Operation Enduring Propaganda

(Updated below) (Update II) (Update III)

While being assaulted by the continuous exposures of scandalous abuses of power, politicizing of the apparels of government and erasing the separation of church and state (one more example here), along with an increasing crescendo of calls for impeachment proceedings, the besieged Puppet Presidency and Unitary Regency have unleashed in recent weeks their true "surge" plans: unrelenting blitzkrieg-like, coordinated propaganda counter-strikes to sell the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while making the case for more war in the Middle-East, through it all playing on the fear and insecurity of Americans. Why? Either to support a rush to establish a de facto American Empire, or to hasten a Second Coming-like Armageddon. Or both.

The Empire-to-be strikes back.

Not unlike the failing, inept and incompetent Roman emperors of old, the Bushies, their neoconservative supporters and their far-right fundamentalist Christian allies continue displaying an exaggerated sense of self-importance and destiny for the U.S.A., coupled with a myopic view of the world, for the sake of the advent of the Holy American Empire - the cherished grail of neoconservatives and evangelical fundamentalists alike.

Naturally, their demonstrated incompetence and the inherent near-impossibility of controlling a complex environment such as today's world has left them little choice but to fall back upon the ages old, illusory comforting stance of keeping the reigns of power firmly in hand while seeking to control the increasingly malcontent populace.

Hence their current Operation Enduring Propaganda, which is of course all about the politics of fear and ignorance.

Let us review how it has been playing out so far, shall we?

Step One - Keep reminding them of the threat posed by the Bogey Man: The convenient specter of terrorism has proven to be the perfect tool to keep the public cowed in fear - the motus oprandi here being "all we have to fear, we must". Consequently, the Puppet President warns America again of the ever-present threat of al-Qaeda, conflating Iraqi and Afghani insurgents, Sunnis and Shiites, and all Islamic terrorist groups, together under the (very) large bin Laden umbrella. Have an N.I.E. be released "coincidentally" in support of these warnings. Rinse and repeat, while friends, allies and/or other like-minded enablers, including the MSM, enhance the warning with outright disinformation and simple fearmongering - all in order to sustain, if not actually increase, the fear and insecurity of the populace.

Step Two - Spin your current disastrous wars into successes: We have growing and unshakable evidence that the state of affairs are turning for the worse in Iraq - with the reports of al-Maliki/Petraeus mésentente and of the Iraqi government inching closer toward complete disintegration, as well as Oxfam's assessment that Iraq is facing an alarming humanitarian crisis, constituting three recent, additional elements to this effect. The solution? Use Step One to keep justifying the Iraq War, while parading false experts all over the MSM to sell its "growing successes" and the "steady progress" in rebuilding Iraq, falsely branding said "experts" as "Bush critics" or "war critics" in the process so as to enhance their (non-existent) credibility - and make sure to hide the fact that they contradict their own research while dishing out the propaganda. Do the same thing with regards to Afghanistan - it is as much a part of the War against Global Terrorism(TM) and therefore must be sustained at all costs, those who beg to differ be damned. After all, facts do not matter here: it is the maintenance of the fear and ignorance of the populace which is of prime concern (see Steps Four and Five).

Step Three - Ignore, attack or ridicule all those who hold up the truth of the matter: Experts are contradicting your decisions or your arguments against pulling out your troops? They are saying that your actions have made things worse or that your strategies are not working? Ignore them, attack them, smear them, make them retire, dismiss them, punish them or simply fire them. Better yet, blame them for the failures - it is, after all, their choice of having enlisted and thus should stop complaining and do their job. And what about all those other, "regular" citizens who are likewise criticizing your wars of choice? Ridicule, demonize and/or attack them - anything that will marginalize them in the eyes of the fearful and ignorant public at large.

Step Four - Call for more wars: Because the Enemy is all encompassing, spreading his evil tentacles everywhere (at least, that is how the mantra goes), keep rattling the war sabers to include nearby "unfriendly" countries as collaborators of the Enemy - use anything and everything to support/justify potential war with those "Enemy collaborators", the facts be damned of course. Iran and Syria are two striking examples of this - after all, this is a War on Global Terrorism(TM) and you are "either with us, or against us". Keep the pressure long enough and maybe these countries will indulge you by striking first - no better justification for war, is there? At the same time, complain about the uselessness of your Middle Eastern allies (namely Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) - floating the possibility of launching attacks within their territory or securing their increased help with weapon sales. If these don't work ... then let them become the Enemy as well - in the end, what matters is the fall of Islam and of the Middle East in order to establish the Holy American Empire, while (again) keeping the public fearful (and thus under control) with perpetual war.

Step Five - Ask for increases in intelligence and military means to fight the Enemy: To have full control and wage war in the struggle to establish empire, you need all the tools you can get. The Patriot Act, the Military Commission's Act are but two examples. Keep clamoring and asking for more. On the military side of things, you have to keep the "surge" going while preparing/readying for more war (see Step Four). Supporting my previous conclusion that war with Iran (or even with Syria) will involve nuclear weaponry, the Puppet President asked Congress to fund the revamping of the nuclear arsenal of the U.S.A. After all, barring the re-establishment of a draft (which remains a possibility), there are not enough troops to wage a ground war all over the Middle East - which in turn becomes the roundabout/circular justification for the use of nuclear weaponry.

Step Six - Recycle through Steps One to Five: This one is self-explanatory.

In short: "We are good, they are evil. We must lead the world into embracing democracy as we must remain the sole super-power. This struggle is a clash of civilizations which will go on for generations to come. Sacrifices must be made. The Enemy understands nothing but war, and war He will have - with any and all means at our disposal. We must not falter, we must stay strong and resolute. Our cause is just and we cannot, must not, help the Enemy by questioning the righteous task which we have courageously accepted to undertake. Our faith in our Leaders is paramount if we are to achieve ultimate victory. It is our destiny. God bless America."

Thanks to Operation Enduring Propaganda, everything is being done in order to fool the public while an empire is slowly and clumsily being established. For most of the neoconservatives out there, the establishment of an American Empire is all about Manifest Destiny. But for some of them, and especially where their fundamentalist Christian right allies are concerned, this is about establishing a Holy American Empire - if not actually about rushing the advent of some sort of Armageddon in an insane, self-fulfilling prophetic desire to see the Second Coming of Christ become their fantasy wish made reality.

Which brings me back to this: "It never ceases to amaze me to what levels of utter irrationality the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are willing to descend into. They lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end. And this "end" is the following: to promulgate, support and defend their beliefs or their ideologies. Truth be told: these are the only things that truly matter to them."

More than ever, the Bushies, their neoconservative supporters and their far-right fundamentalist Christian allies constitute a veritable "dark mirror" of all that is right and humane in democratic principles. Their deluded, frantic wishes for the accomplishment of a glorious destiny override all sane and reality-based considerations.

More than ever, I am convinced that they are projecting the fear and loathing prevalent in their closed, primitive minds onto the whole of society, ever remaining oblivious or unmindful of the gradual erosion of democracy caused by their policies at home, as well as the chaos and mayhem their actions are causing abroad.

And more than ever, I suspect that History in the end will have no choice but to judge the Bushies, their neoconservative supporters and their far-right fundamentalist Christian allies "not guilty for reasons of insanity" - with ourselves and the rest of the world nonetheless left to heal critically wounded democracies amidst the ashes and ruins of war, wondering forevermore how it was that they were entrusted with the stewardship of power to begin with.

Such is the way I envision the state of affairs to be in the decades to come - unless, that is, Operation Enduring Propaganda gets to be roundly and permanently defeated here and now.

As always, it will be up to us to meet the challenge ... or not.


Update: 07/31/2007 - Tonight on CNN, Regent Cheney used the typical “don’t take it from me” sleight-of-hand routine to support his contention that the escalation in Iraq is working, citing the same (administration-fed) fake experts mentioned above, individuals whom he furthermore called “strong critics of the war”: "Look at the piece that appeared yesterday in The New York Times — not exactly a friendly publication — but a piece by Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack on the situation in Iraq. They’re just back from visiting over there. They both have been strong critics of the war, both worked in the prior administration; but now saying that they think there’s a possibility, indeed, that we could be successful."

