plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
19626 stories
·
21 followers

Trump’s Golden Dome turbocharges the war machine—and Carney wants us to pay for it ⋆ The Breach

1 Share

Donald Trump wants to build a “Golden Dome” for America—and he wants Canadians to help pay for it.

The multi-billion-dollar missile defence project, announced two weeks ago by the U.S. president, could spark a new nuclear arms race and lead to the militarization of space. 

And the cost that could be shouldered by Canadians to participate in this folly? At least $83.6 billion, and possibly much more.

So why is Prime Minister Mark Carney considering joining Trump’s scheme? 

Fresh off a federal election that hinged on the Liberals’ promise to put more distance between Canada and the U.S., Prime Minister Carney’s confirmation that he is considering signing Canada up for the multi-billion dollar missile defence initiative has left many observers dumbfounded.

“Is this for real?” asked Lloyd Axworthy in a Globe and Mail opinion piece. “Is Canada seriously contemplating joining Mr. Trump’s latest cockamamie idea?” 

It seems to be the result of a perfect storm: a foolhardy attempt by Carney to comply with Trump’s blackmail, while also giving in to a long-standing push by Canada’s corporate lobby for more military integration with the United States.

Besides the exorbitant and likely escalating cost, the project will spark an escalating arms race, while benefiting major U.S. arms dealers and tech billionaires like Peter Thiel’s software company Palantir.

The Golden Dome, in short, is unlikely to make Canadians any safer, but will almost certainly make some of the most reactionary oligarchs on the planet richer.

The Dome is a delusion—and a recipe for an arms race

Trump’s announcement follows his January executive order dubbed “Iron Dome for America,” inspired by Israel’s air defence system. 

Experts and scientists have lambasted the scheme as “a fantasy,” “a mirage,” and “science fiction.” 

Dr. Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned Scientists has called the comparison to the Iron Dome completely off-base. She points out that Israel’s system was designed to intercept short-range, non-nuclear missiles over small geographics areas. Trump’s vision, by contrast, is to shield the entire U.S. from intercontinental ballistic missiles that “travel 100 times further and seven times faster.”

“Invoking Iron Dome is just marketing,” she says, “trying to manufacture credibility for something that has never worked.”

But the Golden Dome is not only unworkable—it’s profoundly dangerous. Far from a purely defensive measure, it would make the world less safe.

Nuclear proliferation experts warn that its true goal would be to give the U.S. “first strike” advantage—that is, the ability to launch nuclear attacks on adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea without fear of retaliation. 

That would be a recipe for an arms race, not deterrence: it would prompt geopolitical rivals to expand their own nuclear arsenals in response, to evade the Golden Dome’s defences.

The sheer scope of Trump’s proposal—to deter and defend against “any foreign aerial attack on the Homeland”—goes beyond anything attempted by previous U.S. administrations. In today’s multipolar nuclear environment, analysts warn, such a project could dangerously “jolt the strategic balance” and inspire massive rearmament across the world.  

Of course, technical impossibility has never stopped the U.S. military-industrial complex from pouring public money into a weapons system.

Trump’s Golden Dome is simply the latest in a decades-long string of failed missile defence programs, from Reagan’s infamous “Star Wars” program to George W. Bush’s Ballistic Missile Defence program of the early 2000s. 

As Dr. Grego notes, the U.S. has spent more than $350 billion on these schemes over the past 60 years, with few tangible results to show for it—except a reliable stream of profits for arms manufacturers.

The folly of kissing the ring of U.S. president

Prime Minister Carney appears eager to fall in line with Trump’s delusional scheme. 

He has talked up potential threats to Canada and framed participating in the scheme as the only way to have a say over hemispheric defence.

“Yes, it‘s a good idea to have protection against missiles in place for Canadians,” he told reporters.

But what kind of protection is Canada really buying?

