City Workers Accidentally Dump Hydrochloric Acid into Ohio W

When you dump the wrong chemical into the public water supply, it makes people nervous. Yesterday, chemical treatment plant workers in Bellaire, Ohio, accidentally dumped 40 pounds of hydrochloric acid into the public water supply instead of 40 pounds of toxic fluoride chemicals they were supposed to dump.

read more | digg story

Israel's Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?

Israel's Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Global Research, January 17, 2009 In the Middle East, it is widely believed that the war against Gaza is an extension of the 2006 war against Lebanon. Without question, the war in the Gaza Strip is a part of the same conflict. The March to War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon...In the Middle East, it is widely believed that the war against Gaza is an extension of the 2006 war against Lebanon. Without question, the war in the Gaza Strip is a part of the same conflict. Moreover, since the Israeli defeat in 2006, Tel Aviv and Washington have not abandoned their design to turn Lebanon into a client state. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, in so many words, during his visit to Tel Aviv in early January that today Israel was attacking Hamas in the Gaza Strip and that tomorrow it would be fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon.[1]Ehud Olmert and Nicolas SarkozyLebanon is still in the cross-hairs. Israel is searching for a justification or a pretext to launch another war against Lebanon. Washington and Tel Aviv had initially hoped to control Beirut through client political forces in the March 14 Alliance. When it became apparent that these political forces could not dominate Lebanon politically the Israeli military was unleashed on Lebanon with a goal of bringing about the ultimate downfall of Hezbollah and its political allies. [2] Areas where support for Hezbollah and its political allies were strongest saw the harshest Israeli attacks in 2006 as part of an attempt to reduce, if not remove, popular support for them.After the 2006 war, the second Israeli defeat in Lebanon, Washington and Tel Aviv with the help of Jordan, the U.A.E., Egypt, and Saudi Arabia started arming their clients in Lebanon to wield an internal armed option against Hezbollah and its allies. In the wake of both the short-lived internal violence between the Lebanese National Opposition and the March 14 Alliance and the Doha Accord, which was reached in Qatar on May 21, 2008 as a result of the failure of this internal armed option against Hezbollah and its allies, the Israeli-U.S. objective to subdue Lebanon has been dramatically impaired.A "national unity government" was formed in which the Lebanese National Opposition — not just Hezbollah — hold veto power through one-third of the cabinet chairs, including that of the post of deputy-prime minister. The objective in Lebanon is "regime change" and to repress all forms of political opposition. But how to bring it about? The forecast of the 2009 general-elections in Lebanon does not look favourable for the March 14 Alliance. Without an internal political or armed option in Lebanon, which could result in the installation of a U.S.-sponsored "democracy," Washington and its indefictible Israeli ally have chosen the only avenue available: a military solution, another war on Lebanon. [3] Crossing Arms III: Israel Simulates a Two-Front War against Lebanon and SyriaThis war is already in the advanced planning stage. In November 2008, barely a month before Tel Aviv started its massacre in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military held drills for a two-front war against Lebanon and Syria called Shiluv Zro’ot III (Crossing Arms III).[4] The military exercise included a massive simulated invasion of both Syria and Lebanon. Several months before the Israeli invasion drills, Tel Aviv had also warned Beirut that it would declare war on the whole of Lebanon and not just Hezbollah.