Here's a blast from the past: September 8, 2002 - Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller co-author the article "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts" on the front page of the New York Times. The story relies heavily on claims made by Bush administration officials regarding Iraq's "worldwide hunt" to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment. The article would come to be entirely discredited. Same day - Dick Cheney appears on Meet the Press and contends that Iraq has "reconstituted" its nuclear weapons program, citing mainly the Gordon and Miller NYT article as support for his contention.

Talk about déjà vu ... but within the mission parameters of Operation Enduring Propaganda, if something worked once, it must surely be able to work again and again.

Right?


Update II: 01/08/2007 - Interestingly, Glenn Greenwald today made the same connection as I did yesterday (see previous update) between Regent Cheney's "performance" of last night with what he did back in September 8, 2002. Mr. Greenwald concludes: "From the administration's mouths, to the pens of obedient journalists and pundits, back into the administration's mouths." Thus Operation Enduring Propaganda goes ...


Update III: 08/03/2007 - Here's an interesting look at how Operation Enduring Propaganda is working and how right-wingers are loving it.


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q, at Diatribune, and at Progressive Historians)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Behold The Wisdom Of Sheep

(Updated below)

I just read something that has verily shocked and outraged me. Via Raw Story - Workers told to shape up or pay up:

"Looking for new ways to trim the fat and boost workers' health, some employers are starting to make overweight employees pay if they don't slim down. Others, citing growing medical costs tied to obesity, are offering fit workers lucrative incentives that shave thousands of dollars a year off health care premiums."

At the last, the companies and corporations are now flatly coming out, unafraid and unfettered, to proclaim their intent of actually controlling your lives as they see fit.

Not only does this constitutes a serious breach of human rights, such encroachment into our personal, private lives would leave us open to any desire, whim and fancy of the moment from high-minded, arrogant corporate bureaucrats whom, let us not forget, will ever remain watchful of the bottom line first and foremost, rather than your health and/or well being.

What's next? Employees being fined for not eating enough veggies? For eating too much meat? For drinking too much coffee? For listening to "non-approved" kinds of music or artists? For reading "non-approved" books or blogs? For watching "non-approved" TV channels and/or shows? For smoking cigarettes or having a drink, at home?

For dating a "non-approved" other?

For having a "non-approved" number of children?

For having a "non-approved" overall lifestyle?

For holding "non-approved" political views?

For following a "non-approved" religion, or specific denomination?

For belonging to a "non-approved" party?

For (fill in the blanks)?

For non-conforming to every single dictate of your employers?

As utterly mind-boggling that such an advent as companies/corporations establishing policies of fines for employees who do not fit their "definition" of health, read what one person targeted by such unconstitutional authoritarianism had to say about it all:

"At first, I was mad when I thought I would be charged $30 for being overweight," said Courtney Jackson (...) "But when I found out it was going to be broken into segments — like just $10 for being overweight — it sounded better." Jackson said she was going to try to slim down before the plan took effect. "If I still have weight to lose when it starts, I'll deserve to pay the $10."

Behold the wisdom of the sheep, quietly accepting to have its life owned lock, stock and barrel, and thus being entirely run, by company/corporate decree.

If, and when, our democratic societies crumble into corporate authoritarianism, we will owe our gratitude to such quiet, intellectual sloth-driven acceptance/apathy.

Looks like we have already begun sliding downward the slippery slope ...

And as we keep sliding down, we will be told through it all that it is for our own good.

I, for one, beg to differ.

How about you?


Update: 07/29/2007 - Via at-Largely: Chicago police stormtroopers swarm a gathering of poetry reading on private property - without warning and without warrants. Now, I am not a "fan" of poetry, but still ... looks like the Powers-That-Be decided that poetry was not for your own good, or something to this effect? Perhaps the quite innocent, legal and constitutional gathering was percieved as an exercise in subversion - perhaps even indulging in reading the Constitution, the most subversive type of litterature of all? Or perhaps the nefarious shadow of poetic terrorism is on the rise again? How about the clear and immediate danger to Homeland Security for reading in public? After all, knowledge is a very dangerous thing indeed.

And further down we slide the slippery slope ...


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q and at Diatribune)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Late Friday Night Ode To Democracy

As I am fond of saying: living in a democracy is not just a right, but a responsibility as well.

Nevertheless, the state of affairs in our democratic societies has gone back to pretty much where it was some fifteen years ago, especially with regards to war, poverty and the environment - some might even claim that the overall situation has in fact worsened overall ... and I would not be one to dispute them.

What is to be learned from this? Will we ever learn?

It is to be hoped, indeed - but as a reminder, here's Neil Young - Rockin' in the Free World (lyrics below the video).

There's colors on the street: Red, white and blue.
People shufflin' their feet, people sleepin' in their shoes.
But there's a warnin' sign on the road ahead;
There's a lot of people sayin' we'd be better off dead.
Don't feel like Satan, but I am to them;
So I try to forget it, any way I can.

Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world.

I see a woman in the night with a baby in her hand,
Under an old street light near a garbage can.
Now she puts the kid away and she's gone to get a hit;
She hates her life and what she's done to it.
There's one more kid that will never go to school,
Never get to fall in love, never get to be cool.

Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world.

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man;
We got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand.
We got department stores and toilet paper;
Got styrofoam boxes for the ozone layer;
Got a man of the people, says keep hope alive;
Got fuel to burn, got roads to drive.

Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world,
Keep on rockin' in the free world.

'Nuff said.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

APOV's Friday Weekly Revue (07/27/2007)

If it's Friday, then it's time for APOV's Weekly Revue!

Oh, U.S.A.!
It is finally dawning on some (rare) members of the MSM that Puppet President Bush is exactly what the Founding Fathers feared: an uncaring Head of State with a twisted and heartless philosophy, continuously assaulting due process and civil liberties, always double-talking about progress in his wars of choice (on behalf of Big Oil) while being willfully oblivious to the consequences as well as the effects on those waging war for him and those being "liberated", obsessed with shadowy witch hunts at the expense of basic human rights, dubiously choosing his allies, rendering the country untrustworthy, and so on and so forth. There's your tax dollars at work, folks. Through it all, the bulk of the MSM keeps supporting these disastrous policies from within their ivory towers - thus further enhancing the prevailing troubles in the national discourse with their utter incompetence and misguided calls for "bi-partisanship" - time for a full return of straight partisanship indeed.

Oh, Canada!
North of the 49th parallel, the slow push for transforming Canada into neocon U.S.A. by our neocon Harper government and its neocon shrieking allies goes forth, with their stance of refusing to ban hand guns, their waging of war on the environment, and their wishes for increasing the military, as recent examples. These, along with racism still rearing its ugly head from time to time, make a lot of people (including me) ask the fateful question: what kind of country do we want to live in? Maybe we should first pay closer attention to what we are actually most concerned about ...

Which brings me to this parting question: is it just me who keeps seeing patterns at work here, or am I merely a sucker for conspiracy theories? Hmmm ... food for thought, indeed.

(And for the nitpickers among you out there: yeah, yeah, yeah - I highlighted way more than twelve blog posts for this week - so sue me! *wink*)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Want Some Schmooze With That Blog?

Talk about your double-take moment: Charlotte Rains Dixon, author of the blog Word Strumpet, awarded me with a Schmooze Award - imagine moi, a schmoozer ... who would've thunk it?

Being an accomplished writer, Charlotte's Word Strumpet is about all things related to writing - I highly recommend that you go read it (the feeble writer that I am sure learned many a thing or two from her wise and experienced tips! And I am still learning, for that matter!). I thank you very much, Charlotte, for this completely unexpected award!

The Schmoozie (as I would like to call this award henceforth - heh) is for bloggers who get involved and make an effort to get to know others - or, to borrow from Larry at Let's Talk/Let's Talk About it, "bloggers who don’t limit their visits to only the 'rich and successful', but who also spend some time to say hello to new blogs as well."