It’s likely the real ”protection” Carney is seeking is against Trump’s trade policies. U.S officials have openly used tariffs to pressure allies into military cooperation, and the President effectively views global security arrangements as a kind of mafia protection racket.

But any such benefits gained by joining the Golden Dome will almost certainly prove fleeting. 

“If it‘s a blackmail payment to encourage the U.S. to drop tariffs,” a Scotiabank economist told The Globe and Mail, “then maybe it could be worth it. Until the next blackmail.”

The corporate lobby’s long push for military integration

Carney’s apparent willingness to play ball with Trump is exactly what Canada’s corporate class has been demanding. 

After a brief dalliance with “elbows up” nationalism, the Business Council of Canada—which represents the CEOs of the country’s most powerful corporations—now wants to see the country “stabilize” its relationship with the United States. 

“We need to remember,” Council president Goldy Hyder wrote recently after meeting with Carney, “that in some respects we do want to be more integrated with the U.S.”

The corporate lobby group has called for closer military links with the U.S., naming Golden Dome as an area where there is “much common ground and partnership” for the countries to build on.

This isn’t the first time the Business Council has pushed for Canadian participation in such schemes. They also supported participation in both Reagan and George W. Bush’s missile defence programs.

It’s quite the about-turn. On the campaign trail, Carney repeatedly declared that Canada’s “old relationship” with the United States—one rooted in deepening economic integration and tight military cooperation—“is over.” Nearly 80 per cent of Canadians agree, according to a recent poll. 

It apparently matters little to Canada’s corporate elite that Mark Carney and the Liberals were elected to office recently on a promise to do exactly the opposite of what they’re now considering. 

‘Footing the bill for a technological disaster’

The cost to Canadians for this boondoggle-in-the-making could well be in the hundreds of billions. 

When Trump first announced the project, he told the press that Canada will pay its “fair share.” “We’ll work with them on pricing,” he said. 

Last week, he got more specific. On the platform Truth Social, the U.S. President announced Canada’s “fair share” would amount to $61 billion USD—more than $83 billion CAD—over just three years. 

That’s several times the projected lifetime cost of the troubled F-35 contract, which Carney has said his government will re-evaluate.

It would also be enough to build roughly 100,000 public nonmarket homes each year, roll out universal public pharmacare, eliminate tuition fees for postsecondary education, and dramatically expand public transit. 

“If Canada blindly signs on to this, we could end up footing the bill for a technological disaster,” warns Steven Staples, a defence analyst and anti-war activist who wrote a book on the Bush-era missile defence saga entitled Missile Defence: Round One. “This will squeeze out all other government priorities, whether they be health care or reducing the deficit.”

Of course, the bill for Trump’s vanity missile defence system will almost certainly be higher than projected. 

The price tag could rise to $830 billion USD, according to the Congressional Budget Office. One Republican Senator even likened the project to the creation of the atomic bomb or the Apollo moon landing—like to “cost in the trillions if and when Golden Dome is completed.” 

Canadian analysts warn that extending the shield to cover Canadian territory could push costs even higher.

Bonanza for arms makers and tech titans

One thing is certain: the Golden Dome scheme—however unworkable or geopolitically reckless—will be a huge bonanza for arms manufacturers and Silicon Valley oligarchs. 

Elon Musk’s SpaceX was named by several U.S. government sources as the frontrunner for the lucrative defence contracts that will result from the multibillion dollar project, according to a report from Reuters in April. (The social media feud between Musk and President Trump since then has thrown that contract into doubt.)

SpaceX’s partners for the project were reported to likely be Peter Thiel’s software company Palantir and drone maker Anduril, which was founded by a group of Palantir alums. 

Thiel and Musk have been open about their contempt for democracy and their desire to build a new authoritarian order in the U.S.

Renewing our opposition to missile defence

Canadians have risen up against such schemes in the past, most notably when George W. Bush tried to bully Canada into supporting its Ballistic Missile Defence program, as penance for Canadian opposition to the disastrous and immoral invasion of Iraq. 

