konane's Blog

Via Wizbangblog.com http://wizbangblog.com/  a link to Scared Santa Photos.

From Powerlineblog.com ...........

AL ZAWAHRI MESSAGE TO DEMS: WE BEAT GOP IN NOVEMBER...    via Drudgereport.com

"Al Qaeda Sends a Message to Democrats
December 22, 2006 2:28 PM

Brian Ross and Hoda Osman Report:

Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists. ........."

.......  "Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help. ........"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html

Giving credit where it's due, didn't know Dick Morris had a newsletter until Todd posted an article by him.... so subscribed.

Just had to post this new one about Hillary reinventing herself into a cookie baking mom .... warm fuzzies, no doubt following in Pelosi's footsteps .... mother of five, grandmother.  Yada, yada, yada ad nauseam for both.  Pass barf bag quickly .  Anyone summoning 1000 FBI files to the White House and who doesn't have the authority to view much less peruse for personal information, then "misplaces" them for months isn't your typical mom figure like June Clever.  That dog won't hunt.

"Hillary's New Strategy: The Mom President

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

December 21, 2006 -- “We’ve never had a mother who ever ran or was elected president…”

That was Hillary Clinton speaking earlier this week, when she appeared on the television show The View. Don’t think for a minute that she was just making an interesting historical observation. No, Hillary doesn’t work that way. She never says or does anything that hasn’t been perfectly scripted and endlessly polled beforehand. She had a message, a new strategy to try out. So look for the new “Mom Strategy” to be the anchor of her presidential run.

Forget Soccer Moms and Security Moms; now it’s going to be all Moms all the time — with Hillary as the biggest Mom of all.

The “Mom Strategy” is key to presenting the latest iteration of Hillary. She needs to move out of the center space that she populated in her last reincarnation as a moderate. That’s over. Because democratic primary voters are squarely at odds with her positions on the war in Iraq, she needs to move on. The “Mom Strategy” gives her a credible way to tack to the left on the war. She’s already begun. Last week, she told an NPR audience that she would have voted against the war if only she had known then what she knows now. Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

In furtherance of the new Mom strategy, she has re-released her best-selling book It Takes A Village. This time, she is pictured surrounded by adoring, well-groomed and respectful children on the cover. Just like Mom. This is no coincidence; it’s an element of the strategy. The subliminal message: I’m a Mom and I’m running for president. Moms take care of people, they’re compassionate and don’t want wars. The fact that the book isn’t selling well in its re-release — Amazon ranks it at 5,000 — doesn’t matter. It’s the cover photo that resonates.

Hillary the Hawk may ultimately be the way to win the centrists who dominate the general electorate. But Hillary, the Mom, another Mother for Peace, is the way to capture the left that runs the Democratic primaries. And that’s exactly what she’s doing.

Gender stereotypes are still alive and well in America and cut across men and women in all ideologies. Survey research shows that all voters believe that women are more compassionate, more focused on children and education, and more pro-peace than men. By tapping into this helpful stereotype, Hillary can flank her rivals on the left, even though her record of support for the war and collusion with the right wing on flag burning speaks loudly to the contrary.

Mom as a metaphor carries all the right messages: empathy with other mothers (particularly the heavily Democratic single moms), a commitment to education, and family values.

Now that Illinois Senator Barak Obama has threatened to bring a newer “first” to presidential politics — the first black may trump the first woman — Hillary answers by labeling herself as the first mother to seek the presidency.

(Actually, she’s not. While Elizabeth Dole — who ran in 2000 — has no children, another woman, who had two children, ran for president in 1872. Victoria Woodhull, an early suffragette — and mistress of Cornelius Vanderbilt — ran as the candidate of the Equal Rights Party).