[5]Israel's justification for these war preparations was that Hezbollah has grown stronger and become a partner in the Lebanese government since the Doha Accord. The latter was signed in Qatar between the March 14 Alliance and the Lebanese National Opposition. It is worth noting that Hezbollah was a member of the Lebanese coaltion government prior to the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon.No doubt, Tel Aviv will also point to Hezbollah's support of Hamas in Gaza as another pretext to wage under the banner of combating Islamic terrorism a pre-emptive war on Lebanon. In this context, Dell Lee Dailey the head of the counter-terrorism section of the U.S. State Department, had told Al-Hayat in an interview that an Israeli attack on Lebanon was "imminent" as part of the fight against terrorism. [6]Blitzkrieg in the MakingTel Aviv has been mapping a large-scale blitzkrieg against Lebanon as a whole, which includes an immediate land invasion. [7] Just before the Israeli massacre in the Gaza Strip started, Israeli officials and generals had promised that no Lebanese village would be immune from the wrath of Israeli aerial bombardments, regardless of religion, sect, and/or political orientation. [8] In substance, Tel Aviv has promised to totally destroy Lebanon. Israel has also confirmed that in any future war against Lebanon, the entire country rather than Hezbollah will be the target. In practice, this was already the case in 2006’s Israeli aerial attacks on Lebanon. [9]The Jerusalem Post quotes Brigadier-General Michael Ben-Baruch, one of the individuals who oversaw the invasion drills, as saying, "In the last war, we fired to disrupt Hezbollah activity," and, "The next time we will fire to destroy." [10]In the wake of Israel's 2006 defeat, the Israeli government admitted that its "big mistake" was it exercised restraint rather than attacking Lebanon with the full strength of its military. Israeli officials have intimated that in the case of a future war against the Lebanese that all civilian and state infrastructure will be targeted.Beirut’s New Defence Doctrine: A Threat to Israeli Interests and Objectives to Control Lebanon Why is Lebanon in the cross-hairs again? The answer is geo-political and strategic. It is also related to the political consensus process and the upcoming 2009 general-elections in Lebanon. Following the formation of a unity government in Beirut under a new president, Michel Suleiman (Sleiman), a new proactive defence doctrine for the country was contemplated. The objective of this defence doctrine is to keep Israel at bay and bring political stability and security to the country.President Michel SuleimanAt the "National Defence Strategy" dialogue, held by the 14 Lebanese signatories of the Doha Accord, all sides have agreed that Israel is a threat to Lebanon.In the months prior to the Israeli military campaign against Gaza, important diplomatic and political steps were taken by Beirut. President Michel Suleiman accompanied by several cabinet ministers visited Damascus (his first bilateral state visit; August 13-14, 2008) and Tehran (November 24-25, 2008).President Suleiman and Syrian President Al AssadIn turn, General Jean Qahwaji (Kahwaji) the commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces was also in Damascus (November 29, 2008) for consultations with his Syrian counterpart General Al-Habib. While in Damascus, General Qahwaji also met with General Hassan Tourkmani, the defence minister of Syria, and the Syrian President. [11] His trip followed the visit of Lebanon's interior minister, Ziad Baroud, to Syria and was within the same framework. [12] Meanwhile, Lebanon’s defence minister, Elias Murr, went on an official visit to Moscow (December 16, 2008).What started to emerge from these talks was that both Moscow and Tehran would provide weaponry to the Lebanese Armed Forces, which previously had been the recipients of lower-end U.S. made ordinance. The U.S. has always forbidden the Lebanese military from purchasing any heavy weapons that could challenge Israel's military strength.It was also revealed that Russia would donate 10 MiG-29 fighter jets to Beirut in line with Lebanon's new defence strategy. [13] The use of the Russian MiG-29s would also entail the required installation of early warning and radar systems. Russian tanks, anti-tank rockets, armoured vehicles, and military helicopters are also being sought by Lebanon. [14]Mig29Iran has offered to supply the Lebanese military with medium-range missiles as part of a five-year Iranian-Lebanese defence agreement. [15] While in Iran, Michel Suleiman held talks with Iranian defence officials and went to an Iranian defence industry exposition.While the talks with Moscow and Tehran aimed at arming the Lebanese Armed Forces, the talks with the Syrians were geared towards establishing and strengthening a joint security and defence framework directed against Israeli aggression. [16]Integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese Armed ForcesMoreover, Michel Aoun, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement and the Reform and Change Bloc in the Lebanese Parliament also visited Tehran (October 12-16, 2008; ahead of Michel Suleiman's official visit), and later