The Liberal government of the day, led by Paul Martin, was favourable to missile defence and was eager to mend fences with the U.S., as was corporate Canada. 

In response, the Council of Canadians, the Polaris Institute and a number of anti-war groups mobilized against the Iraq war came together to launch the Canadian Campaign to Oppose Missile Defence. Riding the wave of anger against U.S. militarism in Canada, the campaign used protests, open letters from celebrities (“Stars Against Star Wars”), and a book tour by Steve Staples.

During the 2004 election, the campaign developed a Canada-wide network of activists who staged small protests at Paul Martin’s campaign stops on extremely short notice. In what was perhaps one of the earliest instances of successful digital campaigning in Canada, the campaign sent over 50,000 emails to MPs voicing opposition to the missile defence scheme, causing the Liberal caucus to split on the issue. 

As one Liberal staffer admitted, “missile defence isn’t a vote-getter.” Leading a minority government and facing a caucus revolt, Paul Martin announced officially in February 2005 that Canada would not participate in the Bush administration’s dangerous scheme.

As Mark Carney betrays his election pledge to confront Donald Trump, a new anti-war movement must rise to stop Canada going down this expensive and dangerous path.

What our journalism can accomplish

‘The first video I ever made with The Breach was on why we need to support the movement for Land Back. Today, it’s being used in educational settings everywhere—in universities and colleges and children’s classrooms too. When I give talks, people will say, ‘I saw your video and it helped me understand the issue.’

That’s what we do at The Breach—reach people where they are at, with bold ideas, principled analysis, and critical investigations.” – Pam Palmater, scholar and author

Become a sustaining member of our work today.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
17 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Rice source

1 Share

Seen on social media lately, attributed to former American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

The scientific research base of the United States of America is the research university. We made that decision 80 years ago. We don.t have a Plan B.

The first time I searched for this, the only place it showed up was on social media posts. It made me rather skeptical of its reality. But I found it from a Fox and Friends clip here.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
17 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Isaac Lyman (@isaaclyman@toot.cafe)

1 Share
Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

BBC staff: we're forced to do pro-Israel PR

1 Share

This is a devastating intervention. More than a hundred BBC employees have written a letter to the director general, Tim Davie, complaining that the Corporation has become a mouthpiece for Israel.

It was also signed by 300 other journalists and media professionals: one of them was yours truly. The BBC employees, as you would expect, are all anonymous, because otherwise they would face grave consequences to their careers.

The letter says:

We’re writing to express our concerns over opaque editorial decisions and censorship at the BBC on the reporting of Israel/Palestine. We believe the refusal to broadcast the documentary ‘Gaza: Medics Under Fire’ is just one in a long line of agenda driven decisions. It demonstrates, once again, that the BBC is not reporting “without fear or favour” when it comes to Israel.

It goes on to note that the decision not to broadcast the investigation was taken by BBC management despite the content being signed off in accordance with BBC guidelines and editorial policy, which it says “Appears to be a political decision”, adding that the BBC response shows the organisation “is crippled by the fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government.”

This is a letter which passed every single BBC internal check. No factual errors are alleged. The only other BBC documentary which focused on the apocalyptic plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza was taken down as a result of a hysterical pro-Israel campaign - because the father of the child narrator’s son had a junior technocratic position in the Hamas administration. Irrelevant, given the narrator’s words were written for him by the documentary producers.

The letter emphasises that the signatories are not “asking the BBC to take a side”, but just to allow BBC journalists to “do their jobs in delivering facts transparently and with due context”. They note one striking failure:

As an organisation we have not offered any significant analysis of the UK government's involvement in the war on Palestinians. We have failed to report on weapons sales or their legal implications. These stories have instead been broken by the BBC’s competitors.

This is, by the way one of many striking scandalous failures on the part of the BBC, which is a public service broadcaster which is duty bound to hold the British government to account and has failed to do so.

And this is the really crucial allegation. The letter says:

This hasn’t happened by accident, rather by design. Much of the BBC’s coverage in this area is defined by anti-Palestinian racism.

This is exactly it. There hasn’t even been a pretence by the BBC that Palestinian life has even the fraction of the worth of an Israeli life. When I did my detailed investigation into BBC coverage for Drop Site News at the end of the last year, I worked with data journalists who used incontrovertible statistics to show how this is the case.

The letter mentions a crucial name. It says:

The inconsistent manner in which guidance is applied draws into focus the role of Sir Robbie Gibb, on the BBC Board and BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee. We are concerned that an individual with close ties to the Jewish Chronicle, an outlet that has repeatedly published anti-Palestinian and often racist content, has a say in the BBC's editorial decisions in any capacity, including the decision not to broadcast ‘Gaza: Medics Under Fire’.

Sir Robbie Gibb is a striking case study. The brother of a Tory minister, he joined the BBC as a political researcher after he graduated, before becoming chief of staff for Tory Shadow Chancellor Francis Maude. He then returned to the BBC as deputy editor of the flagship current affairs programme Newsnight, then became the editor for BBC political programmes such as Daily Politics, where he worked closely with its main presenter, Andrew Neil, then chairman of the hard right Spectator magazine. He then went off in 2017 to become director of communications for the Tory prime minister Theresa May. He then returned to the BBC, joining its Board.

Share

You can be forgiven if this revolving door between the Tories and BBC has left you dizzy.

He was singled out by the likes of former Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis who said he was an “active agent of the Conservative party” who was shaping the Corporation’s news output by acting “as the arbiter of BBC impartiality”.

In 2020, he led a consortium bid to buy The Jewish Chronicle, a newspaper which rather than doing what is vitally important - offering media representation for Britain’s Jewish community - has acted as a zealous cheerleader of the Israeli state, and indeed that newspaper has pushed, as the letter notes, hideously anti-Palestinian racist output.

It is absolutely remarkable that this man has the power and influence he does at the BBC. Can you imagine someone with left-wing and pro-Palestinian connections having this power and influence? There is more chance of the Moon turning into a giant panda called Flibble.

As the letter notes:

This conflict of interest highlights a double standard for BBC content makers who have themselves experienced censorship in the name of ‘impartiality’. In some instances staff have been accused of having an agenda because they have posted news articles critical of the Israeli government on their social media. By comparison, Gibb remains in an influential post with little transparency regarding his decisions despite his ideological leanings being well known. We can no longer ask license fee payers to overlook Gibbs’ ideological allegiances.

The letter notes that the BBC’s reporting on Israel and Palestine “falls short of our own editorial standards”, with “a gulf between the BBC’s coverage of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank and what our audiences can see is happening via multiple credible sources including human rights organisations, staff at the UN and journalists on the ground.”

Which is why the letter makes the incendiary claim:

All too often it has felt that the BBC has been performing PR for the Israeli government and military.

Note that over a hundred journalists who spend their lives working for the BBC have stated their agreement with this.

They state that: “We have been forced to conclude that decisions are made to fit a political agenda rather than serve the needs of audiences.”

They go on to note their extreme concern about BBC reporting on the issue “falling short of the standards our audiences expect”, adding that:

We believe the role of Robbie Gibb, both on the Board, and as part of the Editorial Standards Committee, is untenable. We call on the BBC to do better for our audiences and recommit to our values of impartiality, honesty and reporting without fear or favour.

Other than those BBC journalists, signatories include the actors Juliet Stevenson, Khlaid Abdalla, Zawe Ashton, Miriam Margoyles.

Now BBC insiders have some choice things to say. Once says:

At the BBC, the strength of feeling against Gibb is palpable.

In corridors at New Broadcasting House, staff confide in each other about the illogical decisions reached by management and the role that Gibb has to play.