Although I do not always comment on all the blogs I visit (I do have a little shy-side to me, donchew know), it is my humble opinion that such an award like the Schmoozie is nonetheless a nice and fun way to show one's appreciation for not only a blog author, but likewise for a blog's contents.

And now, it is my turn to award a Schmoozie to five other bloggers, while imposing upon myself the endeavor of refraining from awarding a site that has already been so awarded.

Furthermore, in order to play along with the stereotypical social understanding of the term "schmooze", I decided to award a Schmoozie to five ladies (hey - so sue me! *wink*) who's serious, engaging, thoughtful and thought-provoking blogs have definitely grown on me.

Therefore, and in no particular order, the Schmoozie goes to:

1) Lynn at ZelleBlog - "Observations from obscurity". Let me assure you that Lynn's opinions, articles and writings are far from obscure and definitely enlightening indeed! It is my humble opinion that ZelleBlog should be read by a whole lot more folks out there, and a whole lot more often at that - go, read, now!

2) Jill from Brilliant at Breakfast - A blog I visit regularly. Thought-provoking, straight-to-the-point political/social discussions, with just the right touch of ironic humor, are to be found there ... so be advised and go read!

3) April Reign - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act". A proud feminist (and rightly so), April Reign discusses all matters political and social, with an emphasis on matters and issues important to women. One of my regular daily visits - need I say it? Go. Read. Now.

4) Mirth at Liberally Mirth - "Random flights with a left wing". Politics and social issues with democracy activism in mind. Very thought-provoking and a must for your daily political blog visits - trust me. 'Nuff said!

5) Woman at Mile Zero - one of the Canadian blogs that I visit daily. Straight to the point (unlike my usual long-winded fares), butts are kicked and names are taken there ... so, to the American and Canadian politicos (especially you non-progressive ones) out there: beware! For the rest of you good folks: go read!

And that, as they say, is that. Don't forget to also read those other great blogs to which I link in my sidebars - believe me, they are worth your time, just like those deserving five which I awarded today.

In the meantime, remember to keep on rockin'!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

On The Fear And Loathing Of Atheists

Today, I stumbled upon Barbara Kay's latest column, "The God that whined".

Said "article" attempts to talk about Atheists, what they were then, what they are now and what can be expected from them in months and years to come. Of course, Kay failed miserably on all counts.

Need I say that Kay's piece constitutes a classic example of "Demonize the Atheists!", "Fear the Atheists!", "Atheists are a danger to their children!", and "the Atheists are hypocrites!" kind of utterly incompetent journalism?

From the very beginning of her two-page feuille de chou, Kay announces her colors right off the bat:

"Back in the day, the many atheists I knew went about their unbelieving lives in a quietly sardonic, but non-combative way: They'd abandoned organized religion, but sought no quarrel with those who stayed. They explained their non-belief to their children, but let them join the boy scouts."

Ah, yes - she knew a couple of Atheists here and there (assuming this is true), consequently making her an expert on the very subject. I find it interesting that if one replaces "Atheists" with, say, "African Americans/Canadians", "gays", "Natives", or "Muslims", for instance, then this very first sentence of Kay's piece would have the exact same result of illustrating her hypocrisy, pompousness and arrogance.

And like the religious bigot-in-denial that she is, Kay of course generalized whatever her Atheist acquaintances did to every and all Atheists throughout North America, and everywhere else in the world.

But most telling is the under-current of this very first paragraph, i.e. "back then" Atheists were quiet about their non-beliefs, if not actually in hiding, and allowed their children to be exposed to good, sensible and normal Judeo-Christian values nonetheless. Hence, back then, Atheists were behaving like good Atheists.

It goes without saying that Kay's column goes down the toilet from there - I'll spare you the full deconstruction of it, considering that it would be a tedious affair indeed. However, allow me to further illustrate my criticism of this "serious" and "thoughtful" piece with a few additional passages:

"(they) have even opened summer camps. Old-style atheists sometimes sent their children to socialist camps. But summer camps specifically devoted to indoctrinating children in anti-religious faith rather than instilling a positive secular faith? This is something new. (Memo to Johnny in cabin #7: A copy of the Psalms was discovered under your mattress. Report to the re-education tent at once!)"

Where do I begin? For one, she just had to raise the old Christianist, fearmongering, propagandist and utterly tiresome specter of an association between Godlessness and socialism/communism - therefore, Atheists are obligatory socialists/communists. And "secular faith"? Since when is any faith truly/completely secular to begin with? Either she is being disingenuous at best, or willfully mendacious at worst.

Then, Kay shows her true, ugly colors, thereby proving my point above: she objects to today's "Atheist" summer camps because these would not instill a positive secular faith. Ergo: the poor children of Atheist families are being indoctrinated (Omygosh! Call child services, stat!) into a view of Humanity, of the world and of the universe that is negative and certainly not positive ... unlike that of the Judeo-Christian faith and view of the world.

To which I reply: What about creationism? Intelligent design? Inquisitions? Intolerance (of lifestyles, of science, of other religions, etc.)? Better yet: I invite her to acquaint herself fully with the history of Christianity right from its bloody inter-christian fratricide beginnings, as well as with the current, so tolerant, Christian Right.

And speaking of real indoctrination, I wonder what Kay would make of this?

Fact: children in "Godless" summer camps are taught critical thinking and the scientific method, among other very positive human values and principles. Above all, they are definitely not taught to hate.

Go look for yourself, dear Barbara, and try to actually do your journalistic job for a change - if you have any shred of intellectual honesty and professional ethics, that is. And to help you out, here is one place where you could begin an actual fact-based, journalistic investigation.

But let us move along, shall we?

"But the political handwriting on the wall is especially evident in this statement by American activist Herb Silverman: 'What I would really like is for atheists to come out of the closet because we are so demonized in our culture.' 'Culture'? 'Closet'? Uh oh. The ideological appropriation of 'rights' vocabulary is the canary in the identity-politics 'equality' mine. Once gay persecution is adduced, can the cry for official atheist equity be far behind? In grievance-collecting, it's a case of 'say the right word, and you'll be heard.' True, atheists in democratic countries can't conjure up grim tales of the truncheon's midnight thud on the door, but in our politically correct culture, 'feelings' of disempowerment or victimization often achieve moral parity with the real thing. So I'm betting it won't be long before our heartstrings will be tugged by activist atheists who claim that Stephen Harper's saying "God bless Canada" makes them feel "violated," or complaining that reading Christianity-stuffed Heidi makes their children feels psychologically 'abused'."

Ah yes - I do recognize that good old, "reasonable", tolerant, caring and empathic Christianism that we've come to know and love.

My question is: could Kay prove to be even more mendacious? Indeed, she lets out fully the ugly monster in her by not only proving my point above that she does not want Atheists to affirm themselves, but she furthermore ends up admonishing and condemning every minority or socially marginalized (however subtly) group out there that has ever dared organize in order to demand equal rights and opportunity, as well as fighting against discrimination and marginalization (which, incidentally, would include women or the poor).

And last, but not least:

"When bullets whiz overhead, there are no atheists in foxholes. What the bitter, bloviating (Atheists) fail to realize is that the whole world's a foxhole nowadays, and that their upthrust swollen heads make a better target for our mortal enemies -- religion's cancers and other, secular but equally totalitarian triumphalists -- than those humbly bowed in gratitude for mankind's loftiest ideals and supplication for the courage to defend them."

Shorter version: Atheists who dare affirm themselves are not only irresponsible, uppity self-gratifying show-offs, but are also a bunch of hypocrites in denial, because, deep down, they still believe in God (since no human being can truly be Godless, otherwise he/she could not live, right?) even if they say they don't.

I wonder if she would bloviate the same way with regards to all those far-right, evangelical Christians who seek at every turn to actually impose their fundamentalist religious values while attempting to transform our societies into theocracies?

Or has she conveniently forgotten this obvious reality which we are all faced with - year, after tiresome, year?