Damascus (December 3-7, 2008). [17] Michel Aoun who is a central figure in the "political consensus" has endorsed and reaffirmed his political alliance with Hezbollah. Michel AounWhile calling for the peaceful disarmament of Hezbollah within a Lebanese defence strategy, he has accepted that Hezbollah fighters will eventally integrate into Lebanon's army. This disarmement process would only occur when the time is right and Israel no longer poses a threat to Lebanon. Hezbollah has broadly agreed to this, if and when there no longer exists an Israeli threat to the country's security. This position on Hezbollah's arms is spelled out in clause 10 (The Protection of Lebanon) of the February 6, 2006 memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Hezbollah that Michel Aoun signed on behalf of his political party, the Free Patriotic Movement.Following his return from Tehran, Aoun also presented his case for the formation of a new Lebanese defence strategy and promised that the outcome of his visit to Iran would materialize in about six months. Aoun has also said that Iran, as the "major regional power between Lebanon and China" is of strategic importance to Lebanese interests. [18]Hezbollah Paramilitary ForcesWashington's political cohorts in Lebanon are alarmed at the direction Lebanon is taking under its new defence strategy. They have criticized weapons purchases from Iran and defensive cooperation with Syria. This includes attacks on General Jean Qahwaji's visit to Syria, which was mandated by the entire Lebanese cabinet. [19] Additionally, within these pro-U.S. forces in Lebanon there has been a push for a "Swiss-like" "neutral defence policy" for Lebanon within the Middle East. Such a "neutral" position would benefit the U.S. and Israel geo-politically and strategically. Needless to say, with the threat of Israeli military aggression looming, this position is proving to be rather unpopular within Lebanon. Ending Israeli-American pressure on Beirut to Naturalize Palestinian RefugeesThe formation of a new proactive defence doctrine implies that Hezbollah fighters would be incorporated in the Lebanese Armed Forces and that the existing paramilitary forces of Hezbollah would be disbanded once certain conditions are met. Therefore, one of Lebanon’s key political questions would be resolved. With the integration of Hezbollah fighters into the country's army together with military aid from Russia and Iran, Lebanon would acquire defensive capabilities, which would enable it to confront the threat of Israeli military aggression. These developments, which go against the prevailing pattern of U.S. client regimes in the Middle East modelled on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have sounded an alarm bell in Tel Aviv, Washington, and London.In response to Lebanon's rapprochement with Russia and Iran, two senior US State Department officials were rushed to Beirut in December.[20] During this mission, Dell Lee Dailey and David Hale, respectively Coordinator of the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism and Deputy-assistant Secretary responsible for Middle Eastern affairs, renewed the veiled threats of an Israeli attack against Lebanon, while casually placing the blame on Hezbollah.[21] These threats are aimed at Lebanon as a whole. They are intended to disrupt the creation of Lebanon's new defence doctrine. The clock is ticking for Israel, the U.S., and NATO to obstruct the implementation of Beirut's new national defence doctrine. Israel would no longer have any justifications for carrying out military incursions into Lebanon if Hezbollah were to become a full political party under a new Lebanese defence strategy. Moreover, if Beirut were able, under a new defence arrangement, to protect its borders against Israeli military threats it would not only end Tel Aviv’s ambitions to politically and economically dominate Lebanon, but it would also end Israeli pressure on Lebanon to naturalize the Palestinian war refugees waiting to return to their ancestoral lands that are occupied by Israel. Clearly the issue of Palestinian naturalization in Lebanon is also tied to Lebanon's political consensus process and new defence strategy and was discussed by Michel Suleiman with Iranian officials in Tehran. [22]The Middle Eastern Powder Keg: A World War III Scenario?In 2006, when Israel attacked Lebanon, the war was presented to international public opinion as a conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. In essence the 2006 war was an Israeli attack on all of Lebanon. The Beirut government failed to take a stance, declared its "neutrality" and Lebanon's