Editors note on Wikipedia Problems:

We have received a number of communications from viewers concerning ‘Wikipedia’ which advertises itself as an online information service, a sort of free Internet encyclopedia. The complaints are that the service is filled with articles obviously cribbed from other publications and not attributed but worse, many are obviously the work of spiteful contributors who publish reams of incorrect, and in some cases, libelous material.

Apparently the people who run Wikipedia welcome any manner of input which is posted by them without any kind of verification. Some of the raucous attacks on religious groups, political figures and historical events sound like the Daily Kos at full cry. Having some background in various historical subjects, we looked up specific subjects  and discovered a porridge of fiction, prevarications and material that was to all intents and purposes, included for the purpose of disiniformation. Much of this is unsourced and as reference material, what we saw was completely worthless.

Inaccuracy and mendacity is not the main problem with Wikipedia. In a number of cases, persons who availed themselves of this service were immediately inundated with hundreds of emails on the topic they had just accessed.

In one case, a gentleman had searched for material on the Christian Gospels and within an hour, his mail box was stuffed with religious notices, fact sheets, requests for money and other support. Most of these obnoxious and unwanted communications came from Evangelical Christian groups. In the first week, this individual received over 700 emails and by the end of the month, the total had exceeded 2000.

Even more obnoxious were problems encountered by a woman whose 14 year old daughter had consulted Wikipedia on the subject of abortion, information  which she needed for a school paper on that subject. She had a similar experience to the first person cited. Within minutes of closing down the Wikipedia site, this girl had received over 200 emails, mostly from religious, anti-abortion organizations and by the end of the month, the total had swelled to 3000 emails!

Needless to say, the mail boxes of both parties were jammed to the point that they were unable to receive any other emails. Both parties tried to contact Wikipedia personnel to complain but to date, there has been no response of any kind. This lack of concern is apparently standard.

The question arises, obviously, as to how the spammers obtained the email addresses of the victims. In the two cases cited above, neither had ventured into the fields of interest before. Perhaps the proprietors of the site have found a way to make a profit from their “free site.”

For those seeking accurate and sane information on diverse subjects, we heartily recommend the Encyclopedia Britannica site. Their reputation is quite beyond reproach and no one of our acquaintance has ever received hundreds of obnoxious spam messages because of their search for information there.  Editor

Note: Brian Harring is currently preparing an article on this interesting subject and we will be running it starting with our next issue. Ed.

The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C., December 18, 2006:”In the Monkey Palace, there is little new to report. A mid-level Bush staffer quit last week and we had a lunch for him at the Hay Adams hotel. He was moaning that Bush was a stone nut and was getting very dangerous, what with his determination to “crush the filthy Arabs” for once and for all. We all know that to all intents and purposes, the U.S. has lost in Iraq but no one dares to even hint at this and Bush will end his career on the instant. Someone here gave me a file on Hilary Clinton that is highly inflammatory. I made a few calls to newspaper friends, one in San Francisco, and pretty much verified a good part of it. This covers certain incidents concerning the Black Panthers that is sure to make the Obama people happy. Probably publish this next week after I have more details. Going away for the holidays and a Happy Christmas to one and all and George, leave the cat alone. It doesn’t like it when you do that.”

The Green Zone Follies: The Coming Revolt!

Baghdad, 17 Dec 06: “It starts out with latrine rumor, highly negative stories, bitter griping and verbal trashing of superior officers. Then it proceeds to groups of men getting together, informally at first, and giving vent to their growing anger and frustration.

A loose-knit organization is formed and eventually, gets connected with other unhappy grunts. And then there are acts of sabotage, small and often prankish, to start with but later escalating into serious damage of radio systems, vehicles (by putting molasses or sugar into the oil system or gas tanks, slashed tires, cut wires and so on.)

This progresses to more violence to include fragging of hated officers and NCOs, slow-downs in executing orders and then, finally, direct disobedience of specific orders. If we follow this insurgency to its logical conclusion, unchecked it will inevitably lead to rioting, murders of officers, the hated contractors and all kinds of government and diplomatic officials here inside the false protection of the Green Zone.

I know the CID has a list of fragged officers and I am trying to get my hands on it for all of you. Be patient and thank God for small favors!

