04/23 Morning Report

Here’s a follow up on my April 18 report. Which is worse? According to the New York Times, the options are Bad air, or bad water. It seems that not only is there mounting evidence that bio-fuels may be more damaging than advertised, now it seems hydroelectric power may be causing the same sort of problems.
(…and I’m supposed to believe the liberal, leftist Al Gore wannabes because…?...)

Of course, this goes right along with the Canadian government announcement that meeting the Kyoto Accord standards could cause a deep recession.

Mr Baird told a Senate committee the only way the government could meet its Kyoto commitment was to impose costs on the entire economy and, in effect, "manufacture a recession".

A steep rise in natural gas prices, electricity and petrol, driven by the additional carbon price of generating fossil fuels, would have a huge impact on the cost of running a business and would lead to a 25% increase in Canada's unemployment rate by 2009, he said.

(…well…ok…Baird is a conservative…but, shouldn’t someone get a clue that maybe…just maybe…conservative concerns may be right?...)

In more strange news of the left, it seems the EU is now going to explain why groups are listed as terrorist organizations. The reason? To avoid having decisions overturned.

Europe's second-highest court last year annulled an EU decision to freeze the funds of the People's Mujahideen, the armed wing of France-based National Council of Resistance of Iran, for failing to give it a fair hearing or adequate reasons.

Let me see if I have this straight. An organization known to be fomenting violence, gets their funds restricted. Then they are set free of those restrictions because no one explained why they were applied. Now admittedly the NCRI is against the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran, but how will this standard be applied to groups like al-Qaeda?
(…I can see the lawyers lining up over this right now…how about you?...)

Of course, there seems to be a great placating of Iran going on these days on the left. There were reports of Iranian weapons being used against coalition and Iraqi security forces. There was even a display of those weapons to Congressional representatives. Now, it seems the Iranians are arming the Taliban in Afghanistan. Of course, that would be a rather strange turn of events.

For Iran to support the Taliban would also represent a considerable change in policy. When the Taliban were in power in Kabul, Shi'ite Iran threw its weight behind Taliban opponents, such as the warlords of the Northern Alliance, who were the key to ousting the Taliban after the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

But, put into the context of destabilizing the region (remember the Iranians also considered invading Afghanistan), the move would make sense.
(…what was the Russian adage…”the enemy of my enemy is my friend”…not to mention the age old rule of divide to conquer…)