From My Thumb

The Debate on Climate Change.

By Rob Swan

Sir Nick Stern’s report on climate change and the subsequent dangers of global warning is a wake-up call to all of us to act before it is too late. I agree entirely and echo the Prime Minister in his call for a global response. Before I comment further, let me quote from the news release by Friends of the Earth:-

“ Yes, we all know it is a global problem (emissions in the UK being only 2%). Nothing will happen to solve it until countries take action at home to cut emissions. Ultimately, individual countries’ actions will need to be orchestrated through a globally agreed legal and economic framework far stronger than what we have under the Kyoto Accord.”

My understanding of Global is the World and this World consists of Developed and developing countries (and the word developing is often used very loosely because it includes countries that are actually “non-developing”. Examples are Bangladesh, parts of India and Pakistan, some regions in China, Nepal, Myanmar, some outposts of the former USSR (Siberia), at least 40 countries (!) in Africa, at least 4 countries in South America, countries in Central America (Guatemala, Panama, Nicuragua, Honduras), and some Caribbean nations like Cuba and Jamaica. Add Pacific nations like Indonesia and the Phillipines because their economies are often disrupted by natural disasters, and you have “non-developing” countries coming close to tipping the scales against the developed nations.

Now, let’s consider daily life in many of these countries that are “developing” but are actually “non- developing” :

• The traffic in Nigeria (especially Lagos), worsens daily. Tell them to drive hybrid cars (they are one city of many).
• Malawi has been stripped of forests due to refugees. Tell them not to cook with wood.
• Tell the oil refineries that are established in many African, Middle Eastern, Russian and South American countries to stop refining and polluting the air.
• Some people in the Phillipines live on $2 a day. Tell them to get more efficient cooking fuels.
• The Sudan, largest country in Africa, The DRC, one of the largest, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Liberia, Ivory Coast and many others couldn’t give a toss about global warming or climate change. Those people are trying to survive!
• Countries from North to South in Africa and South America (as examples), have no building regulations or safety regulations. They are probably irresponsible and very casual –ergo: don’t give a damn about climate change or any other factor that impinges on surviving.
• Tell the 5000 taxi drivers in Cairo (population 20 million) to cut down on emissions, sell their taxis, walk!. Try it.
• Tell the people in the slums of Mexico City to cook responsibly.

I’m sure you know by now what I’m alluding to: It is going to be impossible to educate the World’s poorest nations to change their habits and their lives. They cannot afford to change.

Forgive my pessimism but how do you tackle high emissions of exhaust gas, factory smoke and cooking fires when there are no regulations in place; no wish to deprive people of “simple practices”; no wish to prevent people getting on with the drudgery of life; no wish to shut down a tannery that belches smoke, chokes rivers and is an eyesore. That is their life!

And I’m not finished! How do Sir Nick, Tony Blair and The Friends of the Earth, amongst other protagonists for change, consider how they are going to change this World of ours when they cannot bring peace to the warring; bring food to the starving, and erase corruption from the corrupted nations? Respect for an ideal is easy—how will it be put into practice?

Changing the world is easy on paper. Try it in real terms.

If you have not lived in Africa then you really do not know the circumstances under which little children live: They live in sickness and in abject poverty. They live a heartbeat away from death. They live in conditions that are anathema to the British way of living.

Why condemn Madonna for taking one child out of a miserable, impoverished existence to one that will give the child a good life?

If people can take Vietnamese and Cambodian orphans away from a life of early deprivation, then why cannot Madonna adopt a child of the World and give him life?

I think that what she has done is admirable and unselfish.

If others think the opposite then they should consider that many African children get few breaks in life. If Madonna can give a child a break who are we to criticise?

The man I'm talking about is the Sphinx who is pictured above. It is a tribute to my talented editing skills that he appears 3 times instead of the intended once. However, he is always worth seeing.

A little insider info on me: I live in Cairo, the largest, craziest city in Africa and I am about 10 km away from the Sphinx which is situated in Giza, next to the 3 Great Pyramids. I never tire of seeing the half-man, half-lion figure and visit him often.I always feel a sense of awe when looking at a monument that is 3000 years old, and, oddly enough a sense of calmness. I don't know if he has mystical powers or not, but he certainly enthralls me.

Here are two things you may not know about the Sphinx unless you have visited him yourself: He is a lot smaller than depicted in most photos and he is dwarfed by the three Pyramids behind him (they are, of course, not to be under-emphasised; I admire them just as much). The second thing is that Napoleon was responsible for much of the re-construction and re-habilitation of the Sphinx.

Good news for tourists is that a new museum is to be built next to the Pyramids and Sphinx. It will open in 2010 and will be called the Great Egyptian Museum. The statue of Ramses 2 that was recently moved from central Cairo to Giza, will be the centrepiece of the new museum.

If you like, I'll tell you about the present museum and some other delights of Egypt in another article.

It seems when everything is going right, things go wrong. My previous blog, containing vitriol, sarcasm and cynicism, skewed off into a publishing nightmare (due to this fool's lack of editing skills.)Hope most of it came out OK. I'll be back.

I've always wanted a fancy website where I could comment on the news from a layman's perspective. Guess I'm not important enough and I certainly cannot afford a fancy site! But the spirit moves me and I have to say, as a layman again, that I shake my head at some news stories that, whether blown out of proportion or not, are closer to the truth than the idiots out there who make the news. I shall attempt to give an overview, once weekly, on the stories making the news and I shall comment in my usually cynical, ascerbic way. I'm certainly no Adam Boulton but then again I don't have to be as cautious as him.

Some of the stories that jogged my irritable bowel:

*** It seems Kim Howells and Des Browne appear to have different agendas when it comes to Iraq. Howells says the troops will be out in 12 months; Browne says they are committed to seeing it out. The camel dung is likely to hit the Whitehall air-conditioning soon, but I fear they are both wrong: The way things are going in Basra, Amarra and Kirkuk, the troops could be home by Christmas. I am deadly serious that we are going to have to leave quite soon chums! It isa ghastly, deadly unwinnable war.

s about to launch its new English channel soon. It is a coup for AJ that the likes of David Frost and Darren Jordon, amongst others, are already on board. AJ has been too controversial in the past due to its grisly exclusives on beheaded kidnapees and Al Quaeda news releases. The new channel should show AJ in a better light although I have to admit that the station has, apart from the aforementioned exposes, been pretty upmarket in its reporting.

***Speaking of AlJazeera, it was reported today on that channel, that a senior State Department official, Alberto Fernandez, had said, quote, that " the United States has shown 'arrogance' and 'stupidity' in Iraq. Reuters did not say much more but this cynical blogger feels these comments are long overdue.

The "Brains Trust" of Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, seems incapable of seeing the big picture in a cheap Texan oil painting so why would they see the big picture in Iraq? Let's face it, these guys know how to point a gun and extract oil from granite but fighting wars is more than that: You have to win people over--and that means with simple things like TVs and lights that work (electricity, of course), and that showers and taps work (water, of course), and, most importantly, that you can visit your local market to buy potatoes and squashes and mutton to make your evening meal, without being blown to Kingdom come by a suicide bomber. Can this "Brains Trust" guarantee these things? These people are arrogant and stupid (oh, Fernandez said that), and completely out of touch.

my blood pressure by saying that too many people (including myself, though I'm small fry), have commented on the veil issue. Let us take David Cameron's and Trevor Phillips' advice and can it. For God's sake, if Britain is going to be the most multi-cultural country in the World then it must accept that and accept cultural differences. We should thank God we have peaceful Muslims in Britain because there are Somali and Nigerian thugs (to name some of the riff-raff), who are being let loose on us with crime methods we can only dream about. If you dispute this, ask for statistics!

I've said enough for now, but next week I'm going to comment on Yobs, football thugs and the "Onslow Factor".

In Vietnam after the Tet offensive,Americans were turned against the war. A documentary by Walter Cronkite shocked many Americans and an anti-war movement grew from there.

The same is happening in Iraq and George Bush has, at last, admitted that Americans are turning against this venture. He has compared the feelings against the war in Vietnam to the growing antipathy to the war in Iraq. However, the USA has a President still determined to win in Iraq even though the figures suggest otherwise. We also have in Tony Blair a PM who probably feels that his troops should not be in that disastrous mess but doesn't want to let GW down.

I am a simple layman but even I can tell when there is a disaster in the making. Consider the following:
-The Iraq conflict is a fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, one of which wants control of the country.
-It is exascebated by insurgents from many countries, entering Iraq through Syria and other neighbours.
-It is exascerbated by Al Quaeda who wish to inspire all insurgent groups to fight the USA.
-It is exascerbated by clear-thinking Iraqui citizens themselves who see foreign troops, who cannot guarantee security, having failed them.
How would you feel if promises with regard to security, power supplies and water--never mind a wish to continue with normal life--
were never met?

This war is a mess and it is not contributing to the fight against global terrorism--it is making it worse!

It is a fact that many British Muslims wear the Hijab and Nikab. It is also obvious that we have a culture amongst British Muslims that these items of clothing be worn.

However, and I am being very careful here, there are those who feel that the full or partial veil upsets some people. They talk about communication and visual difficulties. They talk about British integration. They also talk about a culture above British cultural norms--or even below it.

My view on this matter is quite simple: I have many Muslim friends but they are going to have to make some sacrifices if they are prepared to live in a country, which, quite frankly, is non-Muslim in nature. There is something uncomfortable about Muslims who are making demands, imposing cultural legacies, in an adopted country.

Before you condemn me let me tell you that I live in a liberal Middle Eastern country where the veil is being shrugged off daily and where the young girls wear T-shirts and jeans and flaunt their beautiful black hair in public.

My point is this: Why should British Muslims get so uptight about the veil when many girls from Lebanon and Egypt shrug off this cultural demand and show their hair off in full display, wear Levis and even have bare arms? Some even wear skirts. British Muslim women are lagging behind Muslim women's rights to freedom. Why?

It is quite ironic that the Muslim women of Britain are behind those
of the Middle East. Comments please.

According to Google UK news some pipsqueak ministerial spokesman has said that Sir Richard Dannat is living on borrowed time, or words to that effect.

Who is this person? Probably another spin dealer who thinks he's bigger than the Almighty himself. And, Michael Portillo, a former Defence minister, has said that Sir Richard should not have meddled in politics and deserves to be sacked. Michael Who? Oh, you mean the one with the Libido with a capital L. The word "sack" comes easily to him, if you like a pun.

In 1915 there was a war minister called Churchill who took his troops into Gallipoli. The ensuing battle saw a humiliated force of Anzacs and British defeated soundly by the Turks. Churchill resigned then but later went on to became a great man.

In 2003 a Prime Minister listened to a US President going on about atrocities and WMD's. He took his troops into Iraq and found that the US President had fired his sixgun without looking at the big picture.
(or was the Prime Minister as blinkered as his colleague?).

The big picture was actually quite simple: Iraq is a disaster--the war was never planned properly--and who are bearing the consequences? The troops and the Iraquis (650 000 lost). It is a no-win situation.

On his shining charger along comes the chief of the army, Sir Richard, and he, with wisdom, says (not a quote): I feel for these exhausted, under-equipped, unpopular men---time we got out of here. (by the way that is what Kitchener roughly said to Churchill).

Blair, unlike Churchill, will not go down as a great man. In fact he will probably be remembered as a war monger.

It is time he was pushed out so that our exhausted troops can come home and we can reclaim some of our pride. Before Iraq really does become another Gallipoli!

Look, let me be blunt: I don't like men with earrings and men with nose rings turn me off too. But it is accepted in Britain today and I'll go along with it. Besides, a little jewellery gives a man a sense of belonging and ease. He is in touch with his Gypsey roots and, from a physical point of view, men's ears are ugly (look at William Hague), and should perhaps be adorned with silver or gold. An ugly man is elevated to superior status if he has a bevy of cosmetic junk that draws attention away from his less than perfect facial features. Ugly men are immediately elevated to "cool" simply by drilling holes in their ears, eyebrows and nostrils.

Has any employer hit the headlines because he refused work to a man with an earring or six earrings for that matter? He'd get short shrift if he did. Has any employer objected to bracelets, necklaces or other adornments that may glorify sex, marijuana or some cult that has been thought up overnight by a bunch of pissed, stoned and inept yobs?

In fact, in the UK anything goes unless you wear a crucifix and are employed by British Airways. The lady who wore her crucifix (quite innocuous compared to Jack Straw's veiled ladies--and this is probably what it's all about, after all--did not flaunt much apart from a small cross on a necklace).

BA, and the media, should realise that Britain is about freedom and there cannot be exceptions. Either you allow jewellery, religious or not or you dont. I don't give a toss about divides or perceptions or religious sensitivities. BA should be castigated for being so petty!

It is not for me to say that Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the army, spoke out of turn when he said it would be better for Britain to get out of Iraq. He may not have meant to imply that Britain (ergo, the Yanks too), have made little progress, are making enemies daily and, that the presence of the coalition troops is "exascerbating" the problem.But he did imply that it is a "useless" war and he is right. If the General spoke out of turn, I'm pleased he did.

Unfortunately, there are those who do not like the truth, no matter how couched or how damped down it is. I, respectfully, would like to suggest that the General would have said more if he could have.The kudos must go to him for questioning the farce that is the occupation of Iraq.

Facts are more important than supposition and I venture my own thoughts based on these facts:
* 650 000 Iraquis have died since the beginning of the war.It is blatantly obvious that the Coalition cannot stop insurgency or provide the Iraqui people with adequate security.
* British and US soldiers are blamed for the daily carnage in Baghdad and other cities. They are blamed because many Iraquis regard them as harbingers of doom, condemning normal daily life to exhausting tribulation. They are blamed because Iraquis do not trust them. They are blamed because they cannot resolve the carnage,provide a continous electricity supply or ample water.
* Many Iraquis blame Bush for the destructive disruption to their daily lives---many are happy with Saddaam's downfall but question the price they have to pay for that.
* There is a constant harping in the media about a pending civil war. I suggest it started over a year ago.

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that it has now become impossible for the Coalition to withdraw. They are in too deep and "between a hard rock and a sticking place" ---it is a catch 22 situation--and if I knew all the answers I would be a hero.

There are no heroes in this war and George Bush (and Tony Blair), will go down in history as "warmongers" and " pseudo saviours" of Iraq.

They have failed the Iraquis and they have failed us.

I would accept a spy chip in my bin (to measure my waste), and I would try to help my council to re-cycle waste in accordance with increased recycling regulations and targets.I would, religiously, sort cans, bottles, paper and cardboard into little sacks. I would also, religiously, take my paper and cans and bottles to the bins at Waitrose and do my duty as a conscientious householder.

The Daily Mail of October 5th tells me that I am probably going to have to pay tax on my rubbish. I am not recycling enough, say the authorities. The little chips will weigh my rubbish and I will be taxed according to the amount I am throwing out. Fine, another tax. My station wagon will have to do a few more trips to the dump.

The Daily Mail of Monday October 2nd told us that illegal immigrants are costing us 3.3 Billion pounds because they don't pay tax. No matter that they are living on the NHS and getting government welfare grants and so on. So while Mrs Wolubu of Nigeria and Mr Sithole of Zimbabwe are sitting in council houses (probably)and getting benefits for Mrs Wolubu's children and Mr Sithole's bad leg,and paying zilch in tax, the British people must cough up more tax money for overflowing bins.

I don't believe everything that newspapers say and I don't believe everything the Labour party says either, but it seems to me that law-abiding people will again be coughing up for the illegals in the country.

And, blow me down, the Blair government says "we do not know how many illegal immigrants there are."

What is going on here? Are honest British citizens of all races paying for people who should not even be here? No wonder the NHS is in tatters. No wonder we object to rubbish tax (we all re-cycle and we all try our best to build compost heaps and what not). No wonder we don't know our arses from our elbows! No wonder we want every damn illegal immigrant whether they be from Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Bulgaria or Chechnya, kicked out on their arses and on the first plane home.

We cannot go on supporting parasites,especially when we are told we have to pay more tax.John Reid needs to get controls in place or Britain will have 10 million parasites (now 500 000 and counting)sucking the blood from homeowners who have to pay more tax to keep them in luxury.We Brits are too tactful and too discreet to say the dreadful words, but I will: "Get rid of these leaches and the crime rate will drop too."

What did the Brazilian lady in the judge case say: The British are fools. It is so easy to take them for a ride and get benefits for everything. I am not quoting but that is the jist.

Tony Blair and labour can be summed up in 3 words: Soft, soft, soft.

The World is growing restless as the events in Sudan grow worse by the day. Darfur is a region in Africa's largest country and it is controlled mainly, some say, by the JanJaweed. The Sudanese government pretends to control the Janjaweed but many say they are in collusion--and that they are determined to rid Sudan of mainly black Sudanese. It appears to be a racial conflict leading up to genocidal tendencies. I would say that genocide is happening as I write, and that it may be too late to save the people of Darfur.

I use the words "some say" and "many say" because the politics of this large country is complex and rife with speculation about who is to blame and who rules. Furthermore, there are hidden agendas around every corner . I'm going to speculate and suggest that President Omar Hasan Ahmed al-Bashir is one of the most conniving scorpions in the desert. Here is a man who, like many African leaders before him, went to the UN and nodded his head and promised solutions. He went home and decided that no country was going to "invade" his state. I'm going to suggest that he, hiding behind an "invasion of our sovereignty" excuse has hidden agendas we can't know about. But, I'll try to to pin down some of the reasons:

* Why is he hijacking UN trucks and distributing the food to the army and the Janjaweed? Don't say it's not him. He's controlling it all.
* Why is he frightened of UN intervention? Not because of his precious "sovereignty" but because he is a war criminal . He's going to make Rwanda look like a picnic before he's finished.
* Why is the Middle East so silent about this massive humanitarian tragedy?
* Is there a hidden, hidden agenda? Do the Jihadists want to embroil the US in another war, thus weakening their reserves?
* Or, tongue in cheek, does the Sudan government think it can solve its own problems? Who is advising the great al-Bashir on this?
* The President is an out and out racist.

Ten years from now, if this situation can be resolved, the Sudanese President will be in the Hague for war crimes. Note this in your diary.