Here's some news for you, Barbara: back in 1993, I came close to death following a car accident - and you know what? This Atheist didn't, not even for a nanosecond, either thought of God, let alone utter his name or pray to him - or any other Divine/Spiritual/Supranatural human concept, for that matter.

In conclusion: it is Barbara Kay herself who should humbly bow her head in shame for her intellectual sloth-driven ignorance and pettiness. She is not only an incompetent columnist, but an incompetent human being as well.

I strongly suggest that she applies herself from now on at actually doing what she accuses others of not doing: show gratitude for mankind's loftiest ideals and supplication for the courage to defend them.

That would be indeed the competent thing to do - however, I doubt very much that the intellectual sloth-driven fearful, loathing and disingenuous creature that Barbara Kay has revealed herself to be is capable of attempting to reach, let alone achieve, such human enlightenment.


(Cross-posted at DKos and at Suzie-Q)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Bordering On Insanity - Or Rather, Being Deep Into It

The Seventh Principle of Incompetence (Incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself) states: "As long as incompetents do not acknowledge their affliction with intellectual sloth, they will stubbornly refuse to change. Some people call this hubris. To this effect, incompetents are known to repeat the same mistakes again and again, because of their arrogance and utter fright at being exposed for what they truly are - and thus, they find themselves unknowingly enacting Franklin's, and/or Einstein's, very definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

It goes without saying that the Bush administration constitutes a paragon of this Principle, including where Iran is concerned.

We all remember the rattling of sabers which preceded the launching of the Iraq War. As it turned out, the justifications put forth by the Bush administration to enter this war of choice were based on shoddy, cherry-picked and "cooked" intelligence.

The same is happening with a looming Iran War. First, we've had the loud rattling of sabers (which are still rattling, louder than ever), along with unsubstantiated (if not ludicrous) claims of Iran involvement in the Iraq insurgency - as a matter of fact, the combination of these two elements even spurred an unanimous Senate resolution condemning Iran. This in turn lead to last week's N.I.E. on the threat of terrorism to the U.S., which is so shoddily concocted that it has confused some elements of the MSM into reporting that al-Qaeda (a Sunni, anti-shiite terrorist group) is being hosted by Iran (a Shiite-dominated country). The fact is that this N.I.E. represents another attempt at cooking intelligence, which allows the drawing of specious conclusions which, in turn, are politically convenient to further point the finger at Iran - and thus apparently "strenghtening" justifications for a U.S. military intervention.

But why fear a war against Iran? After all, everything is going so well there, in Iraq. Some have even gone as far as likening Baghdad to the "Mall of America" - provided that littering mutilated, tortured, unidentified bodies are likewise a regular fixture in America's malls. Besides, an Iran War may cost even less than the Iraq War - talk about your once-in-a-lifetime bargain!

Furthermore, winning a war apparently is not about actually winning it in the classic sense of the term after all. Indeed, if only the right messages can be sent by the politicized military, helped by willing "competent" journalists and the "brave" 101st keyboard commandos, then these said messages would be fully accepted by the American people, war critics would be exposed as the loonie extremists that they truly are, there would be no more demands for troop withdrawal - and thus the war would be won at last!

Aye - war does indeed only need a sound, solid and sustainable brand marketing, while its conduct is being devised by wise, all-knowing (non-military) political theorycrafters (as opposed to actual military folks, who don't know jack), in order to be won.

Therefore, why fear war with Iran indeed - we now know how to win such wars of choice now!

What's next - Regent Cheney actually running for President?

This is no more about utter incompetence. We have crossed beyond the Seventh Principle and entered some sort of Twilight Zone where wrong is right, black is white, no is yes, up is down, incompetence is competence, fantasy is reality.

Hence, welcome to the Realm of Insanity - here's your customized designer straight-jacket and your comfortable, luxurious designer padded room ... we hope you'll enjoy your stay in this Brave, New World of Madness.


(Cross-posted at DKos and at Suzie-Q)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Canada Is Peaceful - But For How Long?

Via at-Largely: the First Global Peace Index Ranks 121 Countries.

"The first study to rank countries around the world according to their peacefulness and the drivers that create and sustain their peace was launched today. The Global Peace Index studied 121 countries from Algeria to Zimbabwe.

The rankings show that even among the G8 countries there are significant differences in peacefulness: While Japan was the most peaceful of the G8 countries, at a rank of five in the Index, Russia neared the bottom at number 118. The Global Peace Index also reveals that countries which had a turbulent time for parts of the twentieth century, such as Ireland and Germany, have emerged as peace leaders in the 21st century.

The Economist Intelligence Unit measured countries' peacefulness based on wide range of indicators - 24 in all - including ease of access to "weapons of minor destruction" (guns, small explosives), military expenditure, local corruption, and the level of respect for human rights.

After compiling the Index, the researchers examined it for patterns in order to identify the "drivers" that make for peaceful societies. They found that peaceful countries often shared high levels of democracy and transparency of government, education and material well-being. While the U.S. possesses many of these characteristics, its ranking was brought down by its engagement in warfare and external conflict, as well as high levels of incarceration and homicide. The U.S.'s rank also suffered due to the large share of military expenditure from its GDP, attributed to its status as one of the world's military-diplomatic powers."

And the results are ...

Canada's rank: 8th.
U.S.A's rank: 96th.

So, it looks like Canada is still well in the game of being not only a peaceful country, but a country of peace.

My question is: for how long?

I ask, because of these items:

The Defense Department is asking the Harper government to more than double its annual funding to $36.6-billion by 2025;

Afghanistan mission's future at risk - says Prime Minister Harper;

Prime Minister Harper's preoccupation with the military solution;

Prime Minister Harper's unrealistic expectations about Afghanistan;

Canadian MSM: we need a taliban body count - without it, the Enemy is winning the propaganda war;

Defense Minister O'Connor uses more Bush-Cheney talking points on what defines Canada's mission in Afghanistan as successful;

And last, but not least: highly sensitive information about the religious beliefs, political opinions and even the sex life of Britons travelling to the United States is to be made available to US authorities when the European Commission agrees to a new system of checking passengers. My question is: will this be happening with Canadians as well? Or has this been implemented already without our knowledge?

I wrote previously: "Canada is currently being governed by incompetent people who are more interested in pleasing Bush-Cheney (and related U.S. interests), and thus surrendering our sovereignty in the process, than actually promoting, protecting and serving the interests of Canada (...) Therefore, look again at their record so far and then try to imagine how much they can further "accomplish" in another year hence - or two, or even more ..."

Scary thoughts, eh?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Of Incompetence, Delusions Of Grandeur And Monomania

(Updated below)

Monomania (mon-o-ma-ni-a):
n.
1. Pathological obsession with one idea or subject.
2. Intent concentration on or exaggerated enthusiasm for a single subject or idea.

"The marketing of personality is changing from a cottage to a growth industry (...) The trend coincides with a current journalistic emphasis, even in the respectables, on what is interesting, against what is important. (The important may make a comeback in news interest but at the moment lacks either the urgency of danger or the stimulus of hope.) Recognizing this shift, politicians constantly conduct polls about their image and resist too much identity with substance (...) Everywhere the cult of personality prevails (...) There is less of journalistic prying now, even though gossip and gossip columning are still around. Gossip flourishes particularly in Washington, where political hypocrisy still lends savor to misbehavior (...) Celebrityhood lives by publicity and must be ready to be "interesting" on cue (...) But an interest in people won't go away: it is as old as Plutarch, and apt to survive as long as humans do."

The preceding constitutes a collage of choice statements from an August 1978 Time Magazine piece, "America's own cult of personality" (with emphasis mine).

Thirty-minus-one years later, things have only gotten worse in this respect - in both the U.S.A. and Canada.

Indeed, we need only to scan through the offerings of the MSM on any given day to arrive at this conclusion. The same applies with the current offerings in entertainment (Reality TV shows, anyone?). The prevailing under currents of praises, needs and cries for a Unitary Leader, of a strong and powerful leader who must be above the quaint laws of the country, as well as the MSM's fixations with all things manly, confident, comforting and securing in candidates (some examples highlighted and discussed here, here, here, here and here), are likewise glaring symptoms of the terrible disease that is ailing our democratic societies.

