US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) hit out at the "intelligent design" movement at its annual meeting in Missouri. Teaching the idea threatens scientific literacy among schoolchildren, it said. Its proponents argue life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own.

As the name suggests, intelligent design is a concept invoking the hand of a designer in nature.
There have been several attempts across the US by anti-evolutionists to get intelligent design taught in school science lessons.

At the meeting in St Louis, the AAAS issued a statement strongly condemning the moves. "Such veiled attempts to wedge religion - actually just one kind of religion - into science classrooms is a disservice to students, parents, teachers and taxpayers," said AAAS president Gilbert Omenn. "It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be pitted against each other. They can and do co-exist in the context of most people's lives. Just not in science classrooms, lest we confuse our children."

'Who's kidding whom?'

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which campaigns to keep the teaching of evolution in public schools, said those in mainstream religious communities needed to "step up to the plate" in order to prevent the issue being viewed as a battle between science and religion.

Some have already heeded the warning. "The intelligent design movement belittles religion. It makes God a designer - an engineer," said George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. "Intelligent design concentrates on a designer who they do not really identify - but who's kidding whom?"

Last year, a federal judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution must be taught as fact. Dover school administrators had pushed for intelligent design to be inserted into science teaching. But the judge ruled this violated the constitution, which sets out a clear separation between religion and state.

Despite the ruling, more challenges are on the way. Fourteen US states are considering bills that scientists say would restrict the teaching of evolution.

These include a legislative bill in Missouri which seeks to ensure that only science which can be proven by experiment is taught in schools.
"The new strategy is to teach intelligent design without calling it intelligent design," biologist Kenneth Miller, of Brown University in Rhode Island, told the BBC News website.
Dr Miller, an expert witness in the Dover School case, added: "The advocates of intelligent design and creationism have tried to repackage their criticisms, saying they want to teach the evidence for evolution and the evidence against evolution."

However, Mark Gihring, a teacher from Missouri sympathetic to intelligent design, told the BBC: "I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design. "[Intelligent design] ultimately takes us back to why we're here and the value of life? if an individual doesn't have a reason for being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately destructive for society."

Economic risk

The decentralised US education system ensures that intelligent design will remain an issue in the classroom regardless of the decision in the Dover case. "I think as a legal strategy, intelligent design is dead. That does not mean intelligent design as a social movement is dead," said Ms Scott.

"This is an idea that has real legs and it's going to be around for a long time. It will, however, evolve."
Among the most high-profile champions of intelligent design is US President George W Bush, who has said schools should make students aware of the concept.

But Mr Omenn warned that teaching intelligent design would deprive students of a proper education, ultimately harming the US economy. "At a time when fewer US students are heading into science, baby boomer scientists are retiring in growing numbers and international students are returning home to work, America can ill afford the time and tax-payer dollars debating the facts of evolution," he said.

( This is a long article - but it clarifies the true state of the "almighty Dollar." )

A hundred years ago it was called "dollar diplomacy." After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into "dollar hegemony." But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end.

It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.
First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.

Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn't long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin -- always hoping their subjects wouldn't discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires.

This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.

That general rule has held fast throughout the ages. When gold was used, and the rules protected honest commerce, productive nations thrived. Whenever wealthy nations -- those with powerful armies and gold -- strived only for empire and easy fortunes to support welfare at home, those nations failed.
Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: "He who prints the money makes the rules" -- at least for the time being.

Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses. Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency.

The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation's people -- just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.

The pressure at home to inflate the currency comes from the corporate welfare recipients, as well as those who demand handouts as compensation for their needs and perceived injuries by others. In both cases personal responsibility for one's actions is rejected.

When paper money is rejected, or when gold runs out, wealth and political stability are lost. The country then must go from living beyond its means to living beneath its means, until the economic and political systems adjust to the new rules -- rules no longer written by those who ran the now defunct printing press.
"Dollar Diplomacy," a policy instituted by William Howard Taft and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, was designed to enhance U.S. commercial investments in Latin America and the Far East. McKinley concocted a war against Spain in 1898, and (Teddy) Roosevelt's corollary to the Monroe Doctrine preceded Taft's aggressive approach to using the U.S. dollar and diplomatic influence to secure U.S. investments abroad.

This earned the popular title of "Dollar Diplomacy." The significance of Roosevelt's change was that our intervention now could be justified by the mere "appearance" that a country of interest to us was politically or fiscally vulnerable to European control. Not only did we claim a right, but even an official U.S. government "obligation" to protect our commercial interests from Europeans.