We often feel we are in an abusive relationship with the BBC, in which we are gaslit and pacified.”

They go on to say:

We are exhausted by the double standards and the suspension of editorial standards. For many staff this has shattered any notion of fairness.

We frequently console in each other about how this has been allowed to happen. We believe the BBC will not be able to deliver on its commitment to fairness and due impartiality whilst Gibb is in post.

Another notes:

For more than a year now we’ve been aware that the BBC’s news output is out of step with reality. Audiences are being asked not to believe their own eyes and ears.

Anyone with a phone has seen the footage coming out of Gaza and the West Bank yet BBC News has tied itself in knots with notions of ‘complexity’.

Why have we taken a clear position on Ukraine and Russia when we fail to confidently assert facts when it comes to the Palestinian people? Robbie Gibb is at least part of the answer.

We raised these concerns so many times and we have not been listened to. We are speaking out because we must serve audiences better.

Well indeed, and here is just another example of the biggest scandal of Western journalism of our time.

What the BBC and other organisations did is either completely erase the statements of genocidal and criminal intent made by Israeli leaders and officials, or bury them, and indeed refuse to explain the genocidal and criminal nature of those statements. These statements proved the most accurate roadmap for what Israel would go on to do, and yet the BBC completely misled their audiences about Israel’s intent, treating these statements as though they were being issued in a parallel universe, and instead zoning in on deceitful statements issued by Israeli officials designed for Western audiences.

The BBC repeatedly framed their stories around the false statements and claims of the Israeli state, treating them as credible despite the overwhelming evidence of Israel lying over and over again and indeed committing every single war crime and crime against humanity under the sun.

Palestinian voices received much less coverage and were prosecuted as though they were in the dock in a way pro-Israel voices are not.

Atrocities and war crimes have been ignored and whitewashed. Studies exposing war crimes have been ignored or given precious little coverage.

Palestinian life has been treated as having infinitely less worth than Israeli life, while emotive terms such as ‘massacre’ are reserved for Israeli victims rather than Palestinian victims, and humanising words are proportionately used far more for Israeli victims than Palestinian victims

While sentences such as ‘Hamas run health ministry’ are woven in as standard to undermine faith in the death toll in Gaza, basic facts like the International Criminal court issuing arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister are not.

The fact there is a consensus amongst genocide scholars, including Israeli genocide scholars, that Israel is committing genocide, has been suppressed, with those scholars being erased.

We could go on.

This is the biggest scandal of Western journalism of our age. These BBC journalists have spoken out. Other journalists should do the same.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
3 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Canada set up a $50M vaccine injury program. Those harmed say it’s failing them - National | Globalnews.ca

1 Comment

Read the whole story
sarcozona
3 days ago
reply
When a vaccine harms someone, we have a duty to care for them and their families - generously and with a minimum of fuss.
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Limitations of chemical monitoring hinder aquatic risk evaluations on the macroscale | Science

1 Share

B. I. Escher, M. Allinson, R. Altenburger, P. A. Bain, P. Balaguer, W. Busch, J. Crago, N. D. Denslow, E. Dopp, K. Hilscherova, A. R. Humpage, A. Kumar, M. Grimaldi, B. S. Jayasinghe, B. Jarosova, A. Jia, S. Makarov, K. A. Maruya, A. Medvedev, A. C. Mehinto, J. E. Mendez, A. Poulsen, E. Prochazka, J. Richard, A. Schifferli, D. Schlenk, S. Scholz, F. Shiraishi, S. Snyder, G. Su, J. Y. M. Tang, B. van der Burg, S. C. van der Linden, I. Werner, S. D. Westerheide, C. K. C. Wong, M. Yang, B. H. Y. Yeung, X. Zhang, F. D. L. Leusch, Benchmarking organic micropollutants in wastewater, recycled water and drinking water with in vitro bioassays. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1940–1956 (2014).

Read the whole story
sarcozona
4 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories