There are lots of situations in which you would require the assistance of a lawyer. If you are going to sell property, inherit ancestral property, settle marital issues, start a company, etc you need the assistance of legal experts to ensure that all the legal aspects associated with these matters are closely scrutinized and all formalities correctly fulfilled such that there is no hassle later. Without a lawyer you will not know how the laws apply and ignorance of mandatory legal rules and regulations can result in serious complications. Lawyers study laws and regulations of the land and no one knows better than them. Why Do You Need The Assistance Of Expert Professional Lawyers? If you are seeking a legal consultant, check out expert lawyers in the city you live. For example, if you live in North London look out for professional lawyers in this area of London who can give expert legal advice in the matter for which you need assistance. If your need is advice on family law, check out a reputable family lawyer London to get advice on family law so that you can settle matters in your favor. When you take the advice of a professional lawyer, you can be sure of speedy proceedings as they know all the laws and the ways to settle the matter in the shortest possible time. In addition to family law, professional lawyers in North London also provide advice on s other matters like property disputes, sale deeds, etc. In case you require legal assistance with regards to property matters go to lawyers who deal with commercial and residential properties. All your sales and purchases, remortgage matters will dealt by their legal team. You will get the professional legal assistance on the latest laws applicable in such matters. All matter with regards to property is managed by property lawyers and hence taking their advice will enable you to prepare the necessary documents that are mandatory according to the U.K law on property. If you have to undertake any legal proceedings, they will prepare the legal documents that are necessary so that the proceedings can take place as per schedule. Hiring expert lawyers will certainly make your task a whole lot easier. The legal area is complex with many laws governing different aspects such as property, marriage, will, company law, and much more. Managing all the legal proceedings is impossible without their guidance. By taking legal advice you can also thwart unnecessary problems from people, avoid misunderstandings and also ensure that problems do not arise when you start something new such as a business, gain property inheritance. In order to get the legal advice that you require, it is essential that you make a personal appointment with the lawyer of your choice. North London lawyers provide the right guidance and deal every case with seriousness it deserves. You can be sure of finding the right legal solution and getting the matter resolved in the shortest possible time.
1. You don’t have an up-to-date will. 2. You don’t understand the difference between a trust and a will. 3. Family members challenge your parent’s will. 4. You don’t understand your health insurance plan or the new Medicare Prescription Act. 5. The IRS selects you for an audit. 6. Your parents die and leave you executor of their estate. 7. You are tired of hidden fees at your bank. 8. You have a retirement savings plan. 9. You change jobs. 10. You receive a speeding ticket. 11. You are buying or selling your home. 12. Your driver’s license is suspended. 13. Your landlord raises rent in violation of your verbal agreement. 14. Your teenager is accused of shoplifting. 15. You decide to change your name. 16. Your new washing machine doesn’t wash. 17. Creditors threaten to take action against you for your ex-spouse’s debts. 18. A neighbor or school reports you for child abuse. 19. You adopt a child. 20. A friend or neighbor is injured on your property. 21. Your dog bites an elderly passerby. 22. A friend owes you money and files bankruptcy. 23. A stranger calls and demands money or damaging information will be released. 24. Your car is damaged by a hit-and-run driver. 25. You accidentally back over a neighbor’s garbage can. 26. A hairdresser damages your hair with harsh chemicals. 27. Your car is repossessed unjustly. 28. You are subpoenaed. 29. You are called to jury duty. 30. Your long drive off the tee injures another player. 31. You need a lease agreement reviewed. 32. Your son is injured in a football game. 33. A neighbor trips over a rake in your yard. 34. A jeweler sells you defective merchandise. 35. A car dealership gains illegal access to your credit history. 36. You are hit by a bottle at a baseball game. 37. A tenant falls down stairs and sues you. 38. Your dog is poisoned. 39. You are injured when you slip on a wet floor in a public building. 40. Your cattle trample a neighbor’s garden. 41. Your neighbor’s dog barks for hours every night. 42. Your teenager gets a speeding ticket. 43. Your landlord enters your apartment without permission. 44. Your child throws a baseball through a neighbor’s car window. 45. You don’t have a living will or medical power of attorney. 46. Your boat is damaged while in storage. 47. Your landlord refuses to refund your cleaning deposit. 48. You lose an expensive watch in a hotel and the manager denies liability. 49. A speeding car nicks your car bumper because you have parked in the street. 50. A merchant refuses to honor a guarantee. 51. You have an accident driving your friend’s boat. 52. Your spouse claims a right to your earnings. 53. A record club sends merchandise after you cancel your membership. 54. You are refused service at a restaurant. 55. A property manager refuses to rent to you. 56. You are denied credit for no apparent reason. 57. You are fired. 58. The auto repair shop threatens small claims court for money you don’t owe. 59. Your car insurance is cancelled when your teenager is involved in an accident. 60. Your child needs special education in public school. 61. You made a sizable gift to charity. 62. Angry words result in a slander law suit. 63. You need a patent for an invention. 64. You need a copyright for your manuscript. 65. You are wrongly accused of committing a crime. 66. Your right to privacy has been invaded. 67. Your car is vandalized in a parking lot. 68. A postal carrier slips on your unshoveled walk and breaks his or her leg. 69. You have a housekeeper in your home. 70. You are stopped for speeding and a friend is in possession of marijuana. 71. Your teenager wrecks the car and a friend is injured. 72. You care for your elderly parents. 73. You receive social security disability or Medicaid. 74. You are cheated by a door-to-door salesman. 75. A repairman charges more than a given estimate. 76. A creditor tries illegal collection tactics. 77. An accident results in a personal injury. 78. You are scheduled to appear in small claims court. 79. Your new house has bad plumbing and a leaky roof. 80. You take a vacation and your “room with a view” is a view of the trash dumpster. 81. A minor is caught breaking into your home. 82. You have a fender bender while driving a friend’s car. 83. You have liability questions in launching a new business. 84. A former employer refuses to pay you your final compensation. 85. Your neighbor’s dog bites your child. 86. You have a property line dispute over a newly installed fence. 87. You’re asked to testify as a witness to a robbery. 88. You need a premarital agreement. 89. You’re buying or selling a car. 90. Your child’s school demands a drug or alcohol test. 91. Your bank sends a foreclosure notice after one house payment is late. 92. A retail store won’t accept the return of defective merchandise. 93. A repairman won’t stand behind his work. 94. A trespasser is caught poaching on your land. 95. You are leasing acreage. 96. You receive a letter from a creditor and it is not your debt. 97. A bank turns you into a credit bureau unjustly. 98. You need advice concerning a divorce. 99. You own your own small business. 100. You can’t make heads or tails out of the new tax forms. 101. Your husband or wife uses physical force against you. Life Events Legal Plan Our product is a “Life Events Legal Plan”. This means the Pre-Paid Legal membership isn’t only a “fix” for sudden and unforeseen events. The plan is designed to provide the common legal services our members need throughout the course of their lives. In essence the “Life Events” nature of our legal plan actually encourages members to call their provider law firms when life happens and legal Counsel is essential. Members walk through events more confident and with less stress. The plan offers features to help when life gets more complicated as well. Ask your independent associate for a brochure that illustrates the benefits available in your state or province.