This new policy came on the heels of the "gunboat" diplomacy of the late 19th century, and it meant we could buy influence before resorting to the threat of force. By the time the "dollar diplomacy" of William Howard Taft was clearly articulated, the seeds of American empire were planted. And they were destined to grow in the fertile political soil of a country that lost its love and respect for the republic bequeathed to us by the authors of the Constitution. And indeed they did. It wasn't too long before dollar "diplomacy" became dollar "hegemony" in the second half of the 20th century.
This transition only could have occurred with a dramatic change in monetary policy and the nature of the dollar itself.
Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress -- while benefiting the special interests that influence government.

Dollar dominance got a huge boost after World War II. We were spared the destruction that so many other nations suffered, and our coffers were filled with the world's gold. But the world chose not to return to the discipline of the gold standard, and the politicians applauded. Printing money to pay the bills was a lot more popular than taxing or restraining unnecessary spending. In spite of the short-term benefits, imbalances were institutionalised for decades to come.

The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement solidified the dollar as the pre-eminent world reserve currency, replacing the British pound. Due to our political and military muscle, and because we had a huge amount of physical gold, the world readily accepted our dollar (defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold) as the world's reserve currency. The dollar was said to be "as good as gold," and convertible to all foreign central banks at that rate. For American citizens, however, it remained illegal to own. This was a gold-exchange standard that from inception was doomed to fail.

The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question-- until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfil our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.

It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it -- not even a pretence of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread.

Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence "backed" the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup.

This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.

During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by L B Johnson's claim that we could afford both "guns and butter."

Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.

Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, on several occasions before the House Banking Committee, answered my challenges to him about his previously held favourable views on gold by claiming that he and other central bankers had gotten paper money -- i.e. the dollar system -- to respond as if it were gold. Each time I strongly disagreed, and pointed out that if they had achieved such a feat they would have defied centuries of economic history regarding the need for money to be something of real value. He smugly and confidently concurred with this.

In recent years central banks and various financial institutions, all with vested interests in maintaining a workable fiat dollar standard, were not secretive about selling and loaning large amounts of gold to the market even while decreasing gold prices raised serious questions about the wisdom of such a policy. They never admitted to gold price fixing, but the evidence is abundant that they believed if the gold price fell it would convey a sense of confidence to the market, confidence that they indeed had achieved amazing success in turning paper into gold.

Increasing gold prices historically are viewed as an indicator of distrust in paper currency. This recent effort was not a whole lot different than the U.S. Treasury selling gold at $35 an ounce in the 1960s, in an attempt to convince the world the dollar was sound and as good as gold. Even during the Depression, one of Roosevelt's first acts was to remove free market gold pricing as an indication of a flawed monetary system by making it illegal for American citizens to own gold. Economic law eventually limited that effort, as it did in the early 1970s when our Treasury and the IMF tried to fix the price of gold by dumping tons into the market to dampen the enthusiasm of those seeking a safe haven for a falling dollar after gold ownership was re-legalized.

Once again the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. You just can't fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and money creating system of the Federal Reserve.

Even with all the shortcomings of the fiat monetary system, dollar influence thrived. The results seemed beneficial, but gross distortions built into the system remained. And true to form, Washington politicians are only too anxious to solve the problems cropping up with window dressing, while failing to understand and deal with the underlying flawed policy. Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super-nationalist sentiments, threats of force, and even war are resorted to-all to solve the problems artificially created by deeply flawed monetary and economic systems.

In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that's the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars -- due to their depreciation-- will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the pre-eminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.
The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to "rule" the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can't last.

Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble -- generated by easy money -- has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world's rejection of the dollar. It's bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime.

We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.
Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail.

Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a pre-eminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged-as it already has been.
In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein - - though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O'Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat-out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.

In 2001, Venezuela's ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.
After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.

It's become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.
Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the "axis of evil," has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.

Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979.

Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn't do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn't seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran.

With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there's little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn't stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern-day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she's made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

It's not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar's importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel's influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting "our" oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.

But the truth is that paying the bills for this aggressive intervention is impossible the old fashioned way, with more taxes, more savings, and more production by the American people. Much of the expense of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was shouldered by many of our willing allies. That's not so today. Now, more than ever, the dollar hegemony -- it's dominance as the world reserve currency -- is required to finance our huge war expenditures. This $2 trillion never-ending war must be paid for, one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the vehicle to do just that.

For the most part the true victims aren't aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the "tax" that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world's reserve currency.

It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar's value artificially high.
If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy "bread and circuses" just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.

The same thing will happen to us if we don't change our ways. Though we don't occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don't declare direct ownership of the natural resources -- we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.

Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.

Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the "backing" of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today's "gold." This is why countries that challenge the system -- like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela -- become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That's why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.

It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the pre-emptive war promoters. It's only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.

The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.
But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.
And once again there's this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed.

The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or it equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros.

The sooner, the better.

As the three-month anniversary of "gay weddings" approaches, retailers and wedding companies could be congratulating themselves on their swelling coffers. With an estimated 121 civil partnership ceremonies taking place each day, one survey suggests the pink wedding industry could be worth as much as £600m by 2010.

For Pink Products, which offers gay and lesbian wedding products and services, January was the busiest month in the group's three-year history. "The business has been growing at 60% a month, I'll be taking more staff on in March to cope with demand," founder Ben Spence says.

"Last year, most people were having a ceremony and then going off for dinner, nothing lavish. This year the majority of weddings are planned for the middle or end of the year with around £15,000 to £20,000 being spent." That compares with estimates ranging from an average of between £11,000 and £16,500 for a heterosexual marriage from various wedding publications.

Big spenders

Getting on the "pink bus" early in the game could prove to be a smart move, the homosexual community has huge spending power with an estimated £70bn earned and spent in the UK last year by the country's three million-strong homosexual community.

Big names like Barclays, BT and HMV have already been trying to lure in gay customers with adverts in the pink press - only too well aware of the huge spending power of the community. A recent survey for Gay Times and Diva magazine, carried out by Out Now Consulting, found that the average gay man earns up to £9,000 more than his straight counterpart. Add to this the fact that most gay couples have no children, and it means they have plenty of cash to splash around.

Lesbians also earn up to £4,000 more than their female counterparts, the poll of 1,118 readers of Diva and Gay Times found.

Wider market

But not only do gay men and women have more disposable cash, the gay wedding market is less restricted to a certain age groups like the heterosexual thirty-somethings, says Modern Commitments creative director Richard Jones.

Of the several hundred gay weddings Mr Jones is organising, taking him through to 2008, the most expensive is nudging the £50,000 mark - and he warns that figure could rise even further as the big day nears.
The government estimates that 22,000 partnership ceremonies will take place over the next five years, while

Out Now estimates that as many as 275,000 could be held in that time. So its no surprise that companies are vying for a slice of the market.

US Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Saturday that high energy prices are a risk to the global economy, as finance ministers from the Group of Eight (G-8) countries focused on ways to defuse the threat from persistently high oil and gas prices.

Volatile energy prices have pre-occupied the finance ministers in their meetings over he past several years. Past statements have emphasized raising investment in production, curbing consumption and making oil market data on reserves and inventories more transparent.

Snow said Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin was right to put a heavy emphasis on energy prices in the meetings in Moscow, the first to be hosted by Russia as the G-8's new chairman.

There are many sides to energy security, but, as finance ministers, we emphasized market-based solutions, transparency, and the institutional framework necessary to encourage a friendly investment climate in energy development and infrastructure, Snow said.

We are all concerned about the risks of rising energy prices and what this could do to growth, he said. The ministers had very useful discussions on energy security, he said. Snow said he briefed ministers on President George W Bush's plans for increasing investment and research in clean-burning fuels. He also noted that costly energy is a particular problem for developing countries.

Snow alluded to another long-standing risk faced by the world economy: large-scale trade imbalances. Last week, the US government reported its trade deficit grew to a record $725.8 billion (euro606.3 billion) in 2005 and many economists worry the deficits are unsustainable and could lead to volatility of currency and bond markets.

The Bush administration has blamed diverging growth rates between the US and its major trading partners over the past decade for the chasm.

The United States is drawing up plans for bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a 'last resort' to block Teheran from developing nuclear weapons, a media report said on Sunday.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the fight against terrorism since the suicide hijackings and is not objecting to Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The $6.8 billion sale is expected to be approved Monday. The British company is the fourth largest ports company in the world and its sale would affect commercial U.S. port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.

The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement to The Associated Press.