However, allow me to dwell specifically upon the subject of the cult of political personalities, especially with regards as to what it can do to incompetent, would-be authoritarian Leaders.

The cult of political personalities has ever constituted a given fact of life in totalitarian regimes - Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, et al., the list goes on and on. Truth be told, these (and those currently in power still) are nothing more than modernized transpositions of the worship, reverence and unwavering following of all those Pharaohs, Kings, Tyrants, Emperors and Monarchs found throughout Humanity's history. Absolute authoritarianism requires that the Leader be loved, admired and cherished without question - because He is powerful, He is wise, His word is law, His vision is pure, and His rule is all that is good, just and true.

And, of course, because He has a mandate from the Gods/the Heavens/God ... or is a God Himself.

(A mandate from God ... where have I heard this before? Ah, yes - now I remember well - but I digress)

It goes without saying that Cult Leaders are typically afflicted by delusions of grandeur, seeing themselves as all wise and all visionary, brooking no questions of their self-righteousness, let alone suffering any dissenting opinions (something that they just can't understand). They can do no wrong and are always right. They do not make mistakes - rather, it is always the fault of others if the Leader's plans and directives go astray. The apparels of government must conform to the Leader's will, vision and purity of ideology - facts of reality notwithstanding. Laws be damned or be brushed aside, if they stand in the way of the Leader's obsessive march into history. All that matters to the Leader is his (perceived) infallibility and the total loyalty of others to himself and his vision - as well as his ego's need to be praised and flattered. In short, the Leader views himself as the only one worthy and capable of governing all by himself.

And of course, there are enemies everywhere - at least in the Leader's paranoid mind - and hence wars must be waged while secrecy is de rigueur. Total awareness and control are a must as well. Above all, the Leader must use the politics of fear and ignorance in order to keep the flock subdued and adoringly supportive of His decisive grandeur - of the idea that He is the Law.

But as history has often shown, political personality cults can collapse very quickly upon the disgrace, ousting or death of the Cult Leader. History has also shown us how a besieged Cult Leader can behave like when his hold onto power becomes tenuous:

1) He enters into an acute paranoid-driven "bunker mentality";
2) He becomes monomaniacal and resolute in his deluded belief that he is right;
3) He holds court only with his most fervent and loyal supporters;
and 4) His demands for support and loyalty become increasingly petty and specious.

All of these numerous characteristics and behaviors mentioned above constitute glaring examples of all Eight Principles of Incompetence in action.

Unfortunately, history has also shown us that a "besieged" Cult Leader will often resort to the Sixth Principle whenever he feels cornered enough.

And the problem is that all the tools required to do so are already on hand, namely the Catastrophic Emergency Presidential Directive (“National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”), the Blocking of Property and Assets Presidential Directive, the Patriot Act, the Military Commission's Act (as well as the gutting of the Posse Comitatus Act), and the invocation of Martial Law - taking into account the policies of habeas corpus suspension, torture, indefinite detention and illegal eavesdropping already currently still being enacted.

Could there be indeed something in the works to trigger an authoritarian state? Will he, spurred on by his Regent, finally cross the Rubicon?

In 2000, an obvious incompetent was elected as President by the People (or lack thereof) - regardless of how he may have been "helped". Nevertheless, he was re-elected in 2004 - thanks again to the People.

Because of his incompetence, the seeming cult of personality that he has enjoyed (after 9-11) only fuled his deluded ego, therefter rendering him susceptible to increased delusions of grandeur - and once the majority of the People realized that he was indeed an emperor without clothes, the shock at being denied unfettered loyalty and adoration by a flock of unquestioning, submitted sheeps caused him to retreat further and further into monomania ... to the point whereby he now constitutes a frightening potential danger to the Republic.

Respect for authority and institutions is a requisite in democratic societies governed by the rule of Law. However, venerating said authority and institutions is anathema to the very basic principles of democracy.

What is holding the People back from ousting the Bush administration with impeachment? Is it misplaced blind respect for the office of the Presidency, or some lingerings from the Bush cult of personality? Or is it plain procrastination or, even worse, democratic cowardice? Or all of the above?

Only time, and history, will tell, I suppose ...

In closing, I could not end this commentary without leaving you good folks with a parting offering: I give you Living Colour - Cult of Personality, proving once again that a song can say it all (lyrics below the video screen).

Look into my eyes, what do you see?
Cult of personality.
I know your anger, I know your dreams,
I’ve been everything you want to be:
I’m the cult of personality.
Like Mussolini and Kennedy,
I’m the cult of personality.
Cult of personality, cult of personality.

Neon lights, a nobel prize,
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies.
You don’t have to follow me:
Only you can set me free.

I sell the things you need to be,
I’m the smiling face on your t.v.
I’m the cult of personality.
I exploit you still you love me,
I tell you one and one makes three.
I’m the cult of personality.
Like Joseph Stalin and Ghandi;
I’m the cult of personality.
Cult of personality, cult of personality.

Neon lights, a nobel prize,
When a leader speaks, that leader dies.
You don’t have to follow me:
Only you can set you free.

You gave me fortune, you gave me fame.
You gave me power in your God’s name.
I’m every person you need to be:
I’m the cult of personality.


Update: 07/24/2007 - TheBHC at Anything They Say also blogged on the same subject, albeit coming at it from a different angle and yet arriving at essentially the same conclusion: "The country has grown weary of their yapping, and they know it, which spells only one possible recourse: an actual terrorist attack, not the phony, trumped-up dummy plots we have seen to date. If something like that does happen, it is going to have the smell of Operation Northwoods and Operation Gladio all over it. Outrageous? Of course. But how could we be surprised that any of these war criminals, whose lies have already led to several thousand American dead and untold numbers of Iraqis, would resist what must surely appear to be their only solution to failing political climate". 'Nuff said ...


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Progressive Historians, at Suzie-Q and at Diatribune)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

A Quick One: The Predominant Goodness Of APOV

Via Red Tory, I was alerted to the Germatriculator, which uses the quack pseudo-science of Bible Numerics to evaluate the percentage of Evil and Good in web sites or in specific posts.

So of course, I had to try this and check out the Evilness/Goodness rating of APOV.

And here it is:

(32% Evil, 68% Good)

Good thing this gimmick engine didn't take the time to actually read my numerous opinions concerning religious fundamentalists and Bible literalism, eh?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Real Problem With Terrorism

The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades.

Here is a summed up definition of terrorism from a 2001 report of the U.S. State Department (the original report is no longer available online apparently, and thus I use this article as source instead): Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (civilians and/or military personnel who are unarmed, or off duty at the time) by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. Acts of terrorism are also considered as attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against military bases.

However clear such a definition may appear to be, it nonetheless falls short when one considers insurgents against a regime or resistance fighters against occupiers. That is why the main difficulty in clearly defining terrorism lies with the unfortunately inconvenient - but nevertheless realistically valid - argument that one state's "terrorist" is often another state's "freedom fighter".

The anti-Sandinista Contras and the IRA are two examples which come quickly to mind, in support of said inherent subjectivity in defining, and labeling, "acts of terrorism".

John Chuckman recently penned an eye-opening article dealing with the subjectivity of what terrorism means, illustrating how many military actions during wars constituted nothing more than actions meant to terrorize populations into surrendering - the unconditional surrender of proud and military powerful Imperial Japan, following Hiroshima and Nagasaki, stands out first and foremost in my mind.

However, the point is still currently being illustrated all too well with the conflations of Taliban/non-Taliban Afghani insurgents - or of Iraqi insurgents - with al-Qaeda terrorists, as harped day in and day out by U.S. and Canadian authorities and media, as well as by the usual American/Canadian neoconservative, faux patriotic, and fearmongering/fear-stricken enthusiasts (such as the 101st Keyboard Commandos and their Canadian counterparts, whom I have come to call the Kanuckle Keyboard Kommandos).

Which brings a second underlying truism in the subjective nature of defining terrorism: the use of ideological, political and/or religious dogmatism in labeling acts as terrorism.

To claim that Afghani and Iraqi insurgents (or even the genuinely terrorist al-Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah militants, for instance) are "against freedom and democracy" is not only facile intellectual sloth-driven absolutism, but likewise constitutes a mendacious rationalization to be used as a political, ideological and/or religious talking point - as John Chuckman elegantly illustrates.

Nonetheless, the fearmongering, fear-stricken American and Canadian madhaters keep on barking and yelping about "Gobal struggle against radical Islamism", "Islamofascism", "Global struggle against terrorism", "protecting our freedoms", "clash of civilizations", "defending Christianity" or even the childish "fighting evil", all the while boasting their faux (cowardly) patriotism and exposing their penchant for religious/governmental authoritarianism - the promotion of which constituting their one and only motivation.

Hence, that is why they accuse of treason anyone who dares to question the validity of the current Afghanistan and Iraq wars;

That is why they keep clamoring for more war (e.g. Iran);

That is why they confuse "support our troops" with "support the mission";

That is why they gleefully applaud the increased militarization and integration of North America;

That is why they applaud and support aberrations like the Patriot Act and the Military Commission's Act;

That is why they are intractable supporters of illegal domestic spying, denial of habeas corpus, indefinite detentions, torture and secret military tribunals;

And that is why they keep clamoring, and seeking, for more.

In short, neocons, Christian fundamentalists and their sympaticos are nothing more than intellectual sloth-driven, frightened and hateful immature children, finding comfort in the simpleton "purity" of their beliefs and ideologies, while seeking security in the strong, manly busoms of Big Daddy/God/General exclusively.

Yes, insurgents are politically motivated - they want occupiers out of their country (whether they be "right" or "wrong" about it)! Yes, al-Qaeda use religion as their main driving motivation against what they perceive as the West encroaching into Muslim countries (again, whether they be "right" or "wrong" about this). IRA wanted independence - so did the FLQ for that matter. And so on, and so forth.

While I have always considered genuine terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, IRA, FLQ, Hamas, Hezbollah and others of their ilk as glaring, reprehensible and unacceptable examples of the Sixth Principle of Incompetence, I find myself nonetheless feeling sympathetic for genuine insurgents such as the Afghani and Iraqi ones - if only because I would be doing the same against foreign occupiers of my own country who refuse to leave.

And that is true patriotism in my book, as opposed to those cheerleaders of war who would not even enlist in order to actually fight for that cherished cause that they claim to fervently espouse.

As I wrote previously:

For the sake of our continued existence, we must strive to forget nevermore that rationalizations supporting the use of violence - other than the need for the rightful exercise of self-defense when set upon by a genuinely clear, present and immediate danger - invariably constitute deceitful fabrications meant to conceal, disguise or justify incompetence ...

... including our very own for embracing such mendacity.

Or, to put it another way: war is so over as a means to enact change, such as the utterly arrogant and presumptuous ideal of "bringing democracy" to other countries.

Hence, the real problem with terrorism lies not with the difficulties in defining it, but rather with the means we choose to confront it and whether we do so with clear heads (such as by remembering that one can't wage war against a method/tactic of fighting), or with fear- and hate-ridden, intellectual sloth-driven reasoning - as being currently done, sadly and tragically enough.

It has been said before by others many a time, yet it remains very à propos to repeat it here: we have met the enemy and the enemy is ourselves.

The question now becomes: what are we to do about this?


(Cross-posted at Dkos, at Suzie-Q and at Diatribune)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Late Friday Night Ode To Peace

What better way to praise peace than by offering you a song which condemns war?

From the good old days of 1984-1985 (ah, yes - spandex ... those were the days indeed), here is a song which remains very much à propos in these very, trying days: Iron Maiden - Two Minutes Two Midnight. As I am fond of saying: sometimes, a song says it all ...

Kill for gain or shoot to maim,

But we don't need a reason.
The Golden Goose is on the loose

And never out of season.
Some blackened pride still burns inside

This shell of bloody treason,
Here's my gun for a barrel of fun,

For the love of living death.

The killers breed on the Demon's seed,

The glamour, the fortune, the pain.
Go to war again, blood is freedom's stain -

But don't you pray for my soul anymore.

2 minutes to midnight, the hands that threaten doom.
2 minutes to midnight, to kill the unborn in the womb.

The blind men shout "Let the creatures out!

We'll show the unbelievers."
The napalm screams of human flames,

Of a prime time Belsen feast ... yeah!
As the reasons for the carnage

Cut their meat and lick the gravy,
We oil the jaws of the war machine

And feed it with our babies.

The killers breed on the Demon's seed,

The glamour, the fortune, the pain.
Go to war again, blood is freedom's stain -

But don't you pray for my soul anymore.

2 minutes to midnight, the hands that threaten doom.
2 minutes to midnight, to kill the unborn in the womb.

The body bags and little rags

Of children torn in two
And the jellied brains of those who remain,

To put the finger right on you.
As the madmen play on words

And make us all dance to their song -
To the tune of starving millions,

To make a better kind of gun.

The killers breed or the Demon's seed,

The glamour, the fortune, the pain.
Go to war again, blood is freedom's stain -

But don't you pray for my soul anymore.

2 minutes to midnight, the hands that threaten doom.
2 minutes to midnight, to kill the unborn in the womb.

Midnight, Midnight, Midnight - It's all right.
Midnight, Midnight, Midnight - It's all night!

(I hope members of the U.S. 101st Keyboard Commandos and of our own Kanuckle Keyboard Kommados will drop by and listen carefully - for once in their intellectual sloth-driven lives ...).

Enjoy - and keep on rockin'!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

APOV's Friday Weekly Revue (07/20/2007)

With due thanks to Bobby Revell for inspiring the idea with this recent post of his, I've decided to add a "feature" to APOV called "APOV's Friday Weekly Revue", in which I list (and link to) the twelve blog entries that most attracted my undivided attention during the past week (if I am limiting myself to only twelve, it is because I could easily list fifty if not more, considering the sheer volume of quality writers out there which I try to read as regularly as possible - hence, I have to draw the line somewhere, eh?).

Therefore, and without further fanfare, here is APOV's Friday Weekly Revue for July 20, 2007:

Oh, U.S.A.!
The exposed Puppet President Bush can nowadays only find solace by holding court with his staunchest of admirers - especially since his ex-Christian Right fawning supporters have apparently found their new lover savior hero champion. Say - I wonder what Unitary Regent Cheney thinks about the fact that his infamous 1% doctrine has now been downgraded to 0.7%? Or that violence in Iraq is as high as ever? Which brings me to a word of advice and caution: anti-Iraq war critics should not repeat the mistakes of their previous counterparts of the Vietnam era by crying "baby-killer" lightly. And as an aside, the MSM continues forth resolutely with its quest to outdo its own vapid, fatuous and trivia-junkie achievements in superficial infotainment.

Oh, Canada!
Like the intellectual sloth-driven, incompetent neocon that he is, the Mini Leader double-speaks on human rights, probably having forgotten his often-stated aversion to terrorism, while having found his very own equivalent of a Petraeus-political-hack-like to further sell Canada's mission in the other quagmire Afghanistan. Meanwhile, news columnists (from our "liberal" MSM) and "thoughtful, civil" right-wing bloggers are crying "treason, bloody treason!" against those who dare criticize the Afghanistan War - they are simply following in the footsteps of their American wingnut counterparts with regards to Iraq War critics, I suppose ... Or am I guilty of a logical fallacy by presenting these items in such a way? Hmmmm ....

Enjoy - and keep on rockin'!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Neocon Wet Dreams Are Fast Becoming Reality

With the Iraq and Afghanistan wars causing much chaos while encouraging increased insurgency and terrorism, with a confrontation against Iran looming, and with Pakistan now being likewise targeted by the rattling of American sabers, the rest of the Middle East is in turn gradually destabilizing, hopelessly caught in a sinking vortex that will lead ultimately to more war and chaos.

Let's cut through the mustard and all that jazz, here. We all know that in the fevered minds of the Bushies, their neocon supporters and their far-right fundamentalist Christian allies, this is all about two things, and two things only: hegemony of Christian fundamentalism and complete control of oil productivity.

In other words: defeat of Islam + fall of the Middle East = Holy American Empire.

Not convinced? Go read the neocon Manifest Destiny (look at the signatories at the bottom of the page and then delve through the site) - I will spare you the details here so that I may focus on the subject at hand.

To begin, let us see how things are currently standing in the usual Middle Eastern countries that we've come to know so well, shall we?

Afghanistan: I wrote recently an extensive analysis of the failures of this war - I will therefore not dwell again on it here. Suffice it to say that the Taliban and al-Qaeda have grown back in strenght, the elected Karzai government's hold on power is tenuous at best while the power of the Warlords is a good as it ever was, the N.A.T.O. tactics and approaches against the continuing insurgency kills more innocent civilians than insurgents, and that the Afghanis want the N.A.T.O. forces out of their country (understandably). With each day comes one more news item which further underlie this tragic and chaotic state of affairs in this still war-torn country. "Progress" there is stagnant at best or actually devolving. Nonetheless, there are those who remain insistent that the Afghanistan war has gone reasonably well ... right, Mr. Kristol?

Pakistan: The country has never been of much help (at all) against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, to begin with. Nonetheless, Pakistanis have been likewise suffering from increased Taliban and al-Qaeda violence and chaos (one recent example here). Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has threatened to launch attacks into Pakistani territory if it sees fit - as the N.A.T.O. forces in Afghanistan have already done. I bet some are quite happy at this prospect ... right, Mr. Kristol?

Iraq: Things are essentially the same as in Afghanistan, what with the ongoing insurgency and all - I don't think I really need to list the litany of failures and ongoing catastrophes occurring there, day in and day out. Case in point that "progress" there is devolving: Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is creating his own parallel government and strenghtening his army, leaving the elected - but powerless - Maliki government to twist in the wind. Meanwhile, seven of the most important Sunni-led insurgent Iraqi organizations have agreed to form an alliance. This bodes very well for Iraq and the Americans, considering how the restraint and humanitarian acts of the Americans (two examples here and here - Yankee Go Home indeed) are appreciated, and considering the continuing love between Shiites and Sunnis (sarcasm aplenty here) ... Now can we call this a civil war, Mr. Kristol? At the same time, Turkey has amassed some 140000 troops at the border of northern Iraq and has already begun bombing operations across the border ... for the second time around. Obviously, Turkey as its eye on a prize in the inevitable disintegration of the country that will soon be Formerly-Known-As-Iraq. But why worry? All that chaos only means that victory is sure to come ... right, Mr. Kristol?

Iran: The rattling of sabers for a confrontation with Iran are becoming louder and louder with each new day, the neocons and Christian fundamentalists buzzing like angry bees over this - I've written about such rattling of sabers before (here, here, here and here), as many others did. Being sandwiched between Iraq (to the West) and Afghanistan (to the East/North-East), no wonder Iranians are feeling nervous, thus increasingly strenghtening the hold of Shiite fundamentalism in the country. Considering the recent Senate resolution against Iran and the increased presence of U.S. aircraft carriers in the crowed Persian Gulf, I keep expecting a Gulf of Tonkin-like incident or something similar to what happened with those British sailors - after all, if it's O.K. for Israel to bomb Lebanon back to the stone age for two soldiers being kept captive, what's to prevent the U.S. from doing the same to Iran for two or more of theirs as well ... right, Mr. Kristol?

And through it all, the Palestinian situation worsened while the rattling of sabers for a confrontation with Syria likewise continue unabetted. Through it all, terrorism and insurgency have been rising and causing death and chaos in Jordan (one example here), as in Saudi Arabia - of course. Same with Egypt. That'll teach these countries for their "indifference" with regards to the Global Struggle Against Radical Islamism(TM) and the need for massive regime change in the region ... right, Mr. Kristol?

And so there we have it: the whole of the Middle East is gradually destabilizing, hopelessly caught in a sinking vortex that will lead ultimately to total war and chaos in the region.

All thanks not only to the disastrous American presence and incompetence in the Middle East, but also due to its own overt and covert fanning of the flames.

But through such fire, death and chaos, how will the Americans manage to seize control, you may ask? Surely there are not enough troops available, you say.

In response, I give you tactical nuclear missiles and bombs - with the justification in using them most likely being the same as the one advanced for their previous use: to spare tremendous American loss of lives and bring a fast resolution to the conflict.

No need for troops then, eh? And history has shown how quickly a powerful country and its proud people are willing to surrender unconditionally after being so bombed once or twice. Now, imagine how quickly the Middle Eastern peoples will surrender, when faced with similar atrocities.

Nonetheless, it will be then, and only then, that the wet dreams of the neocons and far-right Christian fundamentalists will have finally become reality - with the use of nuclear weapons included.

After all, this is all about their lust for a Holy American Empire ...

Right, Mr. Kristol?


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q, at Progressive Historians and at Diatribune)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Using Death As A Fighting Chance For Life

(Note: This entry constitutes my humble participation in BlogCatalog's first world wide blogger social campaign to raise awareness about organ donation and the issues surrounding organ donation, on this Wednesday July 18, 2007)

As of 2005, more than 4,000 Canadians were waiting for an organ transplant to save their lives. In the U.S., there are currently some 97000 transplantation candidates likewise awaiting for a chance to live.

All the while, and despite continuing advances in medicine and technology, the demand for organs keeps on drastically exceeding the number of organ donors - in both Canada and the U.S.A..

Organ donation sources are divided into two categories: A) from living donors; and B) from deceased donors.

On the one hand, it is quite understandable that the majority of healthy folks out there would be reluctant to undergo an invasive (and sometimes painful) medical procedure in order to donate a kidney, part of a liver, some bone marrow, or other vitally needed organs/tissues for transplantation. After all, one can live quite easily with only one kidney, one lung or half of one's liver. And whatever bone marrow is taken out will be replaced with fresh one soon enough by one's own body. Hence, it is having to "go under the knife" which constitutes a "show-stopper" - again, quite understandably. Furthermore, those courageous enough to do so nonetheless (one inspiring example here) often find themselves with financial hurdles, such as a lack of paid sick leave, lack of sickness compensation and other direct/indirect costs (travel, medical, etc.). Consequently, organ/tissue donations from living donors will ever remain problematic at best, scarce at worst.

On the other hand, donations from deceased donors has become likewise problematic. Canada and the U.S. operate under a system called informed consent: would-be donors must sign some sort of donation card — often on the back of their driver's licence — to signal their wishes. And even then, unless this is accompanied by a formal legal document, families have the last word - and those all too often allow their grief, ignorance and/or superstitions to dictate their decision to refuse. This is especially compounded by cultural, religious and/or ignorance-driven misconceptions with regards to what makes a human being dead, in sharp opposition to the clinical/scientific definition of death (Terry Schiavo, anyone?). In addition, silly (or as I would rather say: intellectual sloth-driven) myths cloud the decision to actually sign a donor card, such as the ridiculous fear that if you sign one, you won't receive as good a care as someone who has declined to donate organs by not signing.

Still, in the meantime, there is an emerging worldwide market for organs - in good part of the black market type in nature and all too often profiteering from poor folks who have nothing to sell but their own body parts. Not counting that the quality of organs/tissues so obtained often leaves to be desired - at the risk of recipients (whether they be filthy rich or not).

However, here are four simple ways to alleviate (in good part) these problems in the medium and long run:

1) Learn more about organ and tissue donations (more here, here, here and here);

2) Know the myths about organ donations and spread the word in debunking them (more here);

3) Sign your donor card;

and 4) Discuss your decision extensively with your family members (if push comes to shove, cement your decision in your will or any similar type of legal document).