Interview with Barry Scott Zellen, Deputy Editor, “Strategic Insights”, and Research Editor of the Arctic Security Project at the Center for Contemporary Conflict.
Q. In your book “Breaking the Ice: From Land Claims to Tribal Sovereignty in the Arctic” (Lexington Books, 2008) you describe the long and, ultimately, fruitful quest by the native tribes of the Arctic to regain a modicum of sovereignty over their ancient lands. Can you give us a capsule history of this process?
BSZ: “Breaking the Ice” describes the movement for native land claims and indigenous rights in Alaska and the Canadian Arctic, and the resulting transformation in domestic politics as the indigenous peoples of the North gained an increasingly prominent role in the governance of their homeland. Its main thesis is that land claims started out as a tool whose primary aim was assimilation, as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was designed primarily as a contemporary tool of economic modernization – to quickly bring Alaska Natives into the modern economy, and its corporate model was a dominant characteristic. ANCSA’s original model proved inadequate to meet the full needs and aspirations of northern Natives, who sought to preserve their traditions (including subsistence harvesting) as much if not more than to modernize their economies, and whose movement to settle land claims was driven as much by their aspiration for civil and Aboriginal rights as it was for economic modernization – with the tribal sovereignty movement emerging to challenge the new corporate culture created by land claims implementation, and which in Alaska placed Aboriginal title to traditional lands at risk of forfeiture if the land claim was not modified by 1991. When land claims crossed into Canada and came to the NWT in 1984 with the passage of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA), the model was significantly modified – so that land claims would, in addition to creating new corporations to manage Native lands, financial compensation, and investments, also help to promote Aboriginal culture and traditions, preserve the land and the wildlife, and help empower not just new corporate interests but also traditional cultural interests as well. Alaska Natives likewise sought to modify their original land claim, working to defuse what was sometimes called the “1991 time bomb” which would have seen Native land title come under risk. Additional efforts, often resulting in political tensions with non-Native interests, have been made to protect subsistence hunting in the years that have followed ANCSA’s enactment. With these efforts by Natives to transform the land claims model – and make it reflect not just the future as defined by modern governments but also their age-old traditions – land claims now help to balance both visions of the Arctic’s future. While not perfect, land claims have proven to be resilient and adaptive – providing northern Natives with an important stepping stone toward self-government, protecting much of their traditional land base, while at the same providing them with tools and managerial experience to make self-government more viable and successful.
Q. What distinguished the Arctic tribal revival from neotribal upsurges elsewhere (for instance, in the Balkans)? What innovative techniques of negotiation, mediation, and bargaining have they deployed to achieve their aims? To what do you attribute their ultimate success?
BSZ: Land claims in the Arctic were the first concrete step in the process of decolonizing the North by devolving decision-making authority from what many northerners have long perceived to be far away, colonial centers of administration and decision-making to local communities: by letting go, central authorities were in fact strengthening their hand, gaining greater political legitimacy through their new collaboration, co-management, and devolutionary policies. After more than 35 years, the process begun by land claims that started in Alaska in 1971 is still by no means complete. Indeed, throughout large portions of Canada, hundreds of specific and regional land claims agreements are either still in the process of being settled, or have yet to be started, having proceeded at a snail’s pace for over three decades, precipitating a political crisis in June 2007 when renewed fears of Native militancy began to spread. Ottawa has since redoubled its commitment to a just and lasting reconciliation between Native and non-Native, promising to empower its Indian Claims Commission (ICC), created in 1991, by creating a new, independent tribunal to more speedily resolve Native claims. Furthermore, nearly four decades after the U.S. Congress enacted ANCSA, many Native villages continue to reject the land claims model in favor of alternative approaches to Native empowerment, such as through tribal governance. However, most of the Arctic has embraced the land claims model as an important step forward-if also a necessary evil-in their effort to restore Aboriginal rights, political control, and elements of their tribal sovereignty. As a result, the many Inuit communities along the Arctic littoral have now settled their land claims, and have moved on to the challenges of restoring self-government to their homeland.
Generally speaking, the tribal experience in the Arctic mirrors the tribal experience around the world. One major differentiator, of course, is that the United States was fundamentally transformed by its own civil rights movement, which solidified the ideals that were militarily victorious during the U.S. Civil War. It took a long time, but by the end of the 1960s, minority rights of all sorts, even the relatively late-blooming field of Aboriginal rights, had worked their way into the psyche of decision-makers at all levels of government, providing a fairly welcoming environment for land claims negotiations and other processes of Native empowerment. Even in places like Alaska where strong state interests have been pitted against the Native community in a long battle over who controls the resource wealth extracted from the land, the situation between state and tribe is far more harmonious than between state and tribe in other parts of the world where ethnic violence and civil warfare have erupted in response to the same centrifugal forces.
In the Arctic, as in many parts of the world that were once colonized, colonial impulses long dictated the pace of the North’s political development. What the North offered the South, in terms of economic opportunity as well as military security, drove the northward expansion of government, which in turn contributed to a growing indigenous, pan-Arctic movement for greater autonomy that ultimately redrew the map of northern Canada and Alaska, as these new institutions of local and regional self-governance proliferated, first gaining regulatory powers and later, governmental authority (most dramatically illustrated by the birth of the Nunavut territory in 1999, an Inuit-governed territory.) The roots of this drama thus date back to the expansion of commerce by Europe’s great powers into the northernmost reaches of North America: Russia expanded its empire from Siberia to Russian America, extending juridical sovereignty over Alaska in the 19th century; Britain, through the Hudson’s Bay Company, penetrated the interior northern territory known as Rupert’s Land even earlier, transforming the political economy of the indigenous northland from pure subsistence to commercial hunting and trapping.
Across the Arctic and sub-Arctic, there has been a long legacy of government-from-afar, and generations of northerners have felt a deep and troubling concern with the ongoing neglect by distant government administrators. The interests and needs of Northern Native peoples had, in fact, been neglected since the time of first contact, and in the early years of colonization of the North, those colonial governments had a tendency to overlook the rights of First Peoples, using disproportionate levels of military force, as the Russians and Americans both did in early Alaskan history. With time, however, the concept of Aboriginal rights evolved-and gradually transformed the political relationship between governments and the people of the North, as colonialism gave way to democratic impulses and greater political participation by Native peoples in the governing of the North. While the forces of modernism and traditionalism would continue to clash in the years ahead, these conflicts would be managed by the structures of co-management, corporate development, and self-government created by the region’s comprehensive land claims settlements.
What Natives have achieved in northern Canada, through peaceful negotiation, with their negotiation partner many times more powerful by any military or economic measure, is remarkable. Especially when compared to the chaos and violence that have resulted from other tribal aspirations along the Cold War’s other peripheral regions where unassimilated, un-integrated tribal and sub-national movements emerged to challenge the old state boundaries. The age of land claims has transmuted this very same tribal force into something else altogether in the North: a peaceful force to spawn the emergence of new structures of Aboriginal self-government. Caught between their tribal past and the demands of a modern future, they’ve crafted a synthesis between these two competing, dialectical forces. I believe the outcome of this clash between tribe and state, a blending of contemporary economic, political and constitutional institutions to preserve age-old traditions, defines the very essence of neotribalism — neither a surrender to the forces of assimilation, colonialism, or even imperial occupation; nor a rejection of the modern state outright. Instead, the Natives North, walking in two worlds, have found ways to blend elements of both, forging a unique and one might hope enduring synthesis.