The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal as expressed by a Miami-based company, Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant but was not in the running to buy the ports company.

The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. But the UAE, a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi peninsula, was an important operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington, the FBI concluded.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat whose district includes the New York port, urged the administration to consider the sale carefully.

"America's busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist targets," Schumer said. "Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties."

Last month, the White House appointed a senior DP World executive, David C. Sanborn of Virginia, to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

Critics of the proposed purchase said a port operator complicit in smuggling or terrorism could manipulate manifests and other records to frustrate Homeland Security's already limited scrutiny of shipping containers and slip contraband past U.S. Customs inspectors.

"When you have a foreign government involved, you are injecting foreign national interests," Kreitzer said. "A country that may be a friend of ours today may not be on the same side tomorrow. You don't know in advance what the politics of that country will be in the future."

Shipping experts noted that many of the world's largest port companies are not based in the U.S., and they pointed to DP World's strong economic interest in operating ports securely and efficiently.

"Does this pose a national security risk? I think that's pushing the envelope," said Stephen E. Flynn, who studies maritime security at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. "It's not impossible to imagine one could develop an internal conspiracy, but I'd have to assign it a very low probability."

Changing management over the U.S. ports "doesn't offer al-Qaida any opportunities it doesn't have now," said James Lewis, who worked with the U.S. committee at the State and Commerce departments. "It's in Dubai's interest to make sure this runs well. There is strong economic incentive to be sure these worries never materialize."

Flynn and others said even under foreign control, U.S. ports will continue to be run by unionized American employees. "You're not going have a bunch of UAE citizens working the docks," Flynn said. "They're longshoremen, vested in high-paying jobs. Most of them are Archie Bunker-kind of Americans."

Peninsular and Oriental and DP World set approval by the U.S. security committee as a condition for the sale. In regulatory papers, the companies said either the committee must agree not to formally investigate the purchase or Bush must not move to block the sale for national security purposes.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI has said the money for the strikes was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system, and much of the operational planning for the attacks took place inside the UAE.

Many of the hijackers traveled to the U.S. through the UAE. Also, the hijacker who steered United Airlines flight into the World Trade Center's south tower, Marwan al-Shehhi, was born in the UAE.

After the attacks, U.S. Treasury Department officials complained about a lack of cooperation by the UAE and other Arab countries trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts

The Iranian government has repeatedly stated that its NUCLEAR PROGRAME is solely intended at peaceful purposes, simply generating electricity, not warheads. But the West, lead by Washington's efforts, claim, although they fail to put too fine a point on it, that these are not the true intentions of Tehran, viewed as a security challenge for Western powers.

"Iran poses the single largest foreign policy challenge," said Ilan Berman, the vice president for policy at the American Foreign Policy Council and an expert on regional security in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Russian Federation, arguing "they pose a direct challenge to our goals in the WAR ON TERRORISM."

Also in a private meeting with European diplomats that was held last week, a former senior U.S. official suggested launching a dozen B2 bombers in an air raid aimed at a key Iranian nuclear facilities.

But the official's suggestion comes in contradiction with what the U.S. and the European Union keep boasting about; using diplomacy to resolve the world's standoff over Iran's nukes. "Iran's radical president has said he would spread this technology as far as he can," "It would be a tragedy if we prolonged the life of this regime unnecessarily. Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb would do that," Berman added.

But Phil Giraldi, a former CIA staff officer, disagrees with Berman's shallow warning of Iran's alleged threat to the world. "I do not believe it constitutes a major threat to the U.S. specifically. Last year, undoubtedly, speakers here (at the Conservative Political Action Conference) promoted the war in Iraq," Giraldi said. "All were wrong. Iraq was no threat ? Now we're hearing the same things about Iran."

Giraldi, who served 16 years as staff officer before becoming the chief of base in Barcelona, Spain, was also involved in gathering intelligence across the Middle East and Europe.
If Iran used the bomb, they would face hundreds of Israeli NUCLEAR WARHEADS, and thousands in the U.S.," Giraldi, who writes for The American Conservative, a print magazine that contends the conservative movement, further states.

"Iran would be annihilated and would cease to exist. They know this."

Prior to Iraq war, Giraldi said, he warned that attacking the country was "neither realistic nor practical", and could eventually lead to major unintended consequences. However, the former CIA officer warned that Iran could make the situation in Iraq "untenable" for the Americans and that by aiding the Shia fighters there. To Iran, Giraldi said

He also suggests that Tehran might consider transferring cruise missiles obtained from Ukraine and Shahab missiles with biological and chemical payloads, targeting the U.S. occupation bases in Iraq, Israel, Qatar, Bahrain and elsewhere.

At the same time Giraldi said that shutting down the Strait of Hormuz could send oil skyrocketing to as much as $300 a barrel.

Giraldi says: "is this all worth it? No". "It's not good policy to go to war on a basis of a 'what if' situation," he said.

"The Soviet Union was contained for 40 years." "Ronald Reagan was able to destroy it without firing a single shot."

It marks the first time that the World Council will hold its assembly in Latin America. The theme of the event is "God, in Your Grace, Transform the World." More than 700 official delegates from 340 member churches of the World Council will participate.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, will attend the opening session of the assembly, and convey a message of greeting from Benedict XVI.

Bishop Brian Farrell, secretary of the pontifical council, will head an official Catholic delegation of 18 delegated observers. The members of the delegation are drawn from the Roman Curia, bishops' conferences, representatives of superiors general based in Rome, and lay movements.

The Catholic Church is not a member of the World Council of Churches, but cooperates with it in various ways.

While some have been applauded for defending freedom of speech, others have been fired, arrested or received death threats. Since the drawings appeared in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper last September, they have been republished in more than 60 newspapers. They have been greeted by protests from Muslims around the world.

The Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders said it was very concerned at the arrests of journalists and the closure of a number of newspapers. The responses pointed to a serious deterioration of press freedoms, spokesman Jean-Francois Julliard said. "We do not think it is the solution to try to scare every publication that published these cartoons," he said.

Cartoon ban

On Friday, the editor of the Peta newspaper in Indonesia was reportedly charged with blasphemy for reprinting the cartoons. In Denmark, the culture editor of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper who first commissioned the cartoons was sent on indefinite leave after suggesting he would print Iranian cartoons of the Holocaust.

A day before, a Malaysian newspaper, the Sarawak Tribune, was shut indefinitely for reprinting the cartoons, on the ground that the government had banned possession of the images. Earlier, the editors of two weekly newspapers in Jordan were arrested after they published the drawings.

Hashem al-Khalidi of al-Mehwar newspaper and Jihad Momani of Shihan newspaper - who was also fired - are both reported to be under police guard in hospital because of stress. Two Yemeni newspapers have also been shut down, and the government has placed their editors under investigation.

Police guard

At the beginning of the month, the managing editor of France Soir, Jacques Lefranc, was fired by the newspaper's Franco-Egyptian owner after the French paper published all of the original cartoons.

The editor of Magazinet, a small Norwegian Christian newspaper that published the cartoons on 10 January, received death threats and has been under police protection. In South Africa, the editor of the Mail and Guardian, Ferial Haffajee, said she received abusive letters and text messages after reprinting one of the drawings.

The cartoonists have not fared better.

One of the artists, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they had received threats and that Danish police had warned them against public comment. "Right now, focus is on Jyllands-Posten and the government? We benefit from that in terms of security. The police have advised us against talking to the media in order not to change this," he was quoted as saying. The editor-in-chief, Carsten Juste, has told the newspaper's website that it had received threats from as far away as Pakistan and offers of bounties on the heads of the illustrators.

Circulation boost

But some newspapers have reaped benefits from the row.
The satirical French weekly, Charlie Hebdo, republished the cartoons on Wednesday, along with cartoons caricaturing Christianity and Judaism, leading some staff to be placed under police protection. However, journalists at the paper told the Reuters news agency that the weekly had boosted its usual print run of 100,000 up to 320,000.

France Soir increased its sales by 40% when it published the cartoons, and circulation director Philippe Soing said that the paper's image could benefit. "It shows we're capable of running scoops - and leading a battle for freedom of the press," he told the Associated Press news agency.

The first steps in a move to charge for every e mail sent have already been taken. Under the pretext of eliminating spam, Bill Gates and other industry chieftains have proposed Internet users buy credit stamps which denote how many e mails they will be able to send. This of course is the death knell f or political newsletters and mailing lists.

The New York Times reports that "America Online and Yahoo, two of the world's largest providers of e-mail accounts, are about to start using a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay from 1/4 of a cent to a penny each to have them delivered. The senders must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely."

The end game is a system similar to China, whereby no websites even mildly critical of the government will be authorized.

The Pentagon admitted that they would engage in psychological warfare and cyber attacks on 'enemy' Internet websites in an attempt to shut them down. The fact that the NSA surveillance program spied on 5,000 Americans tells us that the enemy is the alternative media and that it will be targeted for elimination. Court cases are pending after the Bush administration demanded the Google search terms of American citizens.

The first wave will simply attempt to price people out of using the conventional Internet and force people over to Internet 2, a state regulated hub where permission will need to be obtained directly from an FCC or government bureau to set up a website.

The original Internet will then be turned into a mass surveillance database and marketing tool. The Nation magazine reported last week, "Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency.

According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out."

We see a move to demonize the Internet and tar its reputation. AOL is running ads equating Internet users with terrorists. In the next few years we may see a staged Internet shutdown which is blamed on cyber terrorists.

For the aspiring dictator, the Internet is a dangerous tool that has been seized by the enemy. We have come a long way since 1969, when the ARPANET was created solely for US government use. The Internet is freedom's best friend and the bane of control freaks. Its eradication is one of the short-term goals of those that seek to centralize power and subjugate the world under a global surveillance panopticon prison.

Mr Blair told Michael Parkinson, in an interview being screened on Saturday, how he had struggled with his conscience when making decisions about a potential war in Iraq.

"When you're faced with a decision like that, some of those decisions have been very, very difficult, most of all because you know these are people's lives and, in some case, their deaths," he said.

"The only way you can take a decision like that is to do the right thing according to your conscience."

He added: "In the end, there is a judgement that, I think if you have faith about these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people."

Asked to explain what he meant, Mr Blair replied: "If you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

Red Caps killed

Mr Keys, who stood in the 2005 General Election as an anti-war candidate in Mr Blair's constituency of Sedgefield, said going to war had been a "catastrophic political blunder".

Mr Keys' son, Lance Corporal Tom Keys, was one of six Red Caps killed by an Iraqi mob in Majar Al-Kabir in June 2003.

"War should be the final option that a prime minister takes when all avenues have failed. In my view those other avenues hadn't failed," said Mr Keys, the founder of campaign group Military Families Against The War.

"God doesn't come into this at all. We want to believe that our... loved ones... died for a justified cause, not some delusional religious cause."

He accused Mr Blair of "jumping on the same bandwagon" as US President George W Bush.

"Are we really seeing over 100 coffins coming back [to the UK] because God told him [Mr Blair] to go to war?"

Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon was killed in Basra in 2004, said: "A good Christian wouldn't be for this war.

"I'm actually quite disgusted by the comments. It's a joke."

Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP and honorary associate of the National Secular Society, said Mr Blair's comments were "bizarre" and warned against politicians making "references to deity" in public life.

However, Mr Pound told BBC Two's Newsnight that Mr Blair was being "painfully honest" and, as he would not be seeking re-election as prime minister, his comments should be taken as apolitical.

"If this was anything to do with trying to appeal to the electorate, he wouldn't be so excruciatingly honest," he said.

"If he was trying to go that awful American route of guns, gods and gays and try to link politics to religion, then he wouldn't be doing it this way."

Few political parties more fully deserved to lose a democratic election than Fatah, the corrupt, ramshackle Palestinian faction that has held a virtual monopoly on power since the Palestinian territories won a measure of self-government. Fatah's comprehensive defeat at the hands of Hamas, in elections that all international monitors agreed were fair, reflect the anger and frustration of 1.3 million Palestinian voters at the feuding, mismanagement and corruption of the late Yassir Arafat's cronies who have dominated the Fatah-led governments in the West Bank and Gaza. The electors have seen the ministerial villas amid the Gaza slums. They have suffered from the lawlessness. And they have seen huge sums donated from abroad squandered while the Palestinian economy stagnated. This is Arafat's true legacy.

Little wonder, therefore, that voters turned instead to Hamas, the Islamic militant group committed to the destruction of Israel. Swiftly learning the populist tricks of electioneering, Hamas ran an effective campaign. It played down its militant philosophy and played up its role in providing schools, clinics and welfare support for Gaza's slum-dwellers. Despite clashes with rival factions, it exercised restraint on polling day to win more than half the seats in the 132-member parliament in a turnout of 78 per cent. Ahmad Qureia, the Prime Minister, and his Cabinet promptly resigned.