We have been watching this problem grow here, slowly at first, and disconnected, but now it is starting to emerge in very ugly forms. The basic thesis is that the resistance is becoming well-armed with rockets with which they can blow up entire vehicles, killing everyone inside and that Washington is using the men in a futile effort to save their collapsing careers.

Bush is hated here by practically everyone to a degree that is beyond belief and we here are all really astonished that when Cheney paid his last visit here, he wasn’t blown away.

One of the recurring , and newer, themes here among increasingly furious grunts is that in the mid terms, the American people repudiated Bush and his sick war but Bush is deaf. Plans, well-reported here, that a huge. Residentially-ordered “push” is coming and that tens of thousands of fresh fools are going to be poured into Baghdad for a “final, triumphant victory” drive are met with fury (because it only prolongs the agony of the men now engaged here) and pity for the under-equipped and badly trained men who will most certainly be slaughtered by an increasingly competent and dangerous enemy.

The frantic hope of our brass here is that the dream-world “final push” might, very, very  possibly, have some small success (and this will of course be greatly magnified by our captive domestic press) and that the whole murderous business here will come to an end. But most of us who have read the real intelligence and situation reports and been here for more than a year, know far better.

When the first wave of convenience store managers and other weekend warriors is cut to pieces, why it will only provoke the Pentagon (ordered by Bush) to pour in more troops. A senior officer, decent fellow, was in ‘Nam and he said yesterday that the situation here is just exactly what it was there towards the end. Tet showed the world that while the Cong could not win a decisive military victory over us, neither could we win one over them.

No one in Washington wants to bell this nasty and huge cat, so the politicians will dance around making soothing noises while the death and injury tolls soar and Bush rubs his hands together in anticipation of his huge Final Victory Parade down Pennsylvania Avenue., waving joyfully to worshipful crowds on the streets.

This is not working, folks, and nothing will make it work, believe me. There are a hundred thousand  exhausted and thoroughly disillusioned men here fighting twenty five million intensely angry, motivated and very well-armed locals.

There is no question that pressures have grown to the point where there will be a serious explosion…this time not from roadside bombs or shaped-charge rockets pumped into weakly armored vehicles, but from the very volatile and outraged military itself.

Even many of the officers are becoming totally disillusioned and many are devastated by the high and continuing death tolls and, even worse, the terrible injuries and mutilations they can see among their own young soldiers. But a far-distant and totally disoriented Bush smiles and closes his eyes and ears while attending state functions and waving at increasingly empty streets. God save us all!”

Note: Here is another view on this subject, received from :http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed110.html

When, one wonders, will mutiny begin among the troops in Iraq?

Recently I talked by email about the war with Jim Coyne, an airborne-infantry friend who served two tours as a gunship door-gunner in Viet Nam and then made a career in journalism. I asked, “Do they I meant the officer corps, the official military actually believe the optimistic twaddle this time around? Do they really not know what is happening?”

Jim’s response: “In my opinion, they really don't know; they may not even want to know on some level. You know as well as I, these are mission-oriented folks; can do folks; failure and its introspective handmaidens are not options to them. And in a tactical mission-oriented world our military doesn't really fail very often; in a strategic military/political world such as the Mideast and Iraq, however, we simply cannot win.

“Again, as in Viet Nam, the career officer corps salutes and marches toward the sound of battle. Eventually however (and it won't be long now) it's the grunts who will begin to revolt, first in small ways (as in the 101st in late 1968, 'No sir. We are not going up that hill again.') and then, quickly thereafter (As in 1973, "F___ you, asshole.") By that time the media may get wind of things and spin it exponentially out of control. That’s what I think.”

So do I.

We have two sharply differing versions of Iraq. One comes from the professional officers. It holds that the military is making progress and the insurgents losing ground. The Iraqi people love us and want the benefits that we will bring them. The increasing attacks by insurgents are signs of desperation. Things seem bad only because the media emphasize the negative. The officers see light at the end of the tunnel. The body counts are great; the bad guys can’t much longer take the pounding we are giving them. Onward and upward.

The other view comes from enlisted men (and from a lot of reporters before being edited to say whatever the publisher believes). These assert that the Iraqis hate us and we, them; that the insurgency is growing in strength, that we are not making progress but going backward, that our tactics don’t work and we can’t win.

The pattern is so common in recent wars as to be routine. The enlisted men know that the US is losing. The officers do not know it, or refuse to know it. This will eventually have consequences.

When men die pointlessly in a war they know cannot be won and that means nothing to them, when they realize that they are dying for the egos of draft-dodging politicians safe in Washington—they will revolt. It happened before. It will happen again. But when? Next year, I'd guess.

It is important to understand that officers and enlisted men are very different animals. For example, enlisted men do things (drive the tank, repair the helicopter) whereas officers are chiefly administrators. But the important difference is psychological. Enlisted men are blue-collar guys or technicians. They carry little ideological overburden. They want to fix the tank or finish the field exercise and then go drink beer and get laid.

Above all, they are realists. If the new radio doesn’t work, or Baghdad turns out to be a tactically irresolvable nightmare, the enlisted guys feel very little urge to pretend otherwise. This is why officers do not like reporters to be alone with the troops. And they seriously don’t.

The standard response of the officer corps is that the troops cannot see the Big Picture. (Unless of course the enlisteds say what the officers want to hear, in which case their experience on the ground lends irresistible authority). But the Big Picture rests on the Little Picture. If a soldier sees slow disaster where he is, and hears the same thing from guys he meets from everywhere else in the country, his conclusions will not be without weight. Sooner or later, on his third tour with a pregnant wife at home and seven friends killed by bombs, he will say, in the crude but expressive language of soldiers, “f___ this shit.”

By contrast, officers can’t conclude anything but the positive. There are several reasons. Career officers, first, are politicians. You don’t get promoted by saying that the higher-ups are otherworldly incompetents. An officer’s loyalty is to his career, and to the officer corps, not to the country or to his troops. If this sounds harsh, note how seldom an active-duty officer will criticize policy, yet when he retires he may suddenly discover that said policy resulted in unnecessary deaths among the troops. Oh? Then why didn’t he say so when it would have saved lives?

There is a curious moral cowardice among officers. They will fly dangerous missions over Baghdad, but they won’t say that things aren’t going well. They don’t go against their herd.

Further, and I want to say this carefully, officers often are not quite adults. They can be (and usually are) smart, competent, dedicated, and physically brave, and some are exceedingly hard men. But there is a simple-mindedness about them, an aversion to the handmaidens of introspection, a certain boyishness as in kids playing soldier. A lot of make-believe goes into an officer’s world. Enlisted men, grown up, see things as they are. Officers are issued a world by the command and then live in it.

Note the heavy emphasis of the military, meaning the officer corps, on ritual and pageantry. It is adult kid-stuff. Three thousand men building a skyscraper just show up, do their jobs, and go home. The military wants its men standing in squares, precisely at attention, thumbs along the seams, with brass perfectly polished. It wants stirring music, snappy salutes, and the haunting tones of taps, “Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full, sir.” This is justified as necessary for discipline. It isn’t. A gunny sergeant has no difficulty maintaining his authority without the hoop-la

Officers remind me of armed Moonies. There is the same earnestness, the same deliberate optimism-by-policy. Things are going well because doctrine says they are. An officer is as ideologically upbeat as Reader’s Digest, and as unreflective. This is the why they don’t learn, why the US is again flailing about, trying to fight hornets with elephant guns. “Yessir, can do, sir.” Well, sometimes, and sometimes not. It is not arrogance, more like a belief in gravitation.

And so we hear phrases that embody the eternal precedence of oo-rah! over realism: “There is no substitute for victory,” or “The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer,” or “Defeat is not an option.” But sometimes it is an inevitability.

I think Jim is right. Sooner or later, a unit won’t go up the hill again. Then it will be over.

History lessons from the 'splendid little war'

December 17, 2006
by Daniel Whitaker
The Observer

The US is embroiled in an ill-considered occupation of a distant land; an initial welcome turned to violence amid human rights violations; it will be many years before extrication is possible. Not Iraq today, but the Philippines a century ago, an eerie parallel which might have provided valuable lessons.

The US took the Philippines in 1899 - part of what its then Secretary of State, John Hay, called 'a splendid little war'. The previous regime (in this case, Spanish-run) was quickly vanquished, with the shock and awe of superior weaponry. War had begun over American claims that a weapon of medium-sized destruction was used by the Spanish to destroy the USS Maine in Havana harbour, an accusation later considered dubious.

The Republican President, William McKinley, stated he had prayed for guidance, and the divine advice was to 'uplift and civilise' the Philippines. The Americans expected a welcome from the Filipinos, and indeed the US was seen as a liberator by many - initially. But US occupation became increasingly unpopular and a protracted guerrilla war developed. During the conflict, more than 4,000 US troops died and several hundred thousand Filipinos lost their lives during the occupation.

An outcry swelled over civilian deaths and over US treatment of Filipino prisoners, including a torture used known as 'the water cure' (a technique similar to the 'water boarding' Vice President Dick Cheney defended as a practice in Guantanamo). Some GIs were reprimanded. Military morale fell. When a leader of the insurrection was captured and executed, some thought this would end the violence - it did not.

The Americans enjoyed an overwhelming advantage in military technology, but Filipinos fought using what they had to hand. Muslim islanders, called to jihad, launched suicide sword attacks in crowded streets. Christian islanders also resisted, but there was conflict between the faiths. Those co-operating with the US were often threatened or assassinated.

The US war with the Spanish had been planned for months, with a media campaign focusing on the barbarism of Spanish rule. But the Americans had not done their research on the people, nor did they have any detailed plans of how to administer the country. The US organised elections, but was disappointed with the politicians who emerged. It spent millions of dollars improving infrastructure, but won over few hearts and minds. Back home, enthusiasm for the war eroded. Celebrities and intellectuals voiced opposition. The media began to turn, despite the US military offering preferential treatment to journalists who gave favourable coverage. Even big US businesses that were close to the White House started to lose faith in the supposed commercial opportunities the occupation might offer. Eventually this was reflected in the polls and by 1912 the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress, ending years of Republican domination.

The US decided to leave the Philippines in 1916, granting the islands independence as soon as a stable government could be formed. This proved harder to achieve than expected, for fear the country would descend into chaos. The Second World War intervened and sovereignty was handed back to the Filipinos only in 1946. The years since then have brought the islands mixed fortunes, a long dictatorship under Marcos, economic underachievement and continued strife between Christians and Muslims.

There are important differences between Iraq and the Philippines a century before. But also surely there's been a wasted opportunity to learn lessons, by an America that, for all its virtues, does not enjoy examining the past. Mark Twain, who stood up against the Philippine occupation, wrote that, if the past does not repeat itself, it at least rhymes. Sadly it seems the more influential view was Henry Ford's, who declared history 'more or less bunk'.

Clinton vs Obama: the battle that could shatter her dreams

December 17, 2006
by Paul Harris in New York
The Observer

In the murky world of Hillary Clinton's undeclared run for the White House, official denials and bland statements are ubiquitous. But, as Kremlinologists did in the Cold War, it pays to monitor the guests shuttling in and out of her townhouse in Washington DC. Last week that list revealed a campaign moving rapidly into top gear, spurred into action by the meteoric rise of Barack Obama.

Last Sunday Clinton hosted a dinner with key officials from New Hampshire. On Tuesday she held one with figures from Iowa. Both states are vital first battlegrounds in any nomination campaign. Then last Wednesday Clinton had a private party with old hands from her husband's two presidential campaigns, including James 'The Raging Cajun' Carville, who masterminded Bill's rise.

The race is on. Senator Obama of Illinois has electrified the Democratic party like no other figure in recent political memory and the shock is being felt most in Clinton's campaign. 'I think they have suddenly sat up and taken notice of this - they have to,' said a Democratic strategist close to Clinton's campaign.

Obama is aggressively exploring a presidential run, scuppering Clinton's carefully laid plans and threatening her grip on the party's power structure. Her march to power, years in the making, is being speeded into action by Obama's unexpected emergence, which has blind-sided her close advisers. For the past two years Clinton has deliberately stayed out of New Hampshire and Iowa for fear of stoking up presidential speculation too early. But now the gloves are off. Aside from the dinner parties, Clinton has been hitting the phones to key players in these and other early primary states such as Nevada and South Carolina. In an America caught in the throes of Obama-mania, Clinton is suddenly having to seek publicity. Last week she re-released her best-selling book, It Takes A Village, and is planning some book-signing appearances.

Obama is a real threat. His first rally last week in New Hampshire drew screaming crowds. The week before he had been in Clinton's home turf of New York City, speaking at a fashion industry dinner, where he pitched himself as a viable alternative to Clinton, saying that the country was keen to move on from the political battles of the 1980s and 1990s. 'The country is waiting for the next thing,' he told an admiring audience. It was clear whom he thought that next thing was. In New Hampshire, TV adverts supporting Obama are already running. They beat out the same message - Obama is a fresh face. 'Believe again!' the advert exhorts. Obama is becoming a huge symbol of change. 'People are projecting on him whatever they want to see,' said Vincent Hutchings, a political scientist at the University of Michigan.

It is easy to see why Obama is such a threat. His liberal politics appeal to many of Clinton's base supporters. He has been consistently anti-war and was not even in the Senate when Clinton voted for invading Iraq. Her hawkish support of the war has been a millstone around her neck in courting the Democratic base.

Obama has a charisma that has many experts reminiscing about the natural gifts of Bill Clinton. Like Bill, he has also positioned himself as someone keen to capture the middle ground. His speaking ability is similarly impressive and he is likely to be a ferocious campaigner. Finally, as a black American, Obama threatens one of the strongest areas of Clinton's support, especially in South Carolina, which is a vital early primary state and has a large black population. If Obama can mop up that black support, he could deal a blow to Clinton, who is not popular with white southerners.

It all looks like a perfect storm for Clinton's ambitions. In contrast to Obama, she is seen as a poor public speaker who comes across as cold and calculating. She is also a divisive figure, unlikely to attract many Republican voters. Instead of Bill Clinton's legacy of charm and inspiration, she drags along his baggage of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and her failed attempts at healthcare reform. She is also seen as a name from the past who symbolises the drama of the Bushes vs the Clintons in a country that - mired in the Iraq war - is looking for a fresh start.

But few would dare to write Clinton off. She has spent years and millions of dollars cultivating a powerful political machine which is not easily knocked off course. She has powerful allies in the party across the country and has assembled a loyal, committed campaign team second to none. She also has more money than any other Democrat. Recent filings show she has $14m in campaign cash, compared with Obama's less than $2m. Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, has amassed a database of hundreds of thousands of small donors that will kick into action as soon as she declares her ambition to run.

Some experts believe Obama's emergence may help Clinton. It is taking away the media heat from her, and they believe that it is more advantageous for her to enter the race late. When she does move, Obama's flaws may quickly be exposed. He is likely to be attacked for his inexperience and lack of political achievements. He will be painted as the darling of a fawning media without the real credentials for the most powerful job in the world. It's a contest some see Clinton as easily winning with her greater experience and huge funds. Maureen Dowd, a New York Times columnist, portrayed it scathingly as 'Hillzilla vs Obambi'.

But whoever prevails, the real fight will still lie ahead. A poll last week showed that Republican veteran John McCain remains the most likely winner of the 2008 presidential election. The maverick war hero appeals to many independents and is widely seen as being a critic of President George Bush. Whether Obama wins the nomination, or Clinton, or someone else, the White House may remain a distant dream.

Showdown Looms Over Domestic Spying

December 18, 2006
by David Kravets
AP

Federal agents continue to eavesdrop on Americans' electronic communications without warrants a year after President Bush confirmed the practice, and experts say a new Congress' efforts to limit the program could trigger a constitutional showdown.

High-ranking Democrats set to take control of both chambers are mulling ways to curb the program Bush secretly authorized a month after the Sept. 11 attacks. The White House argues the Constitution gives the president wartime powers to eavesdrop that he wouldn't have during times of peace.

"As a practical matter, the president can do whatever he wants as long as he has the capacity and executive branch officials to do it," said Carl Tobias, a legal scholar at the University of Richmond in Virginia.

Lawmakers could impeach or withhold funding, or quash judicial nominations, among other measures.

The president, however, can veto legislation, including a law demanding the National Security Agency obtain warrants before monitoring communications. Such a veto would force Congress to muster a two-thirds vote to override.

"He could take the position he doesn't have to comply with whatever a new Congress says," said Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings, and a former Supreme Court clerk.

Douglas Kmiec, a former Justice Department official under former presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, speculated the younger Bush would assert executive authority to continue eavesdropping in the face of new legislation - perhaps leaving the Supreme Court as the final arbiter.

"He has as much a constitutional obligation to assert himself, just as much as Congress does," Kmiec said. "We do need an arbitrator, an interpreter. That's what the courts, the third branch of government, was intended to be."

On Dec. 17, 2005, Bush publicly acknowledged for the first time he had authorized the NSA to monitor, without approval from a judge, phone calls and e-mails that come into or originate in the U.S. and involve people the government suspects of having terrorist links.

Bush said he had no intention of halting what he called a "vital tool" in the war on terror.

When the Republican-controlled Congress adjourned last week, it left the spying program unchecked.

The next move falls to the Democrats who take control in January and are considering a proposal to demands Bush get warrants and others lengthening the time between surveillance and when a warrant must be obtained.

A spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid, the incoming Senate majority leader from Nevada, said the eavesdropping issue "is something he expects to tackle early next year."

"He doesn't believe in giving the president a blank check to listen to the phone conversations of millions of Americans," spokesman Jim Manley said.

Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who will become House speaker, said eavesdropping legislation was under consideration and hearings on the topic were likely early next year.

Decisions are pending in dozens of lawsuits challenging the program.

The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the highest court squarely confronted with the issue so far, is to hear the American Civil Liberties Union's challenge Jan. 31. One stop short of the Supreme Court, the appeals court will review a Detroit judge's ruling that the program was unconstitutional.

The case is American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 06-2095.

Polonium incident: a rehearsal for a dirty bomb?

December 14, 2006
by Tatyana Sinitsyna
RIA Novosti

MOSCOW. The ado around the polonium incident in London has a certain quirk to it which I find annoying. Why is everyone talking about the victims (real and potential) and piquant details of secondary importance, when there is something far more important to worry about?

Nuclear physicist Alexander Borovoi, a professor at the Kurchatov Institute research center, pinpointed my cause of concern: "The worst part of the story is that it was like a rehearsal for a dirty bomb. The incident shows that something dangerous is cooking in the terrorist kitchen, with menacing ideas and plans that can generally be described as a crime."

"Litvinenko or one of his close friends have somehow got hold of polonium," Borovoi said. "From them we can trace a connection to those whose dream is to get hold of a dirty bomb - terrorists."

It is a fact that terrorist number one, Osama bin Laden, once bought from shady arms dealers three containers with weapons-grade fissionable materials. The world was saved then only because the dealers cheated bin Laden by selling him medical wastes, which also set off the Geiger meter.

We were probably lucky this autumn too, because something apparently went amiss in London. Polonium doesn't forgive lax attitudes.

Professor Borovoi said people incapable of working with Polonium-210 professionally probably handled the vial, letting the jinni out.

"I don't think polonium was a random choice," Borovoi said. "I believe a first-rate specialist is advising the terrorists."

Silvery polonium looks like common lead and is an interim phase in the long chain of uranium decay; it is produced in nuclear reactors for technical purposes. It emits alpha particles that spread out at a huge speed, pulling along other, undecayed, atoms that pollute the air. Those who breathe them in are doomed.

"My colleague, Irina Simanovskaya, who has worked with polonium, told me that she handled the stuff at minimum distances with all possible precautions in the lab hood. However, it turned out several days later that polonium had penetrated the hood polluting the equipment installed there," Borovoi said.

According to him, polonium can be detected only by special gauges, spreads out from the polluted place almost without restraint, and much time will pass before it becomes clear why people are dying.

Polonium is widely used for medical purposes in special equipment, and can be bought in nearly any country, including over the Internet. One can do this openly in the Untied States because only minuscule parts are sold. But we cannot be sure that criminals will not pay more to acquire a bigger amount of the deadly substance.

On the subject of the rumored involvement of security services in the Litvinenko incident, Borovoi said: "No security services will become involved with a dirty bomb, and I see no reason why they would do this. Such methods are inadmissible in state politics because they amount to the use of nuclear weapons."

If somebody wanted to do away with Litvinenko, they would not have used such a dangerous and expensive weapon as polonium, the physicist said.

"In my view, this is a warning to us," he said. "Terrorists could have acquired a horrible weapon. We must wake up to reality, see the threat, exert maximum caution, and take emergency measures to stop radioactive terrorism."

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20061214/56931137.html

Concern over Europe 'snow crisis'

December 17, 2006
BBC News

Unseasonably warm conditions across Europe are being greeted with a mixture of disbelief and despair by those who normally rely on cold winters. James Cove and James Rodgers assess the winter weather

James Cove Reports from the Alps

Ski resorts across the European Alps are becoming increasingly worried as current bad snow conditions threaten the all important Christmas holiday period.

This autumn has been one of the worst on record with high temperatures and little snowfall.

Many resorts have had to postpone their openings and the main ski races have been cancelled because of a lack of snow.

With millions of skiers heading to the resorts over the next week there are concerns that the open runs will be very busy and people could be put off from booking again at Christmas and the New Year, costing the multi-million pound industry heavily in lost revenue, and threatening jobs.

Climate change

Many believe global warming is to blame for the lack of snow.  nnnnnn

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development warned that many low-level resorts could soon be unviable and predicted warmer temperatures in the future.

Already banks are refusing to offer loans to resorts under 1,500 metres as they fear for their future snow cover. Germany is threatened the most, followed by some Austrian and Italian resorts.

However, the picture is not as bleak as some say, with the high resorts having good conditions on some runs.

I am in the Swiss resort of Verbier and the open runs have good snow and more is set to open this weekend helped by artificial snow.

"We have many new snow-making cannons across our slopes and this has helped greatly," Pierre-Yves Deleze told the BBC.

"Some snow is forecast to fall next week and then everything should be OK. If not though, it will make us more nervous for Christmas."

'Higher ground'

The best skiing is to be found on the high resorts with glaciers: Tignes and Les Deux Alpes in France; Zermatt, Saas Fee and Verbier in Switzerland, and Obergurgl in Austria.

The Ski Club of Great Britain advises people to head for these high resorts. "There is still some good skiing to be found around The Alps," said spokesperson Betony Garner.

"It is not dire but you do have to head for the high resorts and expect that some of the runs will be crowded due to the lack of snow elsewhere."

With poor snow in Andorra, a destination increasingly popular with British holiday-makers, the Pyrenees is not much of an option.

In contrast, North America has had a very good start to the ski season with substantial snowfalls.

"We have seen a big rise in bookings for the North American resorts with many more in the last few weeks," said Marion Telsnig from Crystal Holidays.

But perhaps what the ski industry needs to do more than anything is to educate people not to expect such good skiing in December, but rather consider skiing later in the season as climate change affects the snowfall patterns

James Rogers Reports from Moscow

Nobody knows what to make of it. This is the middle of December in a country known for the severity of its winters.

There's not a snowflake to be seen.

Red Square should be covered in white by now. It's not. Its cobblestones are as stubbornly damp and grey as the skies overhead.

There would normally be ice on the Moskva River. There's none.

"It's just fantasy!" is the way the weather forecast began on one of Moscow's radio stations earlier this week. The announcer's voice betrayed a mixture of disbelief and despair.

That's because Russians are proud of their cold winters.

Some people welcome the fact that walking and driving the snowless streets and pavements is easier than slipping and sliding. Others, though, definitely feel that something is wrong.

'Confused' animals

Temperatures for the last couple of weeks have been about five degrees above zero. At this time of year, five below zero would be more usual.

It has been the warmest December since records began in 1879.

Muscovites who are used to wrapping up against the bitter cold are walking around dressed as they normally would be in October.

It is not just the people who are confused. Russia's wildlife is not sure what time of year it is. Hibernation has been put off.

"The brown bears are half-asleep," says Natalia Istratova, a spokeswoman for Moscow Zoo. "They haven't gone into their dens yet."

Snakes and other reptiles have yet to move to their winter quarters. Traditional winter pastimes of skiing and ice-fishing have had to wait.

People selling thick woollen socks and mittens outside the Russian capital's metro stations are suffering a dramatic drop in trade.

The weather is expected to get colder as the month goes on. It is strange to see Christmas and New Year decorations in the Russian capital when there's no snow on the ground.

Mild, wet, weather on New Year's Eve might even dampen Russia's normally raucous celebrations.

Comment: All of the legitimate scientific reports indicate that the massive Greenland ice sheet is dissolving at “an alarming rate.” The other huge concentration of ice is covering Antarctica  and if all of the ice in Antarctica melted,  it would cause all of the world's oceans to rise by about 200 feet. This would flood cities near the coast all over the world and many chains of islands and large areas of continents would be covered by water. Antarctica is about as large as the 48 contiguous U.S. states and half of Mexico together and the ice covering it averages about 1.9 miles deep. Antarctica has about 90 percent of the world's ice.

There are reasons to think that just a  part of this ice called the West Antarctica  Ice Sheet is now melting five time faster than thought six years ago/. When this happens, the world’s ocean levels would rise by about 20 feet, which would flood many low-lying areas.