Q. The Arctic Peoples had the largely benign government of Canada as their interlocutor. Even so, initially, they had to resort to force and even kill. What makes you think that their methods would be applicable to the junta of Myanmar, to China’s Communist Party, or to the Russian Kremlin?
BSZ: The junta in Burma and the Chinese Communist Party aren’t so very different in their mindset from the military governments that governed Alaska early in its history. My sense is that in time, with generational change, we will witness domestic political transformations in both countries, with some elements of democratization. Looking at Chinese press coverage of the recent earthquake in Sichuan, I was struck by how that government felt the need to embrace, at least for the moment, a free press, and to let that free press cover the tragedy, and the government’s response, with unexpected liberty. It reminded me of how after Chernobyl, the reformist Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev realized the scale of the disaster and the corrosive effect of unfiltered gossip demanded a similar loosening of press restrictions, and as we now know, there was no turning it off.
I think China will experience something similar; there are too many channels of communications, whether through wireless telecom, the wired Internet, foreign radio, TV and web broadcasts, underground press and unofficial blogs, even the simple but powerful new reality of camera-phones transmitting images without any real possibility of real-time censorship, as Beijing learned only a few months earlier during the spontaneous pan-Tibetan uprisings that proliferated like a flash-mob. Burma, being much further behind in economic and infrastructure development, may remain immune from these forces for a longer period. Its initial reaction to its own recent disaster was quite contrary to Beijing’s response; but after a week or two, it’s started to lift some of its earlier restrictions on international aid. And last summer during the monks’ rebellion, the Burmese government simply unplugged the Internet to prevent imagery of the uprising and its crackdown from reaching the world.
As for Russia, the Kremlin does seem to miss the old Soviet days of an iron fist and no real civil society to restrain the heavy hand of the state. But with so much of its natural resources in the Russian Arctic, requiring some degree of Native support to ensure the security of pipelines and other isolated infrastructure associated with getting resources like natural gas to market, I suspect we’ll also see something of a softening in terms of Moscow’s approach to indigenous minorities. Moscow, like Beijing, might in the end realize the business benefits of positive PR, which can help to really seed the market for future cooperation. If Russia, like China, wants to sell its natural resources and/or manufactured products to the democratic world, playing nice with its own minorities might go far to boost business. This economic pragmatism, which could well take root in both China and Russia, may in the end lead to a political thaw, even if it stops short of true democracy. Within this evolving environment of accommodation, tribal minorities might find much more room for both asserting, and fulfilling, their aspirations.
Or, perhaps a limit will be reached, as we saw last summer in Burma when the unarmed monks bravely rose up only to be quickly smacked down by the state. It might well be the governments, long used to oppressing their ethnic minorities, might be reluctant to mellow. But my instinct tells me that history is on the side of a gradual thawing that will result in Aboriginal rights becoming the rule and not the exception, and the experience of Alaska and Canadian Natives will be mirrored even in countries that today seem much less hospitable to minority rights.
Interestingly, I read in the April 24 edition of the “Barents Observer” an article that reported Gazprom had “got the necessary consent from regional indigenous peoples for the development of the huge Bovanenkovskoe field in the Yamal Peninsula,” and that the chief of the Gazprom Dobycha Nadym subsidiary had claimed “the intrusion of the oil industry in a zone managed by indigenous peoples is conducted in a highly careful and civilized manner” and that “all decisions regarding the laying of pipelines and infrastructure in the area are made only after consultations with representatives of the regional indigenous peoples.” While quite likely an overstatement, it does suggest some movement in this direction is already happening. With oil at $130 per barrel, there is enough profit to share with local stakeholders, so at least the opportunity exists for fair compensation and remediation of cultural and environmental impacts. I think in China there is a similar pushback by locals, whether members of China’s many indigenous minority groups or even the Han majority, as more and more people lose their fear of the party or of the state, and demand justice, fairness and inclusion.
So in sum, while there are dictatorships and authoritarian regimes that are hostile to minority rights, the fact that the USSR could collapse or the brutal Apartheid regime could allow itself to be digested by a democratic revolution only fifteen or twenty years ago suggests the night is young, and that anything is possible!
Q. In the wake of the Cold War, do you believe the Nation-State is on the wane? What caused what: did resurgent tribal tensions and claims destabilize the State or did the gradual diminishment in the role of the State give rise to tribal and ethnic friction?
BSZ: I don’t think the nation-state is on the wane, but I do think the nation-state has had to adapt to the post Cold War era, and move beyond ideology, and back to the core building blocks of the state. In some multi-ethnic societies, this proved especially challenging, as we saw in the Balkans where minority groups that controlled demographically cohesive territories demanded outright sovereignty, resulting in state collapse. With tribalism resurgent, the nation-state must reach out and find a way to accommodate the interests of small and often outnumbered minorities, lest it face all sorts of internal resistance to its authority. Tribes may not have the power to escape state domination but they do have plenty of wiggle room to define greater autonomy. Some, like the Kosovars, found willing allies in the international community to make formal sovereignty possible, but most tribal minorities are on their own, without an international benefactor to come to their rescue. So it is up to them to learn what the limits are, what methods work, and how far the state can be pushed in terms of granting autonomy. The Natives of the Arctic have shown tremendous insight in identifying the limits of autonomy, hence the very different structures and outcomes as seen in Alaska, as compared to the Northwest Territories, as compared to Nunavut. As time went by, more and more became possible that had been hitherto denied as the concept of Aboriginal rights evolved and the state grew more comfortable with devolving authority.
The land claims journey, and the transformation of the land claims model from being a tool of assimilation, wielded by state against peripheral and interior tribes, into a tool of empowerment wielded by the tribe against those very forces of assimilation induced by the continued penetration of the modern state into its frontier region, reveals a fundamentally dialectical interaction (inherently interactive and iterative, but obscuring cause and effect), but this suggests the potential for a synthesis to the long conflict between state and tribe since the modern era of nation-states began. Earlier in history, as the state expanded, it digested tribal entities; those that refused to modernize were subsequently crushed by the state’s expanded power. When the modern state crossed the Atlantic to the New World, finding hundreds of tribal groups at an earlier level of industrial development, it overwhelmed those tribes militarily, eventually conquering the Americas. But within the new constitutional structures that emerged in post-revolutionary America, surviving tribes were able to preserve their identity and apply tools of the modern state to preserve their own survival. In so doing, I believe they made the state stronger, by enriching its constitutional DNA. Something similar, I believe, will inevitably happen all around the world.
Q. The environmental movement has been heavily involved (under the mantle of “sustainable development”) in the protracted battle of the Peoples of the Arctic. Is sustainable development an oxymoron? Is the environmental movement being overly politicized? Do you see other ethnic groups leveraging or even abusing environmental principles to further their narrow political and economic agendas?
BSZ: I don’t think sustainable development is oxymoronic, though it is clearly an aspirational concept that is expensive, and quite difficult, to achieve. Development can be sustained so long as resources remain accessible, and so long decision-making and regulatory structures and supportive values exist to ensure that development does not happen at a pace or in a manner that obliterates the local, cultural, and tribal values of the indigenous peoples whose homelands contain the resources sought by the resource development entities. If you look at how exploration and development of natural resources has evolved in the last century, you can see remarkable progress, so much so that the environment and the local indigenous peoples are no longer merely bulldozed out of the way, but included in the process, with environmental assessments, cultural impact studies, and participation agreements routinely implemented.
Sure, some activities like oil drilling and mining, will always leave long-term scars on the land, and present significant risks of environmental contamination. But at least now when this happens, there are efforts at remediation and compensation, which is of itself a big win for the Native peoples who not too long ago were neither consulted not compensated. That being said, any development activity does impact the land and the people, and these impacts mean that the old, pristine, world is forever gone. The new world is more complicated, messier, but it also offers many other tangible fruits: such as educational, medical, and transportation improvements that help increase life span and improve the quality of life. Not all change is bad, just as not all development activities are unsustainable.
As for the politicization of the environmental movement, and its polarization, this is something that does concern me. Many of those committed to political action recognize the need to mobilize a coalition of likeminded actors, whether states, corporations, and/or individuals to act united against the threat perceived. Case in point: climate change. When it comes to the movement to stop climate change or to slow its onset, the need for mobilization does seem to color their analysis: to warn the sky is falling is more effective, the activists of climate change believe intuitively, than a more balanced and nuanced assessment of risk, with all its inherent ambiguities. In short, the subtleties of nature, the inherent complexities, are often ignored by those committed to political action, which requires at least the illusion of certainty.
Q. Is the Arctic Thaw for real – or is it a figment of the febrile and not too scientific imagination of environmental advocates?
BSZ: Yes, it is real! Something truly transformative is indeed happening up along our last frontier! The long frozen, seemingly impenetrable polar sea is starting to thaw, unexpectedly fast, opening up larger and larger portions of the Arctic Ocean to seasonally ice-free conditions for longer and longer periods of time. So quickly is the ice melting that the prospect of a navigable, ice-free Arctic Ocean is no longer the stuff of fanciful imagination, and has been the topic of two NOAA National Ice Center-sponsored conferences, the April 2001 Naval Operations in an Ice Free Arctic Symposium, and the July 2007 Impact of an Ice-Diminishing Arctic on Naval and Maritime Operations Symposium. Within our lifetimes, and possibly in less than a single generation, we may witness the opening up of Arctic sea lanes that are fully navigable year-round: the strategic, economic and diplomatic consequences will be enormous. According to scientists from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free by 2060 if current warming trends continue. NSIDC research last summer found that the Arctic was “experiencing an unprecedented sixth consecutive year with much less sea ice than normal,” and that the extent of Arctic sea ice for 2007 “set a new record minimum that [was] substantially below the 2005 record.” This summer looks to be on track for a near-record melt, though probably not as extreme as last summer’s.
The impacts of global warming and the resulting Arctic thaw will be profound. Michael T. Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and defense correspondent for “The Nation,” once explained to me that “global warming will affect resource competition and conflict profoundly” in the coming years, and while “global warming’s effects cannot be predicted with certainty, it is likely to produce diminished rainfall in many parts of the world, leading to a rise in desertification in these areas and a decline in their ability to sustain agriculture” — which may in turn “force people to fight over remaining sources of water and arable land, or to migrate in large numbers to other areas, where their presence may be resented by the existing inhabitants.” Klare said that “global warming is also expected to produce a significant rise global sea levels, and this will result in the inundation of low-lying coastal areas around the world,” resulting in “the widespread loss of agricultural lands, forcing many millions of people to migrate to higher areas, possible encountering resistance in the process.” He cautioned that “because many poor countries will be unable to cope with the catastrophic effects of global warming, state collapse is a likely result along with an accompanying epidemic of warlordism, ethnic violence, and civil disorder.”
There are climate change skeptics and deniers out there; but I’ve seen evidence of the thaw, from melting permafrost and boiling methane fields, to the emergence of new hybrid polar/brown bears as a new genetic mixing takes place with more and more of the proud white bears migrating south, onto land, where they not only compete with the grizzlies but are now breeding with them. We’re witnessing the birth of a new sub-species, and though this could mean the end for the polar bear as a distinct subspecies, it is evidence of how profound the changes taking place are.
Q. What are the geostrategic implications of the Arctic Thaw? Are we likely to witness a Second Cold War premised on a neo-colonialist pursuit of mineral deposits in the Arctic? If so, who would be the likely contestants? Is the situation likely to escalate to open warfare?
BSZ: As with all things, there are Arctic pessimists and optimists. I find myself torn between the logic of both schools of thought. In my gut, while the changes happening are profound, I think they may turn out to be positive in the North, fostering a concert of mutual interests that can be sustained through an open, navigable, polar sea, with resources a plenty for all stakeholders. And since the Arctic basin is a sea and not a continent, we won’t see as many of the territorial divisions that resulted, much to the world’s regret, in the modern Middle East, with artificial states bisecting nomadic, tribal and national groups, leaving a legacy of friction, conflict and war. What remains to be carved up is offshore. We will probably see a militarization of the Arctic region, and a significant increase in naval activity. But this will likely be more defensive than offensive, protecting sea lanes and ports.
In the Arctic region itself, the melting ice will open up an entire ocean that has been ice-covered for millennia, bringing an end to what we can think of as the final chapter of the last ice age. As the polar ice melts, we’ll witness the gradual emergence a brand new world, unlocking what just a few years ago would have been unimaginable economic opportunities, as the long-closed Arctic waterways open up to rising volumes of commercial shipping and naval traffic, and as the thinning (and later disappearing) ice makes it more cost-effective, and technologically viable, to explore the region’s undersea natural resource potential, and to fully develop those new discoveries. This new world is not unlike that discovered by early explorers when they journeyed across the Atlantic, from the Old World to the New, in search of undiscovered countries and riches. We, too, are on a journey of discovery to a new and unknown world-a world full of riches unknown, but not unimagined! But it’s the imagination of these riches that led a new diplomatic crisis, which began last August 2, not long after Russia dispatched the flagship of its Antarctic research fleet, the Akademik Fyodorov, and the nuclear-powered icebreaker Rossiya to the North Pole, where Artur Chilingarov, Deputy Speaker in Russia’s Lower House and a well-known polar hero from Soviet times, and fellow parliamentarian Vladimir Gruzdev, descended 4,200 metres to the sea floor in a Mir mini-sub, where they left a titanium Russian flag and boldly laid claim to the North Pole on behalf of mother Russia. While the stated objective of their undersea polar mission was to advance Russia’s claim to a vast extension of its continental shelf extending from Russia’s northern shores to the North Pole along the Lomonosov Ridge, the expedition was largely a public relations stunt designed to bring Russia’s claim to the attention of the world. A more properly scientific mission exploring the undersea contours of the Lomonosov Ridge and retrieving geological samples to help Russia back its claim with scientific evidence took place in May 2007.
Prior to their descent into the chilly depths, Chilingarov announced, “The Arctic is Russian. We must prove the North Pole is an extension of the Russian coastal shelf,” and asserted. “The Arctic is ours and we should manifest our presence.” Upon resurfacing to an international diplomatic uproar, he proclaimed: “I don’t give a damn what all these foreign politicians there are saying about this. If someone doesn’t like this, let them go down themselves,” and to “then try to put something there.” He further stated that “Russia must win. Russia has what it takes to win. The Arctic has always been Russian.” Russia’s claim was quickly rejected by Canada, whose High Arctic archipelago abuts the North Pole, where its own territorial ambitions come face to face with Russia’s recent polar assertiveness. As then Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay, who was later reassigned to run the Defense Ministry, told the press, “You can’t going around the world these days dropping a flag somewhere,” adding, “This isn’t the 14th or 15th century!” Yet at the same time, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper hastily embarked upon a three-day Arctic visit during which he announced Canada’s decision to develop a $100 million deepwater port facility at Nanisivik, near the eastern entrance of the Northwest Passage, boosting Canada’s ability to project naval power into not just the waters of the fabled passage, but into the High Arctic as well. Harper also announced the formation of an Arctic training facility for its armed forces at Resolute Bay. He had announced a month before his government’s intentions to spend over $7 billion to build and maintain six to eight Polar Class 5 Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships. As Harper explained: “Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic. We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this government intends to use it.” The Russians evidently share this use it or lose it philosophy; in addition to its recent expeditions in Arctic waters, its air force soon commenced strategic bomber exercises over the North Pole, where it practiced firing cruise missiles, navigating the polar region, and aerial refueling.
While Ottawa and Moscow were engaged in a muscular display of diplomacy reminiscent of the Cold War, hope was not lost for a more multilateral approach. According to the Law of the Sea Convention, in addition to a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ), signatories may also claim as additional territory any extensions to their continental shelves that they can scientifically substantiate. Russia, Denmark and Canada all hope the Lomonosov structure extends outward from their continental shelf; all treaty signatories have ten years from their signing to make their claim. Russia first claimed the ridge in 2001 but the International Seabed Authority requested scientific proof. Denmark is currently conducting research to make its case, as is Canada. Because Canada did not sign the Law of the Sea Convention until 2003, it has until 2013 to make its case, while Russia signed in 1997, so must submit its evidence this year. Denmark signed in 2001 so has until 2011. The United States, owing to its recent taste for unilateralism, has yet to sign the treaty-so for the moment is on the sidelines in the race for Arctic claims, though its newest icebreaker, the USCGC Healy, soon after the Russian polar theatrics, steamed North into the Beaufort Sea to map the U.S. continental shelf as part of its Arctic West Summer (AWS) 2007 expedition, and is again in northern waters conducting further undersea research for AWS 2008.
Despite this brewing regional rivalry, my view is that when the Arctic ice melts, the polar sea will reunite the Atlantic and the Pacific, and this will be huge enough a win for all: shipping lanes will traverse the pole, shortening trade routes between Asia and Europe, reducing the cost of transportation and consumption of fuel. This will mean bypassing many of the troublesome chokepoints that leave many countries vulnerable to terrorism and piracy. As well, the undersea resources of the Arctic are among the last, virgin natural resource deposits left on Earth, some experts think one third of the world’s hydrocarbons might lie offshore in the Arctic region. If so, that means the potential of a steady oil supply without having to worry about the political chaos of the Middle East, and gives us great reason to come to a full and lasting peace with Russia, who owns the other half of the Arctic but will obviously want to export these resources to such oil-hungry markets as China, Japan, Europe, and possibly even North America. Business has a way of turning political opponents into close friends.
Q. What would be the role of indigenous Arctic tribes and Peoples in such a future race for mineral wealth and geopolitical prowess?
BSZ: The potential economic benefits from resource development and transpolar shipping will bring much hope to the indigenous people of the North in terms of jobs, training, education, medical services, and other essentials. And this might help reduce the tragic situation in the Arctic villages in terms of epidemic suicide levels and widespread social problems that are perpetuated by the poverty, lack of opportunity, and harshness of the climate. With climate change, there is at least some hope of real, lasting change and new opportunity. It will be disruptive, and challenge many traditions, but there is reason to be optimistic. With the real political gains of land claims and the various self-government processes, Natives are positioned to reap huge rewards from the coming wave of development. They own most of the coastal land, have significant regulatory powers and various co-management regimes that will ensure numerous benefits, from training and employment, including indigenous hiring and tendering preferences, to royalties, compensation, and remediation guarantees. The Inuit will find themselves in a central role not unlike that now enjoyed by the Saudi royal family.
Q. What can the United States and Canada do to forestall such ominous developments?
BSZ: As many experts have suggested, the impacts of global warming and the resulting Arctic thaw will indeed be profound. But there is a tendency to exaggerate the negative, while dismissing the positive dimensions of these impacts. Climate change pessimists worry about increased resource competition, coastal flooding, infrastructure damage from melting permafrost, changes in wildlife migration patterns, and stresses on some species-especially polar bears-as well as on the indigenous cultures of the region. So fearful of this calamity have we become that former Vice President Al Gore won a coveted Nobel Prize for Peace for his efforts to delay its onset, as if global warming was itself an act of war against mother earth.
But it may not turn out so bad. The melting ice will open up an entire ocean that has been ice-covered for millennia, bringing an end to what we can think of as the final chapter of the last ice age. We’ll witness the emergence a brand new world, unlocking what just a few years ago would have been unimaginable economic opportunities, as the long-closed Arctic waterways experience rising volumes of commercial and naval traffic, and as the disappearing ice makes it more cost-effective, and technologically viable, to explore the region’s vast undersea natural resource potential. This will in turn stimulate the economic development of Arctic ports and communities, and secure sea lanes across the top will enable shipping of strategic commodities without the risks associated with our current sea lanes and their vulnerable chokepoints, reducing the risk of war and conflict. So while pessimists fear the changes that are under way, a more optimistic, and ultimately more prudent, approach would be to prepare to make the most of these new, emerging opportunities. Just as scholar Francis Fukuyama described the end of the Cold War as the “End of History” as we knew it and the start of a new and uncertain era, we once again find ourselves standing at the threshold of new era that promises not just uncertainty, but also much hope and opportunity for the people of the North. Because of this under-appreciated upside potential, I believe that Canada and the United States should not in fact do anything to forestall global warming but instead prepare to leverage these potential opportunities as they emerge.
Q. Is the issue of Climate Change being trivialized and leveraged by politicians, tribes, and states in the Arctic? If so, can you tell us how?
BSZ: I’m not sure the problem is one of trivializing the issue. I think the real problem is all the pessimism, and the negative hype, which prevents a more balanced debate from taking place. Indeed, many indigenous leaders in the North have joined with former U.S. Vice President, 2007 Academy Award winner, and 2008 Nobel Peace prize winner Al Gore and his allies to try to stop the clock. Yet while many respected theorists, climate scientists, policy-makers, diplomats, statesmen, and world leaders have concluded like Gore that the earth is spinning out of control toward certain doom, and that action is required at a planetary level to prevent the coming tragedy caused by climate change, my view is that the future is as yet unwritten, and though evidence of climate change has tipped from possible to probable (the deep, bone-chilling Arctic winter of 2008 notwithstanding), the debate on winners and losers is still one worth having, and that rumors of our imminent demise, as a species, as a planet, may in fact be greatly exaggerated.
Many of those committed to political action recognize the need to mobilize a global coalition of states, corporations, and individuals to act united against the threat of climate change, and this need for mobilization colors their analysis: to warn the sky is falling is more effective, the activists of climate change believe intuitively, than a more balanced and nuanced assessment of risk, with all its inherent ambiguities. As pioneering quantum theorist Heisenberg observed, at the fundamental level of perception, the act of observation influences the outcome of events since the lonely photon that measures any atom’s position or momentum also changes these coordinates in time and space. Thus we can never know, with certainty, since the act of observation changes reality. Uncertainty transcends the impact of observation itself; deeper down, in the bowels of quantum reality, we are confronted with a greater mosaic of duality and contradiction. Just as Einstein showed energy and mass were different expressions of the same thing, and that one could be converted to the other and vice versa, Heisenberg is famous for introducing us to the wave-particle duality, which tells us that atoms can act like particles, and waves, with their distinct behavioral differences, and that probability itself is part and parcel of the fabric of the universe at the subatomic level. Up higher, in the Newtonian world that we more readily understand, we have clarity and certainty and predictability, but down deep in the inner folds of the universe’s underlying fabric, we only have uncertainty, ambiguity, and duality, an omnipresence of chaos, albeit with meta-patterns that hint at an underlying order.
Political action has always been a Newtonian phenomenon, with the individual atomic unit being us, people, and our various aggregations into groups, be they corporations, social groups, or states. But scientific knowledge, with its complex granularity, from the macro to the micro, from the cosmic to the quantum, has been forced to recognize harder truths, such as those unearthed by the imaginative leaps of Einstein and Heisenberg, among others. And these harder truths are, at the quantum level, riddled with ambiguity. And when scaled up to global systems, those ambiguities do not disappear, but cast a long shadow. Climate change is thus a realm of scientific thought that currently aspires for a certainty compatible with political mobilization for action, but which in fact is fertile ground for the riddles of chaos theory, and the dualistic ambiguities of quantum uncertainty.
And so the activists tell us, the sky is falling, as Gore told us as he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. (His words were more concise, more humble, and more appropriate when he accepted his Oscar in Hollywood earlier in 2007.) But what if they are wrong? What if their position has become reified because they believe the stakes are so high, that inaction itself is tantamount to complicity in planetary genocide? What if they have taken a page from the anti-nuclear movement, arguing that there are, cannot be, will not be winners in nuclear war, so we must bottle up our atomic genie, and step away from the nuclear chasm before we fall in and self-destruct? During the Cold War, the anti-nuclear activists had their faith that we would all be losers in nuclear war, that the only solution was stepping back, and seeking nuclear abolition. But theirs was not the only point of view: closer to the strategic nerve-centers of the nuclear states were a diverse ecosystem of nuclear thinkers, strategists, and planners whose jobs involved figuring out how to do what the anti-nuclearists said was impossible: winning a nuclear war. Men like Herman Kahn dared to “think about the unthinkable,” coming up with various proposals and ideas to mitigate the risks and dangers of nuclear war, from more thoughtful civil defense, to more detailed war plans in the case deterrence failed. The Cold War ended suddenly before there was an apocalyptic show-down, so we’ll never know who was right or wrong. But with regard to climate change, we must confront this self-same duality, this annoying ambiguity, this reluctant riddle that remains unanswered: are there both winners and losers in climate change? Might there in fact be more winners than the activists, already committed to their position that we are all losers in this drama, will acknowledge?
The story not told by the climate change pessimists is the other half of the evolution story, not the extinction of species that did not make the cut, but the creation of those that did, as new genetic factors becomes strengths and not weaknesses. Life itself is a process of renewal and decay, extinction and species birth, and to cry out that extinction is itself a tragedy dishonors the species to come, whose birth itself was forestalled by efforts to prevent the natural process from continuing. Mourn we may but not at the price of stopping life itself from evolving, for it is the story of evolution that we must continue to tell, indeed to act out, as players on its stage. As the predominant creature, ruling over most of the earth’s surface, we naturally want evolution to stand still, our time to last forever. But this is not necessarily nature’s way. Nor is it nature’s way to pick sides, and fight to keep one species alive at the expense of another’s arrival on this earth. We all have our time, its beginning and its end. We can fight to keep the polar bear white, but is this not a crime against the emerging hybrid polar/brown bear? We can fight to keep the caribou alive, but what of the deer, should they be denied their time in the North? The dinosaurs had their day, and so did we; would we stop the age of the dinosaurs from ending if we had the power to do so? And should we try to stop the clock, and hold back this process of global warming which might in fact bring an end to the ice age itself, and free the polar regions from its continued, icy tyranny of climatic extremism?
These are the issues we need to debate, and explore, and consider, without passing judgment. And while Gore has his Nobel Prize for Peace for the war that he has declared against man’s recklessness and climate-aggression, this does not mean that Gore’s perspective is the only valid one, nor the correct one. From the Arctic perspective, Gore’s logic would mean a perpetuation of an ice age that the rest of the world was all too happy to see end.
During the war, Coast Guard aircraft found one thousand survivors and directed rescue units to the scene. Coast Guard aircrews rescued one hundred survivors additionally by landing in the open sea [below: Hall PH-2 medevac, circa 1942]. On occasion, the aircraft had to taxi ashore because weight of those rescued prevented the aircraft from taking off.
By 1941 the Coast Guard was very interested in developing the helicopter for search and rescue. LCDR William Kossler had represented the Coast Guard on an inter-agency board formed in 1938 for the evaluation of experimental aircraft, including the helicopter. However, World War II interrupted these plans. The Coast Guard, incorporated into the Navy on 1 November 1941, was tasked in early 1943 with developing the helicopter for antisubmarine warfare. Sikorsky HNS-1 and HOS-1 helicopters were ordered and pilot training began at Brooklyn Air Station. Coast Guard personnel trained British pilots who undertook a joint British-American helicopter trial on board the merchant ship Daghestan. In fact, during the war all Allied helicopter pilots were trained by the Coast Guard at Brooklyn Air Station. The Daghestan, fitted with a landing deck and carrying two HNS-1 helicopters, crossed the Atlantic in convoy in November 1943.
A photo of a Coast Guard aircraftAdditional helicopter evaluation tests were carried out on the cutter Cobb. This old coastal passenger ship had been converted into the world’s first helicopter carrier. On 29 June 1944 CDR Frank Erickson made the first landing on its deck in Long Island Sound. A photo of CDR Frank EricksonAs the war progressed and the U-boat threat moved deeper into the North Atlantic and then abated, the service re-oriented its helicopter research from antisubmarine warfare to search and rescue. CDR Erickson pioneered this Coast Guard activity, developing much of the rescue equipment himself and carrying out the first lifesaving flight. He delivered two cases of blood plasma lashed to an HNS-1’s floats following the explosion on board the destroyer USS Turner off Sandy Hook on 3 January 1944.
One of the early helicopter’s most successful rescues occurred in 1945. A Royal Canadian Air Force plane crashed in a remote area of Labrador. Two ski-equipped aircraft tried to rescue the nine survivors; however, one crashed on landing and the other was trapped on the ground by the snow after having successfully flown out two survivors. The only way to rescue the remaining men was by helicopter. A Coast Guard HNS-1 was disassembled at Brooklyn Air Station, loaded into a C-54 transport A photo of a Coast Guard aircraft and airlifted to Goose Bay, Labrador. There, LT August Kleisch flew it 150 miles to a staging station and then on 35 miles more to the crash site. Obstacles such as a frozen engine and skis that would freeze solid to the ground were overcome and all were rescued.A photo of Stewart Graham In 1943 an Air Sea Rescue Squadron was formed at San Diego, Calif. The primary impetus for this was the increasing number of offshore crashes, mostly by student pilots. These were the result of the rapid expansion of military aviation during the war. Initially, the amphibious PBY-5A and high speed rescue craft were chosen as the rescue vehicles and additional squadrons were formed. In December 1944 the Office of Air Sea Rescue was established at Coast Guard Headquarters. By 1945 Air Sea Rescue was responsible for 165 aircraft and nine air stations. During that year, it had responded to 686 plane crashes. The PBY-5As were replaced by Martin PBM-5Gs following the war.A photo of a Coast Guard aircraft
The post-World War II years brought an explosion in the number of recreational boats and created a new search and rescue clientele. The helicopter was ideally suited to this mission. Able to react swiftly, it could lift entire pleasure boat crews from imminent disaster, or in less trying circumstances, deliver de-watering pumps and fuel. Admittedly, during its early years the helicopter had a major handicap–the pilot needed three hands in order to fly it. Soon, helicopters rescuing distressed boaters became a commonplace event.
The versatility of the helicopter was demonstrated during a series of floods which occurred in the United States during the 1950s. To carry out this kind of rescue work, the helicopter had to hover among trees, telephone poles, television antennas and the like. In 1955 Coast Guard helicopters rescued more than 300 people as rivers overflowed in Connecticut and Massachusetts. In December of that year the Coast Guard on-scene commander directed the rescue of thousands in California. Included among the 21 rescue aircraft were Coast Guard helicopters. A photo of a Coast Guard aircraft In one incident an H04S rescued 138 people during a 12-hour period; this was accomplished by two air crews. The helicopter soon grew from a thoroughbred requiring pampering to keep it flying to a reliable workhorse.
The responsibilities of Coast Guard fixed wing aviation also increased following World War II. In 1946, Coast Guard aircraft were used for the first time on the International Ice Patrol, a practice that continues today. A photo of Coast Guard aircraft The primary objective of these Ice Patrol flights is to observe ice floating in the vicinity of the Grand Banks, so that shipping in that well-traveled area can be advised of current conditions throughout the iceberg season. Ice Patrol flight tracks are normally between 1,000 and 1,500 nautical miles long (from six to eight hours’ flight time). Since 1983 the flights have used HC130 aircraft carrying Side-Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) equipment as the primary reconnaissance tool. At the normal altitude of 8,000 feet, the SLAR can cover a swath extending 35 miles on each side of the aircraft.
A photo of CAPT Donald MacDiarmid After the end of World War II, Coast Guard aircraft were also used increasingly to intercept and escort aircraft that were experiencing mechanical problems. The presence of the Coast Guard aircraft was reassuring to both passengers and flight crews. During the 1950s, the Coast Guard developed open-ocean ditching techniques that are still in use by commercial airliners today through the experiments conducted by CAPT Donald MacDiarmid . In 1986 Donald MacDiarmid was enshrined in the Naval Aviation Museum, in Pensacola, Florida. A photo of a Coast Guard aircraftIn 1959 the Coast Guard obtained its first Lockheed HC-130 Hercules . Large, rugged, and extremely reliable, this aircraft could cruise on two of its four engines thereby greatly extending its range. During the Korean War, the Coast Guard established air detachments through- out the Pacific. These detachments, located at Sangley Point in the Philippines, Guam, Wake, Midway, Adak, and Barbers Point in the Hawaiian Islands conducted search and rescue to safeguard the tens of thousands of United Nations troops that were being airlifted across the Pacific. In January 1953 a PBM flying from Sangley landed in 12-foot seas in an attempt to rescue a Navy P2V crew. The Coast Guard amphibian crashed on take off when an engine failed. Five Coast Guard and four Navy men lost their lives.
A photo of LT Jack RittichierAviators were among the 7,000 Coast Guard personnel who served in Vietnam. In April 1968 three Coast Guard helicopter pilots were assigned to the 37th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron at Da Nang, Vietnam. Pilots were assigned there until November 1972 while their Air Force counterparts were assigned to stateside Coast Guard air stations. One Coast Guard pilot, LT Jack Rittichier , died in a rescue attempt. He was attempting to pick up a downed Marine Corps flier when his helicopter took heavy ground fire, touched down, and burst into flames.
The helicopter continued to be a primary rescue tool into the 1980s and the foreseeable future. In 1980 over 100,000 refugees fled communist Cuba. Many risked their lives in unsafe craft to cross the Straits of Florida. The rescue of those on board the Olo Yumi is illustrative of the situation confronting the Coast Guard. On the morning of 17 May 1980 the pleasure craft Olo Yumi, carrying 52 persons, sank when the people on board panicked because of rough seas, ran to the stern, and caused water to come over the transom. A photo of a Coast Guard aircraft
A Sikorsky HH-52 Sea-Guard on patrol from the cutter Courageous (WMEC-622) sighted the people in the water and began rescue operations. Eleven survivors were hoisted to the helicopter. Other Coast Guard helicopters and Courageous rescued 38 survivors and recovered 10 bodies. The A photo of a Coast Guard aircraft boat had been grossly overloaded. The HH-52, now replaced by the Aerospatiale HH-65 Dolphin, rescued more persons from distress than any other helicopter in the world to that time.
A photo of a Coast Guard aircraftIn October 1980, the Sikorsky HH-3F Pelican, the service’s medium range helicopter, was the primary rescue vehicle when hundreds of individuals, mostly senior-citizens, were plucked from bobbing lifeboats some 200 miles out in the Gulf of Alaska. This followed a fire on board the cruise ship Prinsendam and was one of the most successful maritime rescues in history. The Pelican, the last amphibian helicopter in the Coast Guard’s inventory, was retired from service in 1994.
With the increasing responsibilities in defense readiness, law enforcement, fisheries patrol, and environmental protection, the Coast Guard acquired a new generation of aircraft to replacing its aging fleet. During the 1980s, 1990s, and into the new century, the primary aircraft in the Coast Guard inventory were the HU-25A, HU-25B, and HU-25C Guardian,A photo of a Coast Guard aircraft the HC-130H Hercules, the HH-65A and HH-65B Dolphin, and the HH-60J Jayhawk .A photo of a Coast Guard aircraft The HU-25C Guardian is the service’s first multi-mission jet. It is nearly twice as fast as any aircraft in the inventory and can get to the scene quickly to perform its role. Sixteen new HC-130H Hercules turboprop aircraft have joined the Coast Guard fleet and replaced earlier models. The primary missions of the Hercules are long-range surveillance and transport. A photo of a Coast Guard aircraft
A photo of a Coast Guard aircraft The HH-65 helicopters serve as the Coast Guard’s primary search and rescue aircraft and these twin engine Dolphins can operate up to 150 miles off shore and will fly comfortably at 150 knots for three hours. The HH-65 Jayhawk now served as the service’s medium range helicopter. The Coast Guard also continued its long-standing practice of utilizing surplus aircraft from the other services when it acquired four Grumman E2C aircraft from Navy stocks beginning in 1989. They were used as surveillance aircraft in the drug war and formed Coast Guard Airborne Warning Squadron One (or CGAW-1). Unfortunately, one crashed in 1990 while landing at Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, killing all four crewmen aboard.
