There is no "war" against terrorism. What George W. Bush launched and Barack Obama insists on perpetuating does not qualify. Not if by war one means doing the obvious and checking a highly suspicious air traveller's underwear to see if explosives have been sewn in.

If Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had put the stuff in his shoes we would have had him because that was tried before, but our government was too preoccupied with fighting unnecessary conventional wars and developing anti-missile defense systems to anticipate such a primitive delivery system.

It was a dark year, 2009, sealing a dark decade. It began with the world in economic free-fall and the Gaza Strip being bombed to pieces (again). We watched the vicious crushing of a democratic uprising in Iran, a successful far-right coup in Honduras, and the intensification of the disastrous war in Afghanistan.

It all ended at Brokenhagen, where the world's leaders breezily decided to carry on cooking the planet.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described a superstate called Oceania, whose language of war inverted lies that "passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past', ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past'."

According to current estimates, 33% of the world identifies itself as Christian, 21% Islam, and .22% Jewish. All three religions believe in Armageddon, the end of life as it is currently known. And all three expect Jerusalem to play a major role in the final days of the world.

But how are these attitudes impacting life today? Are powerful men and women influenced by these ideas? And in what direction would they turn the world if they do? In Racing Toward Armageddon, author Michael Baigent attempts to answer some of those questions.

We think the society around us is solid but there is an old political aphorism: the difference between social order and disorder is 36 hours without food. Think about that for even a moment and you know it's true. Food security is the basis of everything we call civilised. This is the perfect time of year to consider the subject because at this time of abundance, we need to know that Australia's food security is declining.

By JAMES KANTER

BRUSSELS — European Union leaders on Tuesday sought to deflect criticism that they had fumbled their strategy at the Copenhagen climate summit meeting, just as a feud between the British and the Chinese over whom to blame for the outcome worsened.

The discussion of Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) in the US political system revolves around several essential issues, including:

There once was a planet called Earth,

Then, 4.5 billion years after birth,

It evolved a new species,

From DNA pieces,

That polluted for all they were worth.

This continued 'til everyone felt,

The impact of arctic-ice melt,

A global nightmare,

(Or full of hot-air?)

For many, disaster was spelt.

The science said 350 per mil,

Was the most CO2 we could spill,

If it grows any more,

We'll see famine and war,

Our chances? Effectively nil.

Our last shot to counter stagnation:

A treaty to unite every nation!

from the ABC

India has confirmed it worked with China and other emerging nations to ensure there were no legally binding targets from the Copenhagen climate talks.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has told Parliament that India got its way at Copenhagen.

He says India, China, South Africa and Brazil emerged as a powerful force.

Mr Ramesh hailed the lack of legally-binding emissions targets and said the group had protected its right to continued economic growth.

From the First Post

From the BBC

Gordon Brown will accuse a small group of countries of holding the Copenhagen climate summit talks to ransom.

The 193-nation UN conference ended with delegates simply "taking note" of a US-led climate deal that recognised the need to limit temperature rises to 2C.

Mr Brown said on Monday the talks were "at best flawed and at worst chaotic" and called for a reformed UN process.

From the Moscow Times...

President Dmitry Medvedev touted Russia as a world leader in cutting emissions at a UN climate change conference and then took the lead in ducking out of the meeting as U.S. President Barack Obama worked overtime to clinch an agreement.

The most progressive US president in a generation comes to the most important international meeting since the Second World War and delivers a speech so devoid of substance that he might as well have made it on speaker-phone from a beach in Hawaii.

His aides argue in private that he had no choice, such is the opposition on Capitol Hill to any action that could challenge the dominance of fossil fuels in American life.

And so the nation that put a man on the Moon can't summon the collective will to protect men and women back here on Earth from the consequences of an economic model and lifestyle choice that has taken on the mantle of a religion.