Hillary’s new strategy echoes the 1996 Bill Clinton strategy in pushing a “fatherhood” agenda. Embracing the idea of taking responsibility, enforcing child support, promoting school uniforms and curfews, and fighting against teen smoking and sex and violence on TV, President Clinton promoted the idea of his fatherhood in his bid for re-election. He began his political career as Arkansas’ boy Governor. When he ran for president, he was everyone’s buddy — eating at McDonalds and jogging in baggy shorts — but as president he needed to grow up and project the subtle image of America’s father. In carefully choreographed photos, he was deliberately surrounded by adoring children looking up at him as he pushed his new message.

Now Hillary is seeking to run for president as America’s Mom — pro-peace, pro-family, pro-children. And it started last week on The View. Stay tuned. "

A friend says 'perfect paranoia is perfect awareness' which just may hold true in this instance.   

          http://www.stevequayle.com/index1.html

"Is It Now Illegal To Link To Other Websites?
Landmark Sydney legal ruling sets precedent for wholesale devastation of Internet news websites and blogs

From Powerline, Jamil Hussein who seems as credible as the "Green Helmet Man" did for Reuters awhile back ..... can't be produced by AP, can't be found by American independent journalists who have gone to Iraq in search of him.

Mainstream media =     

"If the Media Reported California News Like They Report News From Iraq
Written by Richard Geno
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Source Chronwatch.com

The liberal media bias has been successful at undermining American efforts in Iraq in an effort to destroy the presidency of George W. Bush. The net effect has been to place the citizens of the United States in great jeopardy. The objectivity that journalists once advocated has in recent years been discarded in exchange for promoting those stories that support their liberal agenda.

While any death is always tragic, people die in wars. That is why presidents and governments avoid going to war at all costs. That was true of President Bush as it relates to the war in Iraq. He waited a full six months after Congress gave its approval. Inevitably, when a western country goes to war, it waits too long. These delays cost many lives. It was true during World War II. In the case of the period between September, 2002 and March, 2003, there is significant speculation that weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria during that timespan.

Loss of life is a personal tragedy for the persons involved and their families. Between the beginning of the Iraq invasion until the summer of 2006, the media gave a person-by-person accounting of the American military death toll in Iraq. They did it because they did not support the operations in Iraq, and because it was an effective tool in turning the people against the Vietnam War a quarter of a century earlier.

More Americans died on the beaches of Normandy in one day than have died in Iraq in almost four years. The newspapers, mainstream televison news, and news magazines do not report the progress the United States makes in Iraq, but only the casualty count. There is no justification for this type of reporting other than to make a political point.

Journalists do not report the news of California the way they do the news from Iraq. Before making my analogy, I feel that I should say that I am a Californian. My parents were both born in California. Three out of four of my grandparents were born in California, and a few of my great-grandparents were born in California. I love California; however, what if the news media reported facts about California the way they report on Iraq?

Imagine what the outlook towards California would be around the United States and the world if the press reported accurately as follows:

Day 1 Headlines: 15 MURDERS OVER THE WEEKEND
Day 2 Headlines: 360 ASSAULTS YESTERDAY IN CALIFORNIA; 6 MORE MURDERS
Day 3 Headlines: OVER 16,000 VIOLENT ASSAULTS AND ROBBERIES IN NOVEMBER; NO END IN SIGHT
Day 4 Headlines: RAPES REPORTED IN CALIFORNIA FOR OCTOBER UPDATED TO OVER 800
Day 5 Headlines: ANOTHER $600 MILLION SPENT LAST MONTH TO HOUSE CALIFONIA CRIMINALS
Day 6 Headlines: FOR 30th MONTH IN A ROW, OVER 330 CALIFORNIANS KILLED ON HIGHWAYS
Day 7 Special Report: CALIFORNIA HAS HIGHER INMATE POPULATION THAN GERMANY,
FRANCE, THE NETHERLANDS, AND SINGAPORE COMBINED.

Believe me, this type of accurate reporting could go on day after day. Every year, over 4,000 Californians die in car accidents--approximately six times the average death rate of military personnel in Iraq. And, California technically is not a war-zone. The media asks the question why our military cannot stop the infiltration of insurgents from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria into the Iraq theater. Yet, between 3-5 million foreigners have sneaked into California illegally in recent years.

Another potential headline: ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN STATE COMPRISE POPULATION LARGER THAN SAN FRANCISCO, SAN DIEGO, SAN JOSE, AND SACRAMENTO COMBINED.

California's population is only 34% higher than Iraq; and every one of the statistics used in these sample headlines are accurate. What would be the impression of California if this was the day-in-and-day-out reporting we heard? Due to the liberal bias of the mainstream media, an unfair picture of Iraq has been painted. And the biased reporting of the news impacts all of us. "

About the Writer: Richard Geno has a bachelor's degree from the University of California at Berkeley, and also has a master's degree and a Ph.D.  ....." 

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=25690

Percolating just beneath the surface is incremental reform, cutting off another supply chain.  It's always slower and more dangerous when it's undertaken beginning with family as explained in this article.  God's protection be with anyone attempting to eradicate the so called "religion" bin Laden practiced, and which is killing American soldiers in Iraq.

Bold emphasis - mine.

Addendum:  I've read metaphysically that all wars in some manner or other have been based on religious differences.  The global war on terror seems to be no different but instead of Christian against Muslim, it seems to be radical Islam against radical Islam the winner of which gets to rule the entire globe (they think) force conversion, enslavement or kill the rest of us infidels.  Seems Hitler and other maniacal murderers believed something similar at one time.

"The dogs bark, the caravan moves on."

"That Middle Eastern proverb could well describe the events surrounding production of the world's most-hyped dud firecracker, the Iraq Study Group Report. After immense agonies in the mainstream media (MSM), those like myself who predicted the report, once released, would largely be ignored by President George W. Bush, are being proven right and neoconservatives who support a continued commitment to the transformation of Iraq have exhibited renewed influence.

Only a couple of lines in the report were worthy of comment. One appears on page 29 of the printed version: "Funding for the Sunni insurgency (sic) comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia." This was the first time anybody connected to the U.S. government acknowledged something known throughout the Muslim world. That is, Sunni terrorism in Iraq is not an insurgency, but an invasion; the "foreign fighters" are mainly Saudi, as revealed when their deaths are covered in Saudi media, replete with photographs of the "martyrs."

But this obscure comment was overlooked by most of the MSM, which is also befuddled by the recent sudden departure of Ambassador Turki al-Faisal from his post in the Royal Saudi Embassy in Washington. The MSM and a large part of the American government scratch their heads, barely capable of imagining that the revelation of the Saudi financing of Sunni terrorists in Iraq and the resignation of the kingdom's man in the U.S. would have anything in common.

Yet they are linked. Liberal reformers in the milieu of Saudi King Abdullah point out that Abdullah has called for an end to sectarian fighting in Iraq and has demanded that Shia Muslims no longer be called unbelievers by the Wahhabi clerics that still function, unfortunately, as the official interpreters of Islam in the Saudi kingdom. Abdullah has promised to spend $450 million on an ultra-modern security fence along the Saudi-Iraqi border. Ambassador Turki, it is said, supports Abdullah in these worthy goals.

But King Abdullah and the overwhelming Saudi majority, who want to live in a normal country, are opposed by the Wahhabi-line faction in the royal family. The pro-Wahhabi clique is led by three individuals: Prince Sultan Ibn Abd al-Aziz, minister of defense; Prince Bandar, predecessor of Turki as ambassador to Washington; and Sultan's brother, Prince Nayef. Nayef is notorious for having been the first prominent figure in the Muslim world to try to blame the atrocities of September 11, 2001 on Israel. He is deeply feared both inside and outside Saudi Arabia for his extremism.

Saudi sources indicate that King Abdullah is assembling his forces for a decisive confrontation with the reactionaries. Part of the Wahhabi-line strategy is to depict a U.S. leadership in conflict with King Abdullah, to undermine the monarch's credibility. That is why different versions of a meeting between U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and King Abdullah, late last month, circulate in the MSM and the blogosphere.

According to credible reports, Cheney urged Abdullah to stiffen action against Saudi-Wahhabi involvement in the Iraqi bloodletting. According to unreliable gadflies, King Abdullah commanded Cheney's presence, to demand that the U.S. immediately attack Iran. But the claim that King Abdullah summoned and berated Cheney does not ring true. King Abdullah is too polite, and Cheney does not take such orders, according to those who know both men.

Many leading clerics and intellectuals among Sunni Muslims indicate that King Abdullah has effectively told the Wahhabis that they will no longer receive official subsidies, and must end their violent jihad around the world. The greatest impact of this development may be seen in Iraq, but Wahhabis everywhere have begun to worry about their future. In a totalitarian system like Wahhabism, the weakest links snap first. And the beginning of the end for them may now be visible in the Muslim Balkans.

That the crisis of Wahhabi credibility would become manifest simultaneously in Washington, Baghdad, and Sarajevo might seem counter-intuitive to many Westerners, especially given that the former Yugoslavia is considered by foreigners to be marginal and insignificant. But for those who know the Islamic world, it makes perfect sense. The Saudis have tried for almost 15 years to use the difficulties of Bosnian and other local Islamic folk to drive the Balkan Muslims away from their traditional, spiritual, and peaceful form of Islam into Wahhabi radicalism. But Wahhabi agitators who went to ex-Yugoslavia to sow discord and reap recruits for terror have begun to show deep anxiety about the loss of their Saudi support, and now act in an ever more provocative and aggressive manner.

For their part, the Balkan Muslims are demonstrating an attitude of disgust and repudiation toward their alleged Saudi patrons, such that the Muslim Balkans may become the first "Wahhabi-free zone" in the global Islamic community, or umma. Months ago, Bosnian chief Islamic cleric Mustafa Ceric issued a document readable here, stating, "the most perilous force destabilizing the umma presently is from the inside." The Bosnians, according to Ceric, are "determined in [their] intention to protect the originality of the centuries-long tradition of the Islamic Community in Bosnia-Hercegovina."

In October 2006, imam Dzemo Redzematovic, leader of the Slavic Muslim minority in newly-independent Montenegro denounced the Wahhabis for "introducing a new approach to Islamic rules [that] is unnecessary and negative because it creates a rift among the believers" and "claims some exclusive right to interpret Islamic rules."

The Wahhabis had lost their chance in Bosnia-Hercegovina but were under close scrutiny in Montenegro. They were also active over the border, in southern Serbia. On November 3, as described here, a group of fanatics disrupted Friday prayers at a mosque in the town of Novipazar, assailing the imam for refusing to follow their "guidance." In the ensuing affray, two local Muslims allegedly replaced "the weapons of criticism" with "the criticism of weapons," and the Wahhabis were met with gunfire. Iraq, it seemed, had come to ex-Yugoslavia.

I was in Sarajevo when this incident occurred, and the outrage of the local Muslims against the Wahhabi interlopers was palpable then and has grown more aggravated since. Bosnian Muslim intellectuals became more militant in their anti-Wahhabi idiom. On November 18, a distinguished professor of Arabic at the University of Sarajevo, Esad Durakovic, wrote, "The snowball called Wahhabism has been rolling down the Bosnian hill, but it is still not certain which side is going to be struck by the avalanche.... Wahhabi efforts are extremely decisive and resolute... the response has to be more appropriate and urgent... Wahhabis are wrong when they think that they can act as a Taliban in Europe (just as they are wrong about everything else)... We have to act immediately." (translation here)

A week later, on November 25, Professor Resid Hafizovic of the Faculty of Islamic Studies of the University of Sarajevo was even bolder. An outstanding Balkan scholar of Sufism or Islamic spirituality, Hafizovic dramatically warned, "They Are Coming for Our Children." He accused the Wahhabis forthrightly:

Hafizovic identified the Wahhabi trail of blood traced through the past decade "Recognizing it as a continuation of the inferno in Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Palestine, the most powerful civil and religious authorities... should immediately take responsibility for preventing the hell Wahhabis are constructing in this country."

Questioned on Bosnian television about the country's receipt of aid from Saudi Arabia during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, Hafizovic said: "I would be very pleased if a full stop were put once and for all to the talk of the great and fabulous aid that Saudi Arabia has given [us]... Because we have to pay. The Saudis and their envoys keep asking us to pay... the price is such that we have to sell our people, our religion, our 500 years of religious and cultural tradition and legacy. And this is precisely what they want: our minds, our hearts, our souls... Let us put an end to this story once and for all and say: Dear [Saudi] gentlemen, if you keep rubbing our noses in the aid - and you are - we will give it back to you." Hafizovic and other Bosnian Muslim clerics and intellectuals call Wahhabism a virus.

Given these developments, global eradication of the Wahhabi virus may be in sight. "

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=121906A

There have been rumblings about this for about a year.

My son sent me this link. 

"Ghost Car" 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-SOBm70PjM&mode=related&search 

Well how interesting given the Libertarian party's stance on legalization of drugs.  If they would revise that position, also embrace a position of defending the US on the War On Terror no matter which nation it takes us to, you just might hear that great sucking sound of people bailing from both Dems and Repubs to a very strong third party which is fiscally responsible and which will do something real about invasion by illegal aliens.

"World's Smallest Political Quiz"        ..... over time I keep scoring as a conservative Libertarian.    You're welcome to post your score if you care to.

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Herman Cain, fabulous radio host who sits in for Neal Boortz sometimes.  I like Tiger and like this idea!

By Herman Cain

Source Townhall.com

"The current announced crop of 2008 Republican presidential contenders is about as inspiring as Saturday's leftovers for Monday's lunch. John McCain. We've seen that movie. Do we have to watch the sequel? Rudy Giuliani. Great leader, hates terrorists, but farther to the left than a Blue Dog Democrat. Mitt Romney. Where does he stand on the issues today?

Thankfully, as Monday turns to Tuesday, hope springs eternal for Friday night when, in my case, I order two pieces of fried catfish fillet and my favorite sides from my favorite restaurant. No more leftovers, no more cold sandwiches, just wide-eyed visions of spicy catfish with a dash of Tabasco. Which leads us to the 2016 presidential race. And Eldrick "Tiger" Woods.

The next president, likely a lifelong politician with too much inside-the-Beltway circular thinking, will have finished his two terms by 2016. By then we will still be victims of Beltway politics-as-usual and impotent leadership from both parties. The voters will long for a candidate who inspires the nation with an unwavering passion to fix problems and place policy over politics.

Tiger will be 40 years old in 2016. The Republican Party should begin grooming him now for a run at the White House. His personal attributes and accomplishments on the golf course point to a candidate who will be a problem solver, not a politician.

Tiger's success on the golf course, which will translate to success in the White House, is a product of his character, discipline and leadership by example. Tiger has one objective when he steps up to the first tee - win. The Republicans desperately need a candidate who will not seek personal legacies through political victories that compromise conservative ideology and increase the scope of federal government. Tiger's legacy is already set.

This year Tiger, at the age of 30, became the youngest golfer in history to amass 50 PGA victories. He currently has 54 career victories, fifth on the all-time list. Tiger already has 12 victories in major tournaments, second to Jack Nicklaus' 18 major wins. And, this year Tiger won a record seventh PGA Player of the Year Award. After dominating his competitors for so many years, do you really think Tiger wants to schlep around the Senior Tour when he turns 50?

History may bode well for a Tiger Woods presidential bid. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower, then a popular former World War II general and Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe, cruised to victory with 83 percent of the electoral vote over political insider Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic governor of Illinois. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, a former actor and governor of California, won 90 percent of the electoral vote over sitting President Jimmy Carter. To say Americans today are disillusioned with Congress and the President is an understatement. A November 6 Fox News/ Opinion Dynamics poll found 38 percent approval of President Bush, and just 29 percent approval of Congress.