A photo of a Coast Guard aircraftThe Coast Guard began leasing MH-68 Mako helicopters to outfit a new squadron, HITRON-10, formed to augment the service’s capabilities in the continuing fight against narcotics smuggling. The squadron was developed specifically to combat the drug-smugglers’ use of what are called “go-fast” boats. These MH-68s carry an armed Coast Guardsman who, if needed, could use his .50 caliber sniper rifle to disable a “go-fast” boat that refused a demand to stop and be boarded. This is not the first time Coast Guard aircraft were armed during peacetime; Loening OL-5s carried .30 caliber Lewis guns during the service’s earlier fight to enforce Prohibition.
To assist those in distress and to patrol national waters, the Coast Guard flies some 200 aircraft from 27 air stations, large and small, throughout the continental United States, Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico. The Coast Guard is the seventh largest naval air force in the world. Coast Guard aviation, rotary and fixed wing, moves into the future proud of its past and confident of its future.
Check out Webster’s dictionary. Anger is defined as “a feeling of discomfort or displeasure brought about by feelings of helplessness and powerlessness.” My personal definition of a victim is one who views themselves as having no power or authority. Many times, a victim will claim that in a certain situation where they made a less than ideal decision, they did so because they had no choice. “I had to pay my mechanic for fixing my car even though I know he overcharged me. I had no choice!” This leaves the individual feeling cheated, taken advantage of, and treated unfairly. The natural reaction is anger since is produces a momentary feeling of power.
There are also many who believe they cannot choose how they feel, that it is others who have dominion over their emotional state of mind. Such comments as “You make me angry”, “You hurt my feelings” or “You embarrassed me” indicate that others determine how one will feel based on what they are doing or saying. Outside circumstances (“Rainy days make me feel depressed”) assign that power to external environment. In each scenario, one runs the risk of reacting to the situation rather than carefully choosing how to respond. Reactionary behaviors are rarely productive since they lack intellectual consideration and self-control. One can easily cause any situation to escalate based on poor reactionary choices.
So what is the best defense against anger? It is a two-fold process. The first is intellect. We have each been given a reasonable amount of intelligence. We are able to collect data, process it, sort it out, and reach a conclusion. In any given circumstance, a rational mind can logically collect all relevant information and determine right from wrong, good from bad, logical from illogical, and so forth. Once complete, a decision can be made based on the desired outcome and the most logical process to achieve it.
The second is the power of choice. Each of us has been given the ability to determine for ourselves what we will say or do, how will we proceed to do so, what actions we will take or refrain from, and when we will end the process. Free will, even in the event that I have no control over my current circumstances, enables me to exercise my authority over my own feelings, thoughts, and actions. No one can dictate how I think about an individual, situation, or event. No one can determine how I feel about said person or what is occurring. Nor can anyone dictate how I respond. Hard as they may try, inevitably I alone determine each of these for myself. Additionally, I choose how I will allow this event to affect me.
Choice extends beyond the obvious as well. One can choose to be angry with a particular person or situation or not. Every emotion results from our thoughts. I can choose to be judgmental and angry with someone for not conforming to my ways or I can decide to be understanding and accepting. I can get angry when I am treated unfairly or be grateful that I am a forgiving person.
Arsenal defeated Barcelona, what are the change that FC Barcelona can take a revenge?
The last match Barcelona vs Arsenal ended up in 1 against 2 in the favor of Arsenal. Although FC Barcelona was playing brilliant in the first half, they couldn’t break through the defense of Arsenal. Luckily David Villa brought them in front. In the first half of the match Arsenal looked kind of lost, but in the second half things got changed. Robin van Persie made an impressive goal from an incredible angle. And some minutes later the second goal was made by Nasri.
Many people will remember the Champions League final of 2006, the final of Barcelona vs Arsenal. Lionel Messi lit up the complete Nou Camp stadium with an unbelievable four-goal haul to beat Arsenal.
On March the 8th, the second match of Barcelona vs Arsenal will take place in the Camp Nou stadium in Barcelona. Barcelona needs a 1-0 victory over Arsenal to conquer a place in the next round of the Champions League.
Arsenal was a bit unlucky at the draw, but they made good results from London. And they have some chances to advance to the next round. My prediction is that Barcelona will be better after 180 minutes. Although Barcelona and Arsenal have a similar style of playing, the Spanish team brought it to a bigger level. And also Barcelona is much tougher in defense.
In the last 5 years Arsenal played two times at the Nou Camp Stadium and both the matches were lost. The results of Barcelona vs Arsenal were 4:1 and 2:1.
The 2 to 1 victory for Arsenal in the first match was a good result and this makes it necessary for Barcelona to start attacking from the first minute of the match. I think Barcelona will get the goal and they will advance to the next round after regular time.
Kerala is the southernmost region of India and is a favorite touristic destination. The exotic beaches, pristine nature, ancient Ayurveda treatments and rich cultural heritage are the main reasons people choose to spend their vacation in Kerala. If you want more from your trip than just sunny beaches and spa treatments, there are numerous historical monuments in Kerala worth visiting. From ancient temples to palaces with an impressive architecture, the monuments of Kerala offer cultural delights for history and art enthusiasts.
kerala holiday packages
1. Bekal Fort
o Bekal Fort is the biggest fort in Kerala, with a long history and strategic significance. The tank with a flight of steps, the magazine for ammunition and the steps leading to the Observation Tower are the most significant features of the Bekal Fort. From the Observatory Tower, you can get ample views of all the major places near Kerala, including Pallikere, Kanhangad, Bekal and Kottikulam Uduma. The fort had a defensive role, since remarkable evidence of medieval defense technology is present on site.
o Dutch Palace is located in Mattancherry, Kerala, approximately 10 km from Ernakulam. The palace’s former name was Mattancherry Palace of Cochin, but since the renovation performed by the Dutch in 1663, it has been known as the Dutch Palace of Kochi. The Dutch Palace is currently a museum where visitors can see traditional Hindu murals and paintings. The interior of the Dutch Palace is beautifully decorated, and the two temples inside are dedicated to Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna. The painting collection includes huge scenes from Ramayana, Mahabharata and the sacred Puranas.
Bolgatty Palace is located on the Bolgatty Island and is one of the oldest palaces built by the Dutch in India. The building served as the palace of the Dutch governor, and in 1909, it became the residence of the British governors. Nowadays, Bolgatty Palace is a resort operated by Kerala Tourism Development Corporation. The palace’s location offers inspiring views of the backwaters. The lounge features historical portraits, and the rooms and suites feature a mix of historic ambiance and modern facilities.
o kerala honeymoon packages
4.St. Francis Church
St. Francis Church in Cochin is the oldest European church built in India by the Franciscans that accompanied the Portuguese mission of 1500. The patron saint of the church is St. Anthony. The Dutch Protestants took control of the church in 1663, and in the 19th century, the Anglicans rededicated it to St. Francis of Assisi. Nowadays, St. Francis Church Cochin belongs to the Church of South India.
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!