military forces were instructed not to intervene against the Israeli invaders. The reason for this was that the political parties of the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance that dominated the Lebanese government were expecting the war to end quickly and for Hezbollah (their political rival) to be defeated, and eventually excluded from playing a meaningful role on the Lebanese domestic political scene. Exactly the opposite has occurred since 2006. Moreover, had the Lebanese government declared war on Israel, in response to Israeli aggression, Syria would have been obligated through a Lebanese-Syrian bilateral treaty, signed in 1991, to intervene in support of Lebanon. In the case of a future Israeli war against Lebanon, the structure of military alliances is crucial. Syria could indeed intervene on the side of Lebanon. If Syria enters into the conflict, Damascus could seek the support of Tehran in the context of a bilateral military cooperation agreement with Iran. A scenario of escalation is, therefore, possible, which could potentially spin out of control. If Iran were to enter on the side of Lebanon and Syria in a defensive war against Israel, the U.S. and NATO would also intervene leading us into a broader war. Both Iran and Syria have military cooperation agreements with Russia. Iran also has bilateral military cooperation agreements with China. Iran is also an observer member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Iran’s allies including Russia, China, the member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) could all be drawn into the broader conflict. NOTES[1] 'We’re fed up with empty gestures’, The Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2009.[2] The militarization of Lebanon, extinguishing any credible armed resistance in Lebanon to Israel, and targeting Syria were also all factors for the Israeli attacks in 2006.[3] It should be noted that the fighting between Hamas and Fatah and the Israeli campaign against the Gaza Strip that started on December 27, 2008 has obstructed the Palestinian electoral process. [4] Amos Harel, IDF concludes large drill simulating double-front war in North, Haaretz, November 6, 2008.[5] Barak Ravid, Israel: Lebanon is responsable for Hezbollah’s actions, Haaretz, August 8, 2008.[6] "Hezbollah Terrorist Group; War with Israel Imminent", Al-Manar, December 17, 2008[7] Yakkov Katz, Preparing for a possible confrontation with Hizbullah, The Jerusalem Post, December 11, 2008.[8] Andrew Wander, Top Israeli officer says Hizbullah will be destroyed in five days 'next time', The Daily Star (Lebanon), December 17, 2008.[9] Ibid.[10] Yakkov Katz, Preparing for a possible, Op. cit.[11] Ahmed Fathi Zahar et al., President al-Assad Receives General Qahwaji, Underlines Role of Lebanese Army in Defending Lebanon's Security and Stability, Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), November 29, 2008.[12] Lebanese army commander pays visit to Syria, Xinhua News Agency, November 30, 2008.[13] Wang Yan, Russian donation of 10 Mig-29 fighters to Lebanon raises suspicions, Xinhua News Agency, December, 17, 2008; Yoav Stern, Russia to supply Lebanon with 10 MiG-29 fighter jets, Haaretz, December 17, 208; Russia 'to give' Lebanon war jets, British Broadcasting Corporation News (BBC News), December 17, 2008.[14] Lebanon defense minister to talk arms in Moscow, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), December 15, 2008. [15] Zheng E, Lebanese president requests medium weapons from Iran, Xinhua News Agency, November 26, 2008; Kahwaji stresses LAF role, while politicians bicker some more, The Daily Star (Lebanon), November 27, 2008; Russian donation, Op. cit.[16] Sun, Lebanese army commander returns from Syria, Xinhua News Agency, November 30, 2008.[17] Sami Moubayed, Former foe a celebrity in Damascus, Gulf News, December 4, 2008.[18] Aoun: Iran, most powerful country, Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), October 21, 2008. [19] Lebanese ctiticizes army commander's visit to Syria [sic.], Xinhua News Agency, December 1, 2008.[20] More praise for Russia's promise of 'free' MiGs, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and The Daily Star (Lebanon), December 18, 2008.[21] War with Israel Imminent, Op. cit.; US envoy warns against rearming Lebanon's Hezbollah, Deutsche Presse-Agentur/German Press Agency (DPA), December 17, 2008.[22] Kahwaji stresses LAF role, Op. cit. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is in an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern and Central Asian affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