Tiger has surely contemplated both his future goals in golf and his next challenges when he retires from the game. How refreshing to have a political outsider run for president again. I mercifully don't sense many phony platitudes toward a "compassionate" streak in Tiger. This is the same guy who beat the 1997 Masters Tournament field by 12 strokes - a record that still stands - at the age of 21, and then stated, "I've never played an entire tournament with my A-game. This was pretty close.'' Imagine what he would do to Islamic terrorists and Nancy Pelosi.

If the Democrats maintain control of Congress and the presidency through 2016, the big issues of restructuring Social Security, replacing the tax code and instilling free market forces in the health care system will still not be fixed. If the Republican Party regains the majority in Congress and retains the presidency, there is no guarantee that they will have the courage to make bold changes. Only an outsider will possess the leadership and the conviction to tackle the big issues without regard for the polls, media spin or inane promises of bipartisanship.

Tiger Woods could be an inspiring figure for the country, the likes of which we have not seen since Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ronald Reagan. Tiger's late father Earl Woods said in 1996 that the then-young golfer "will do more than any other man in history to change the course of humanity." The elder Woods added, "I made him a promise.'You'll never run into another person as mentally tough as you.' He hasn't. And he won't."

The Republican presidential candidate in 2016 must not come from inside the Beltway. He must come from inside the fairway, for all of us. "

Herman Cain is host of the nationally syndicated radio talk show The Bottom Line with Herman Cain and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com. "

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HermanCain/2006/12/12/tiger_in_2016!

Good metphysical article.

From SteveQuayle.com

"So You Think Your 401(k) Money is Safe

The popular accounts have little protection from theft. Smaller companies have raided the funds in hard times.

December 10, 2006
By Kathy M. Kristof
L.A. Times

MUSKEGON, MICH. — Jim Elliott, 55, spends his days clambering onto the tops of houses, taking measurements for the wooden trusses his company sells to support roofs through long, snowy winters.

Photo: Lost savings: Jim Elliott, 55, had put $230,000 in a 401(k) retirement account, but his employer took the money. Pensions come with federal insurance, but 401(k)s have no such protection. Elliott, who had hoped to retire at 60, now has another job. (Adam Bird / For the Times)

Not long ago, Elliott thought his ladder-climbing days would soon be over. With a few more years of work, his 401(k) account would be large enough to let him retire at 60 and spend his days with his three grandchildren.

Then Elliott learned that his former employer had looted the company's 401(k) plan. The $230,000 he had saved over three decades was gone.

A government-appointed trustee is trying to recover the money, but workers have been told they can expect to get back perhaps half what they lost.

"I'm going to be up measuring roofs when I'm 75 years old," said Elliott, a husky man with steel-gray hair. "I didn't do a lot of things over the years because I was trying to save for retirement. Now I see I was paying for somebody else's vacations."

If Elliott had a traditional pension, his retirement checks would be guaranteed under a federally backed insurance plan. But no comparable protection exists for 401(k)s, even though they are rapidly replacing pensions as the financial backbone of retirement for most Americans.

By law, all assets in 401(k) plans must be covered by private insurance policies known as fidelity bonds. But the bonds are required to cover just 10% of the retirement plan's assets or $1 million, whichever is less.

At companies with fewer than 100 employees — such as Elliott's company — the plans are not subject to annual independent audits that could deter embezzlement.

An estimated 9 million Americans have their savings in 401(k) and profit-sharing plans small enough to be exempt from the annual audit requirement. That's about 20% of the people in defined-contribution retirement plans. ....."

Better get your tofu recipes out .... soon they're going to place limits on the amount of beef and milk products we can purchase.

"Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 10 December 2006
Source The Independent

"Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide. ..........."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece