snow - as deep as 8 inches in some places - causing disruption to roads in South, Southeast and East of England. Temperatures in SE dropped to -3 degrees C overnight. (London has escaped snowfall - bit disappointing!) All flights in and out of Luton suspended. Runway has re-opened at Gatwick, but there are still cancellations and groundings. Cancellations on Stansted Express trains. Passengers on National Express to East Anglia should expect delays. "Motorists - don't head out without a mobile phone," they advised. Gritters are prioritising A roads and motorways, so some B-roads are iced up. In the daylight, "picture postcard" views can be enjoyed in some parts of the countryside.

"Hillary Clinton electrified the faltering conference by announcing that America would back the setting-up of a climate fund for poor countries which would have $100bn to give away annually by 2020. But at the same time she issued a blunt challenge to China, which has now overtaken the US as the world's biggest emitter of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, to allow its promised emissions cuts to be internationally verified – something the Chinese have been stubbornly resisting. .... Like a poker player with a sudden new bet, the power-dressed Mrs Clinton changed the game instantly as she pulled her gigantic sum out of the US back pocket and slammed it down on the negotiating table. She was not saying that America would provide $100bn on its own account. She was not even saying how the money would be raised. But in giving open and unambiguous US backing to the figure, which was first suggested by Gordon Brown last June, she turned the idea of a colossal new Climate Fund into reality – something which will have an enormous attraction to many of the poorer African countries, whose distrust of the rich nations has been one of the factors which has bedevilled negotiations over the past fortnight." [Source: Independent - China holds the world to ransom]

(I noticed Mrs. Clinton putting pressure on China, which can only be a good thing. However, that article sure put a strange spin on things. I didn't get any sense of being "electrified" nor did I feel that she was more "power-dressed" than usual. I thought she was looking rather dowdy and tired. The way Copenhagen is being portrayed as a some kind of "game" does ring true. China doesn't like the idea that its future carbon emissions should be subject to external verification. Quite frankly, I would have thought all these details should have been ironed out ages ago. I'm counting on China to continue playing hard ball. Oh, Obama shows up in town after all. "He's here for one day only," reported Sky News. People seem to think only he can save these talks - perhaps with even more promises that he can't keep? I don't get the feeling that Copenhagen excites the Obama administration much. Perhaps it's because climate change is not seen as an important US electioneering issue anymore. According to a news article from Reuters, "The president is under pressure to hurry back from Copenhagen and switch the focus from climate change* and healthcare, which seem remote from many voters' concerns, to the economy, jobs and government support for Main Street." As for the climate fund, they are still fighting over who gets control over this.)

* The proportion of respondents who disapprove of the job he is doing has surged from 26% in February to 46% in December.... on climate change, the administration appears to be pushing water up hill. Only a quarter of respondents thought climate change had been established as a serious problem that required immediate action (23%). The others thought that only "some" action should be taken (31%), action should await more research (29%), or no action was warranted at all (12%). [Source: Poll - Wall Street Journal and NBC Dec 2009]

stepstomarrow
When granddaughter, Jada, was born with leukemia, a donor-match was located and Jada made a miraculous recovery. In honor of her grandaughter's health, Jeanna has decided to walk across the country (in the dead of winter) to raise awareness and build support for the bone marrow registry (all that's required is a cheek swab). Follow Jeanna's remarkable journey as she travels the United States by foot.

Obama says he may come to Copenhagen if a deal is struck.

(What an a-hole! Either you say you're going to come along or don't come along. It's only about saving the planet after all. No big deal.)

British Airways must now surely be the world's least favourite and probably most-loathed airline, thanks to militant union, and grasping Heathrow cabin crew, who voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action. 1 million ticket holders are in jeopardy as a result. Heathrow cabin crew are apparently (comparatively) obscenely well-paid. The scenes of triumphalism and jubilation at the meeting where the vote to strike was won sickened the general public, who can only look forward to misery over the proposed 12 days of strike action over the Christmas period. One by one our great institutions - Post Office comes to mind - are fell by irresponsible unionism, who peddle to their members some idea of riches if they hold the public to ransom. So, let's all hope BA will go under, and we can start over.

There is a huge public backlash against the crew, e.g. on the internet as exemplified by this comment as reported in this article: "You all say it is about customer service, but then you strike over Christmas so you are not affecting business travellers, you are hitting the families trying to get home for the holidays – you are mad!"

(15:44 BA wins High Court bid for injunction to prevent 12 day cabin crew strike over Christmas. Strike is off. Idiot union rightly humiliated. Unite say: Decision is "disgraceful day for democracy" -- *LOL*)

Joanna Lumley is at it again, trying to wheedle out even more money from us for her "Debt of Honour" to the gurkhas. Give it a rest Joanna! She says the gurkhas in Nepal are getting £1 per day at present, and she wants more for them. "But isn't £1 a day a lot of money in Nepal?" asked Channel 4 News. "Well the average wage in Nepal is $1 a day, so £1 a day is a little above that," she replied. "That's above average for Nepal isn't it?" Joanna had to admit that, of course, but then she points out that they are just about keeping alive. They have no sanitation, and have to keep warm. Quite frankly, we the taxpayer are honouring our debt to the gurkhas already, to the tune of £1 billion I understand, to fulfill our obligation, by way of pension and allowing those who qualify to settle in the UK. I really resent being told that we still owe them such a debt. So, no I'm not donating to this one. (But please don't let me stop anyone else from doing so!) If someone gave me an above average-wage allowance out of charity, I'd be damn grateful, and wouldn't ask for more - silly me!

Psst: Has anyone told Joanna that we're probably already contributing to help countries like Nepal "fight" "climate change".

"Happy Xmas!"