The Hamas win is, nevertheless, a huge blow to the peace process, arguably far more serious than the incapacitating stroke of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister. Israel, the US and Europe have said that they will have nothing to do with Hamas unless it renounces violence and recognises Israel's right to exist. But effective government by the Palestinian Authority (PA) is impossible without a myriad of daily interactions with the Israelis. It is not only water supplies, fiscal stability, trade and movement that are intertwined with Israel; but Palestinians' chances of working inside Israel, getting through security barriers or leaving the country are wholly dependent on the overall security relationship.

Hamas may hope to concentrate at first on cleaner, more transparent government. It will soon find that without Israeli co-operation it can deliver almost nothing. Even if it no longer sponsors suicide bombings ­ it has carried out nearly 60 such attacks since 2000 ­ Hamas risks Israeli military retaliation and international isolation if it makes no effort to halt terrorist operations by its supporters or, crucially, by Islamic Jihad, the rival organisation that boycotted the elections. Much depends on its security policy and on whom it appoints to office.

How should the world react? Arab governments forecast, lamely, that Hamas will become more moderate and should be treated as any election winner. The West, which has long urged greater democracy in the region, accepts that an election verdict, however uncomfortable, must be accepted ­ but not, as Condoleezza Rice said yesterday, if Hamas has one foot in politics and one in terror. Europe must not settle for a messy verbal compromise on relations with Israel.

As the largest provider of funds for the PA, the European Union has, for too long, turned a blind eye to embezzlement. If Hamas can provide cleaner government while abjuring violence, Europe can continue support. If it does neither, both funding and acceptance should be promptly withdrawn. The EU funded Arafat's corruption. It must not finance Hamas terrorism.

"We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said.

"I'm much more worried about the consequences of a U.S. or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure," which would prompt vigorous Iranian retaliation, he said, than civil war in Iraq, which could be confined to that country.President George W. Bush has stressed he is seeking a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

But he has not taken the military option off the table and his recent rhetoric, plus tougher financial sanctions and actions against Iranian involvement in Iraq, has revived talk in Washington about a possible U.S. attack on Iran.
The Bush administration and many of its Gulf allies have expressed growing concern about Iran's rising influence in the region and the prospect of it acquiring a nuclear weapon.

There were fresh calls for a European Union tax as MEPs rejected the budget deal painstakingly won by Tony Blair. The Prime Minister faced fierce criticism when he surrendered 7 billion pounds of Britain's annual rebate to get agreement last month. But the package signed up to by EU leaders was embarrassingly rejected by MEPs who said it did not meet Europe's needs.

Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, who succeeded Mr Blair as EU President, suggested the EU should now become self-financing to avoid such wrangling. Speaking to Euro MEPs through an interpreter, the Chancellor conceded the idea was not popular everywhere. But Mr Schuessel said it was his job as EU President to make necessary proposals even if they were unpopular.

That will infuriate the UK Government, particularly Chancellor Gordon Brown. Gary Titley, leader of the British Labour MEPs, rejected the idea but suggested a "levy" system could be adopted across the EU. "There is an argument for saying instead of having this rather unsavoury argument every year where member states say 'we will give that, but want that back etc' there is a more rational system of financing," he said. "A European tax is not acceptable. It would have to be agreed unanimously and I can't see that would be agreed unanimously."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is visiting South America, said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo that Israel and its allies would not dare attack his country.

The remarks were made after Ahmadinejad was asked to refer to a British report that Israel plans to strike sites related to Iran 's nuclear program.
"They are aware of Iran's strength. I believe they will not do such a stupid thing, and its masters won't as well? Everyone knows that the Zionist regime has nuclear weapons while Iran abides by the international laws," the Iranian president said.

"This regime wants to hurt the Iranian people," Ahmadinejad added. "They have many dreams but they are not so strong." Ahmadinejad was asked in the interview whether he wants to see Israel destroyed, but failed to provide a direct answer. He referred in his answer to things he said in the past about Israel being wiped off the map "like the Soviet Union was wiped off the map." Where is the Soviet Union? It vanished," the president said. "We are not interested in war, we are only trying to solve the problem called the Zionist regime, which is the source of hatred."

In the interview, Ahmadinejad once again expressed his doubts over the Holocaust's existence. "If the Holocaust indeed took place, where did it take place? Why are the Palestinians to blame?" He said, reiterating his stance that what Europe's Jews went through during World War II did not justify the theft of Palestinian lands by Israel.