Terrorists on Air France 447?

As I wrote last week: Why Is a Terrorist Attack So Quickly Dismissed as the Cause for the Missing Air France Plane?

Today the New York Post's headline story is: 2 PASSENGERS ON FLIGHT 447 HAD ISLAMIC TERROR TIES

Two passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on board the Air France flight which crashed with the loss of 228 lives, it has emerged.

French secret servicemen established the connection while working through the list of those who boarded the doomed Airbus in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on May 31st.

Flight AF447 crashed in mid-Atlantic en route to Paris during a violent storm.

While it is certain that there were computer malfunctions, terrorism has not been ruled out.

Soon after news of the fatal crash broke, agents working for the DGSE (Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure), the French equivalent of MI6, were dispatched to Brazil.

It's interesting that the media were reporting right away that terrorism was ruled out as a cause, when clearly it wasn't. France dispatched the DGSE immediately.

I don't understand why they do that. Isn't the job of the press to open mindedly ask questions and try to find answers instead of ruling something out, with no proof?

There's no definitive proof of the cause yet, and we may never know.

UPDATE: Bomb threats were made days before flight 447

Today, ABC News has confirmed that Air France received a bomb threat over the phone concerning a flight from Buenos Aires, Argentina, to Paris days before Air France flight 447 disappeared over the Atlantic.

Authorities at Buenos Aires' Ezeiza Airport delayed the May 27 flight before takeoff and conducted a 90-minute search of the threatened aircraft. Passengers were not evacuated during the search, which yielded no explosive material. After the inspection, authorities allowed the plane to take off for Paris.

Four days later, flight 447 departed from Rio de Janeiro. There was no known threat against the missing flight.

Mortal Threat? Taliban Winning Pakistan Civil War

This is not how the Afghanistan campaign was supposed to work. The Taliban haven't been defeated and are taking over the neighbouring nuclear armed Pakistan.

Pakistan on verge of collapse

The capital of Pakistan was under threat last night after Taliban fighters threatened to overrun the volatile country and came within 60 miles of Islamabad.

It is feared the state is on the brink of collapse as Taliban fighters get closer to the nuclear powers of the country.

As violence broke out in the north-west corner of the country, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Pakistan posed a 'mortal threat' to the world.

I can't stand the coverage of this war. In the hope of de-legitimizing the Taliban, nobody is reporting whether they have popular support or not. What is the Pakistani army doing? Sitting on their ass, because they quietly support and arm the Taliban? Do they plan to fight? I can't figure it out, because the media won't say.

For goodness sakes, what does this mean? If it's a mortal threat to the world as Hillary says, why don't they explain what is going on?

Fake Global Warming Story From the Independent

Breaking News: Ice shelves on the ocean break apart, float! (Hmm.. what caused the Titanic to sink in 1912?)

I found this "yellow journalism" article in the Independent humorous. They're trying to sound the alarm bells about Global Warming but the story comes apart as you go along. I have to do a mini-fisking here. Climate warning as Antarctic ice bridge shatters

An ice bridge which held a vast Antarctic ice shelf in place shattered at the weekend and could herald a wider collapse linked to global warming, a leading scientist has warned.

"It's amazing how the ice has ruptured. Two days ago it was intact," said David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey.

OK. This sounds serious. Obviously a sign of Global Warming. Surely this has never happened before?

Nine other shelves have receded or collapsed around the Antarctic Peninsula in the past 50 years, often abruptly like the Larsen A in 1995 or the Larsen B, further north, in 2002.

Oh, so it has happened before. For the last 50 years. What about 100 years ago? Well, no humans went ashore in Antarctica then and hence we have no historical data on ice shelves. Serious scientific studies of the Antarctic weren't established until the mid 1950's. Essentially, they are saying that as long as we've been studying this ice, it's been doing this.

But here is the clincher, and it makes me laugh:

The loss of ice shelves does not affect sea levels – floating ice contracts as it melts and so does not raise ocean levels. But their loss can allow glaciers on land to slide more rapidly towards the sea, adding water to the oceans.

So it doesn't makes seas levels rise! I thought that is what you're supposed to think, as part of the Global warming doomsday scenario. Thanks for adding that in.

Also, apparently, it'll make glaciers slide into the sea? Is that how it works? That's not science. That's some hack writer who put that in the final sentence. Glaciers "expand" into the sea, because ice expands when it gets cold.

People read this headline, and read the first sentence and it reafirms their climate catastrophe scenarios. I don't understand why these media agencies slant, and make things up about Global Warming. What's in it for them?

Trash the Ceeb

Lorne Gunter gets on a roll in this column for the National Post. Tear it all down

Would you favour hundreds of millions of your hard-earned dollars going to subsidize Crossroads Television System (CTS), the Christian service with stations in Ontario and Alberta? Or how about al-Jazeera, the English-language Arab station that now has a place in Canada's channel line-up? Neither is anymore overtly biased than the CBC is to the advancement and defence of its causes. So where is the justification in denying those stations subsidies while lavishing nearly one-third of Ottawa's cultural budget on a service that captures less than 8% of Canadian television viewers and just about the same number of radio listeners?

But that is looking at the question from the wrong end. Rather, I should have asked the following: If the proselytizing on CTS and al-Jazeera TV can survive without largesse from the public treasury, why shouldn't the CBC have to do the same?

(...)

For a long time the CBC has justified its huge annual federal gift because it sees itself as the vehicle through which Canadians tell one another their stories. If this pompous self-image were ever true (and I'm doubtful), it cannot possibly be true now with only one in 12 Canadians actually watching.

CBC TV no longer carries the two most distinctly Canadian sports events of the year -- the Grey Cup and the Brier -- and the world has not ended, the country's identity has not eroded. Its hockey coverage, arts programming and original drama and comedy could all be picked up by cable and digital services and no one would notice.

There is simply no way to argue that it is worth $1-billion to all Canadians to keep the CBC alive. The few people who like its programming may insist it is worth it, but why should their preferences be kept afloat by taxing the 11 of 12 Canadians whose viewing and listening habits aren't being subsidized?

As President Obabma said: "A crisis can be a great opportunity." Here's definately the case. With country in severe economic decline it makes less and less sense for average people to support the massive subsidies to the CBC.

Wouldn't it be nice to see subsidy bums like Jian Gameshi, Rick Mercer and George Stroumboulopoulos be forced to get real jobs?

Party Leader With 25% of the Seats in Parliament Sets Terms

The hubris of Michael Ignatieff comes through in this interview. Somebody must be bringing in the favors because once again the Globe & Mail fawn over him like any good PR agency should. Ignatieff warns PM against use of hardball tactics in Parliament

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has issued a warning to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he won't tolerate the misuse of confidence votes or hardball parliamentary tactics when MPs return next month to decide the government's
fate.

Hardball parliamentary tactics? As opposed to overturning an election?

“He took the wrong signal from the election. The signal he took was that he could try anything he wanted to and he grievously underestimated the Liberal Party of Canada. We've got our act together, got a leader chosen, and he can't keep making these misjudgments of the mood of the House and hope to survive.”

Iggy says Harper "grievously underestimated the Liberal Party of Canada." Oh please. The recent election was the Liberal Party's worst showing since Confederation. They are dead west of Ontario. They haven't had a majority in Quebec since the Trudeau era.

The Liberals have inked a deal with the New Democrats to take over government in a coalition, but Mr. Ignatieff has indicated he could back the budget if it delivers the appropriate economic help to increasingly anxious Canadians. The coalition came together after opposition parties were infuriated by an economic statement that, among other things, would have eliminated voter subsidies for political parties and suspended the right to strike of civil servants.

Point #1: OK. (deep breath) Globe and Mail people, one last time. The coalition deal is not just with the Liberals and the New Democrats. As we all know, the Liberal seats (77) + the NDP seats (37) = 114 seats, which is less than the 143 seats that the Conservatives have. So, to get the majority they publically signed on with the Bloc Quebecois who have 49 seats. Why do they keep pretending that the Bloc aren't part of the deal? I understand why the Liberals do that but why does the Globe?

Point #2 Does the Globe realize that eliminating voter subsidies and suspending fat cat government workers from striking is a popular move to the majority of the public?

Nonetheless, Mr. Ignatieff said liberal parties around the world are best positioned to take advantage of the current economic turmoil. International conservative leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush rode the wave of looser market regulation that has been blamed for sparking the global financial crisis.

Take advantage? That's cold.... And by the way: Don't put Bush Sr., and Jr. in the same sentence as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Especially Bush Jr.

Canadian Journalists Get Senate Appointments

Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin of CTV are two among 18 new Senate appointments named by the Conservatives today.

Among those appointed to regionally distributed seats in the upper house were former broadcaster Pamela Wallin (Sask.), Olympian Nancy Greene Raine (B.C.) and CTV personality Mike Duffy (P.E.I.).

Our last two Governors General were journalists as well. I'm a bit uncomfortable with members of the fourth estate getting patronage appointments. This is a threat to press neutrality. (Not that I believe the main stream media is neutral for a minute.)