read more | digg story

The environmental cost of a Google search

Monday, January 12, 2009 | 02:06 PM ET

By Paul Jay, CBCNews.ca.

A Harvard physicist and green-website founder's assertion that running two Google searches released the same amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as boiling a kettle of tea has caused a tempest in a you-know-what.

Type in "google search kettle" in Google and you'll get a host of links to the study mentioned in the Times of London over the weekend, the nut of which is this: the search you just tried released the equivalent of about 7 grams of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

However, not everyone (that is, almost no one in the tech world) appears to be buying the findings of Alex Wissner-Gross, an Environmental Fellow at Harvard University and the co-founder of CO2Stats, which lets websites track their carbon footprint.

Chief among the detractors is Google Senior vice president of operations Urs Hölzle, who wrote in the company's blog that a typical Google search requires far less energy, and therefore releases far less CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas than Wissner-Gross's figures.

Hölzle said each search amounts to 0.0003 kWh of energy per search, or 1 kJ, or "just about the same amount of energy that your body burns in ten seconds."

From the blog:

"In terms of greenhouse gases, one Google search is equivalent to about 0.2 grams of CO2. The current EU standard for tailpipe emissions calls for 140 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven, but most cars don't reach that level yet. Thus, the average car driven for one kilometer (0.6 miles for those of in the U.S.) produces as many greenhouse gases as a thousand Google searches."

Google is not the only one to question Wissner-Gross's findings, with the UK's The Register questioning his kettle calculations in typically acerbic fashion while TechCrunch compares the environmental costs of a search versus the cost of producing a single book - 2,500 grams, based on figures from publisher Penguin UK.

While it's hard to know what to make of Wissner-Gross's numbers - they have yet to be published - Google's figures are the first publication of their own estimates, giving us a chance to calculate the impact of all of those searches.

According to comScore, there were 7.784 billion Google searches conducted in November 2008 in the U.S. alone. At Google's calculation of 0.2 grams of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas per search, that comes to 1.557 million kg of CO2 equivalent for the month, or about 18.7 million kg in a year.

Now, context: the U.S. in 2006 contributed 7,054.2 teragrams, or 7,054,200,000,000 kg, of CO2 Eq. greenhouse gases, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's latest figures.

I realize mixing 2006 and 2008 numbers leads to all sorts of fudging, but the point is this: Google searches would account for about two and half millionths of a per cent of emissions. That it something, but I suspect if you compare Google to the other top companies in the world, and think of all of those saved trips to libraries, it seems consumers probably shouldn't fret too much over the impact of all of those searches. But just in case, maybe consider adding a few more bookmarks to your browser.

Harper to sell the rest of Canada if re-elected

Stephen Harper is promising to allow more foreign investment in Canada if re-elected. More Bush style politics that has worked so well for the U.S. Read full article below....

read more | digg story

Just joined Technorati

Technorati Profile

The Energy Non-Crisis

Lindsey Williams talks about his first hand knowledge of Alaskan oil reserves larger than any on earth. And he talks about how the oil companies and U.S. government won't send it through the pipeline for U.S. citizens to use.

Here is an attempt to "educate" the American People that there is as much oil in Alaska as there is in Saudi Arabia. Also mentions that Russia has drilled some deep oil wells and have found massive amounts. "Peak Oil" is a myth perpetuated by the oil companies to gouge everyone.

loosing my house now! just what they wanted. complete ruin.

Another example of the U.S. slipping into a police state. This man is losing his home because he reported to the media that there is mercury in their water.

The Biggest Global Warming Crime in History

By Cahal Milmo, Independent UK. Posted December 13, 2007.The Canadian wilderness is set to be invaded by BP in an oil exploration project dubbed 'the biggest global warming crime' in history.

read more | digg story

Global Warming Debate : The Denial Machine : the fifth estate : CBC News

An in-depth report on how Big Oil's denial machine was put into motion, and how Bush and Harper sold these lies to the World.

read more | digg story

Gvmnt agencies moving to gain access to personl telephone and internet info

In a move to bring Canada closer to a police state, Government agencies are moving to gain access to telephone and internet customers' personal information without first getting a court order, according to a document obtained by the CBC that is raising privacy issues. The information would include names, addresses, land and cellphone numbers, as well as IP addresses.

read more | digg story

Have Canadian Forces in Afghanistan been pawns?

by Joe Hueglin, Independent Editorialist

While Canadians are agonizing over our war dead, events are unfolding that suggest the purpose behind military action in Afghanistan differs greatly from the humanitarian reasons given, it is to secure a route for an oil pipeline: an idea once dismissed as a “conspiracy theory.”

Last week a Pakistan Daily Times article, "Govt awards TAP pipeline contract to US company" reported: "The Pakistan government has awarded the contract of laying the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline project to the United States International Oil Company (IOC) with an estimated cost of $10 billion." According to sources in the International Oil Company, “the matters of security and insurance in Afghanistan during the laying of the pipeline have been finalised between the oil company and authorities, and a signing ceremony confirming the mega-project Agreement would be held shortly."

Last week as well articles in the Asia Times reported "Taliban, US in new round of peace talks" and "Talks with the Taliban gain ground." According to these sources: "Specifically, the deals aim to stop violence in selected areas and give the Taliban limited control of government pending the conclusion of a broader peace deal for the country and the Taliban's inclusion in some form of national administration." Included in the "selected areas" is the Panjwai District in Kandahar Province, where Canadian lives have been lost.

It is suggested the conclusion of negotiations will come with the arrival in Pakistan of Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte on September 10th and that "The outcome of the talks will to a large extent decide the agenda of Negroponte's visit and the course of the US-led ‘war on terror’ in the region."

If Syed Saleem Shahzad's reporting is accurate, negotiations to end armed conflict in limited areas of Afghanistan are taking place and Canadian Forces may be playing the role of pawns in the international competition for control over petroleum resources.

Should such be the case Canadians will have been sorely misled by our leaders ignorance or complicity.

About the author:

Joe Hueglin is a former Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament who is the communications co-ordinator for an independent progressive tory communications initiative.
The The Canadian

American Policy Center President warns Canadians in Ottawa that Bush administration's SPP is modelled from World War

Public/Private Partnerships agenda in SPP are a leaf out of Benito Mussolini Fascist Italy, and Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany

Edited by Peter Tremblay
Tom DeWeese

Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center (APC), a grassroots activist organization located in suburban Washington, DC spoke on Monday, August 20 at a news conference in Ottawa, Canada. He focused on concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

The news conference was sponsored by the Coalition to Block The North American Union, of which APC is a founding member. Other leaders of the Coalition include Howard Phillips (Conservative Caucus, that is against the neo-conservatives of the U.S. President George W. Bush administration), Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum), Jerome Corsi (Author), and more than 50 organizations.

The Coalition is concerned that efforts to create the SPP will lead to the establishment of a North American Union along the lines of the European Union (EU). In spite of the propaganda, the EU is a substantively anti-democratic political economic entity, that has stripped away substantive control by members of European nations. The EU undermines democratic control among citizenry over the public policy directions of their own societies, in favour of a clique of Big Business interests.

While the Bush Administration continues to deny that SPP activity is anything more than a "dialogue" with Mexico and Canada over trade issues, Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia has introduced H. Con. Res. 40 opposing the establishment of a North American Union. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation introduced by Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to cut off funding for SPP talks on transportation issues. The house vote was a bipartisan 362-63. The vote was generated from fears that the talks would lead to open border policies allowing illegal immigrants to continue to flood the United States.

U.S. President Bush was in Canada on August 20-21, meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Harper and Mexican President Calderon for more talks on the SPP. The meetings were held in Montebello, Canada behind a 25-mile security buffer enforced by Canadian security forces and the U.S. Army. No anti-SPP meetings, demonstrations or "dialogues" are to be allowed inside the security buffer. Canadian groups participated in anti-SPP protests.

Below are Tom DeWeese’s illuminating remarks at the news conference, held at the Ottawa Marriot, 10:00 AM Monday morning, 20 August 2007:

It’s not just the three governments and their agencies putting together the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Private corporations are also a strong force driving the policy.

They are working together with the governments in what are commonly referred to as Public/Private Partnerships.

Libertarians and so-called Free Traders promote these partnerships as a means to incorporate free market solutions to government. In this manner, they claim that such "private enterprise" limits the size and power of government and reduces its cost.

In fact, a project as massive as the SPP would be nearly impossible to implement purely through government edict.

So Public/Private Partnerships are becoming the fastest growing process to impose such policy. In the US, state legislatures are passing laws which call for the implementation of PPPs. The Canadian Parliament is doing the same.

NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA and the SPP institutionalize PPPs as the accepted way to implement policy.

BEWARE. These bonds between government and private international corporations are a double-edged sword. They come armed with government’s power to tax, the government’s power to enforce policy and the government’s power to enforce eminent domain.

At the same time, the private corporations use their wealth and extensive advertising budgets to entrench the policy into our national conscience.

Further, participating corporations can control the types of products offered on the market.

For example, when the proponents of a political or economic agenda such as sustainable development seek to enforce their will on the market, they simply create PPPs with government and business to control things like development, food consumption or energy use.

Banks and mortgage companies in the partnership can enforce policy by forcing borrowers to comply as a stipulation for the loan.

Government grants can enrich private corporations as the companies produce mandated products –- free of development risks.

Private developers which have entered into a Public/Private Partnership with local government, for example, can now obtain the power of eminent domain to build on land not open to competitors.

The fact is, current use of eminent domain by local communities in partnership with private developers simply considers all property to be the common land of the State, to be used as it sees fit for some undefined community good.

The government gains the higher taxes created by the new development. The developer gets the revenue from the work.

The immediate losers, of course, are the property owners. But other citizens are losers too. Communities give up control of their infrastructure. Voters lose control of their government.

Private companies are now systematically buying up water treatment plants in communities, in effect, gaining control of the water supply. And they are buying control of the U.S. highway systems through PPPs with state departments of transportation.

Because of a public/private partnership, one million Texans are about to lose their land for the Trans-Texas Corridor, a highway that couldn’t be built without the power of eminent domain.

Foreign companies are being met with open arms by local, and federal officials who see a way to use private corporations and their massive bank accounts to fund projects.

As the Associated Press reported July 15, 2006, "On a single day in June (2006) an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99 year lease on Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road for 50 years."

In fact, that Spanish-American partnership in Texas and its lease with the Texas Department of Transportation to build and run the Trans Texas Corridor contains a "no-compete" clause which prohibits anyone, including the Texas government from building new highways or expanding exiting ones which might run in competition with the TCC.

That is not free enterprise.

With inside information from its own Public/Private Partnership, Kansas City Southern Railroad (KCSR) has been able to grow overnight from a two-bit belt around Kansas City to controlling a 2,600-mile artery from Lazaro Cardenas to Kansas City, straight up the Trans Texas Corridor. KCSR has obtained the rail rights up the corridor. It is now a government-sanctioned monopoly.

Protected from competition, the railroad will set the costs and the shipping rules. And it will get very rich, no matter the quality of service. All because of whom its owner knows. That is not free enterprise.

At an April, 2007 meeting in Calgary, Canada, as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, government officials, business leaders and academics met to discuss redistributing Canada’s water to Mexico and the U.S. Southwest.

Canada has water, lots of it, and the public/private partnerships of the SPP are swarming on it like locusts as they seek to drain it out of Canada’s rivers and lakes and ship it to potential profit centres south of the Canadian border.

NAFTA describes water as a "good" and stipulates that "No party may adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the exportation or sale of exports or any good destined for the territory of any other party."

In a leaked document of the minutes from the 2004 meeting of the Task Force on the Future of North American (a pre-cursor of the SPP), it said, "No item, not Canadian water, not Mexican oil, not American anti-dumping laws is off the table."

For that reason, it is understood that once Canada starts exporting fresh water to the US, it would be impossible to turn off the tap.

Now the case for selling Canadian water is being presented more forcefully in the media by SPP proponents, journalists, businesses strategists and investors seeking profits from this lucrative market.

The Trans-Texas Corridor will provide water pipelines for the shipping and PPPs will buy up the rights and dispose of the water as they see fit.

Canadians are suddenly feeling the raw power of the lethal combination of government and private industry working in concert to dictate policy. The people of Canada will soon understand that they will have little say in the matter.

Private companies operating in the free market lack one thing government has – the power of coercion.

The free market operates with you making the decisions based on personal choice. Under Public/Private Partnerships the choices are decided for you in meetings behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, private companies that are not part of a PPP are unable to compete with those who are. They are shut out of competition from the establishment of economic development zones which provide the chosen elite with reduced real estate taxes and financial aid.

Companies which find themselves outside of the elite status of the PPP suddenly run into regulatory difficulties to get their own projects completed. It’s not just a coincidence?

PPPs are one of the reasons many people find they can no longer fight city hall. The private companies gain the power of government to do as they please – and the governments earn the independence of the companies, no longer needing to answer to voters. It’s the perfect partnership. But it’s not freedom.

Such a process allows the private companies to be little more than government-sanctioned monopolies, answerable to no one. Their power is awesome and near absolute. Some call such policy corporatism. Another term would be corporate fascism.

Ultimately, corporatism does not trust the marketplace to do what the elites want.

Thus the alignment of corporations and government is done at the expense of ordinary people – the exact opposite of free markets controlled by consumers.

This then is the future offered by the Security and Prosperity Partnership – corporate fascism and all-powerful government. It’s not prosperity. It’s not security. And it’s not freedom.
The The Canadian