Hence, while donating organs/tissues as a living donor is understandably a harrowing prospect to consider, do show nonetheless courage and altruism by reminding yourself that it is the greatest gift one can give by using one's death as a fighting chance for life.

Look at it as a way to have the last laugh at death itself.

But in the meantime, do live a long, prosperous and happy life, eh?


(Cross-posted at DKos and at Suzie-Q)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Shape Of Things To Come

(Updated below)

Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

We all know this old (french) saying. But what does it really mean?

Surely this axiom does not fit with reality, considering all the changes that have occurred throughout Humanity's history - whether political, economic, democratic, societal, scientific and technological. Indeed, many are the examples of progress achieved in a sustainable fashion.

Yet, there has been as well examples of reversal of progress - but such have been proven to be transient in nature, Humanity invariably striving to restore progress previously achieved (and for a time relegated on a back-burner) and thereafter continue forth in its biological drive to improve its condition of life.

But what happens when a "need" becomes not only counter-productive to progress, but furthermore becomes an agent for stagnation and, inevitably, deterioration?

One of the most basic needs of most living mammals is satisfaction - namely, the state of well-being which stems from being fed, quenched, warm, comfortable, well rested, accepted/supported by peers and, of course, safe. Such a need is by itself immensely gratifying, thus encouraging further search of the means and ends required to remain, or become again, satisfied.

It goes without saying that in beings capable of reasoning such as ourselves, the search for satisfaction not only includes such basic requirements as being fed, quenched, warm, comfortable, well rested, accepted/supported by peers and safe, but furthermore goes beyond said basic means and ends to likewise include "abstract" ones such as conversation, reading, listening to music, seeking to understand/explain the unknown, caring/tending animals and/or plants, achieving accomplishments (in hobbies, in farming, in construction, in arts, at work, etc.), ranting/self-expression, vacations from work, and other similar types of "big brain-driven" activities.

Entertainment is also a means to reach satisfaction. Big time.

I have harped often enough about intellectual sloth, the serious problems that it causes in our societies (especially by driving incompetence) and what should be done to eradicate this scourge. Interestingly, and as I am fond of repeating, intellectual sloth transforms any adult person who is afflicted by it into an irresponsible, selfish, self-centered and reactionary child or adolescent, who lives only in the “now” while remaining blind to “yesterday” and “tomorrow" - being in continuous search of the quick-and-easy, of instant gratification.

And it goes again without saying that instant gratification is tremendously satisfying.

Why is this so dangerous to us? The answer is simple: what allowed Humanity to escape extinction and thereafter strive, multiply, colonize the world, and thereafter become the dominant species of our planet, has always been our "big brain-driven" knack for thinking about - and preparing for - tomorrow. That is why we followed animal migrations. That is why we began farming and domesticating animals. That is why we had the idea of making reserves of food and water. That is why we have always kept on striving for our children and their children. That is why we work for our paychecks. That is also why we pay insurance (for whatever).

All because of tomorrow and what it may, or may not, bring.

Now here's why we have such a potentially catastrophic problem: the intellectual sloth-driven search of instant-gratification subverts our "big brain-driven" tool of being able to always think about tomorrow in such a way, as to either numb it down - thus trapping us in the "now" like non-reasoning animals - or actually embezzle it so that it serves predominantly in the further search of instant gratification. Or both.

And thus here we are today - stuck with tabloid journalism and tabloid politics, fear and ignorance ruling the day, with too many among us expecting to be serviced opinions, or contenting ourselves at decrying/ranting about the sad state of things, or at playing "gotcha!", all the while seeking entertainment in the process - whether in news (papers, TV, online) or in the blogosphere.

Yesterday, Jane Hamsher wrote this on the 10th anniversary of the blogosphere:

"During the ’90s, railing at the TV set was the isometric sport of the silent majority. Progressive political junkies watched in isolation as the Washington Post prominently printed one Whitewater story after another as if they originated on tablets of stone rather than the fax machines of Arkansas political operatives. Many people felt like they were the only ones who scratched their heads in wonder that it all made no sense, recoiling in horror as a slick PR operation rapidly escalated from the realm of lazy, spoon-fed journalism to the constitutional mockery of the Clinton impeachment.

That isolation ended with the advent of the progressive blogosphere, which acts as a virtual water cooler for those who not only want to rail at the TV set, they want the TV set to listen. Probably nothing better contrasts the pre- and postblogospheric worlds than the Whitewater and CIA leak stories (...)"

I actually disagree to some extent with Jane (whom I respect very much) on this one. Yes, there are a few out there, like her (and we all know the others), who are not only blogging, dissecting and doing the "gotcha!" thing, but at the same time are actively involving themselves directly to enact change in the sad state of affairs that we are currently finding ourselves in. Unfortunately, achieving sustainable change and progress in politics, democracy, media and society at large constitutes a long, patient and determined endeavor. To this effect, my impression from reading regularly the "Big Blogs" (such as Jane's, or DKos, or those others we all know too well) is that the overwhelming majority of bloggers and blog readers of the progressive blogosphere content themselves at dissecting, ranting and/or reading/commenting - especially where blogs which are either "entertaining", or those which deal with the outrage du jour, are concerned.

This is indeed all about the self-centered search for instant gratification.

In the meantime, each day brings its new outrage - while the song remains the same.

In short: the blogosphere is predominantly the online transposition of the water cooler conversations. Nothing more, nothing less - at least for the time being.

Or, as I wrote before: the blogosphere not only enables but also (knowingly or not) encourages instant gratification.

Case in point: this diary at DKos who directly confronts this state of affairs in the progressive blogosphere and which apparently garnered little or no recommends (more or less the same fate as two previous diaries of mine in a similar vein, here and here), when in fact more such diaries should be put up front and highlighted, in order to force progressive blog readers to think seriously about what they are not doing and what they actually need to do: look hard in the mirror.

Unfortunately, too many do not want to read such things - because they confront their behavior which, deep down, they know is wrong-headed and leads to stagnation.

First and foremost, to paraphrase what I have written previously, all of us must accept the reality that achieving change and progress requires patience, determination and perseverance. That is the competent way.

The incompetent way is impatience or, as I like to call this, expediency.

Or, if you prefer, the want for instant gratification.

Glenn Greenwald wrote it best:

"Defeatism can lead one to believe that there is no progress at all and that progress is impossible. Impatience can lead one to conclude that the progress is too slow and incremental to matter. But slow and incremental progress of this sort is the only kind that is viable, and ultimately, the only kind that really matters."

My humble wish is that those of us who write or read blogs will strive to fight off our want for instant gratification and, instead, involve ourselves directly (as I do in my own neck of the woods) into making change - as opposed to only demanding it, then ranting because it does not appear to be, or is actually not, forthcoming.

In closing, I would like to leave you good folks with this parting thought: only once we commit ourselves into being participating agents of change and progress will the shape of things to come be better and brighter.

For ourselves, for our children, for their children ... and for tomorrow.

Only then will our revolutionary participatory democracy cease to be just about ranting and railing, living up instead fully to its potential and promise.

That is, unless everything remains the same ...


Addendum: The original title of the DKos version of this article was the same as here at APOV. However, some 2 hours after posting it there, I still had not one single comment, tip or recommend. In order to prove the point of this article, I amended its DKos version title thus: "The Shape Of Things To Come? Not At DKos, Apparently". Some ten minutes after, the diary got its first tip. Interesting, no?


Update: 07/17/07 - Punditman reminded me in the comments today of his own piece that he wrote back in June of this year, when Cindy Sheehan resigned from the anti-war movement. It goes in the same vein as this current article of mine. I enjoin you to read this post as well, since the more such posts/articles are out there and read, the greater the chances of being successful at awakening progressives into realizing the current problems and limitations of the progressive blogosphere - i.e. lack of real, direct and active parcticipation as agents of change and progress. As Punditman so aptly said in his June 2007 post: "*They* have got us right where they want us: seized up in cyberspace, gazing at our navels". To this I add: only raging against the dying of the light will not prevent the light from dying - and then, what? Yes, there have been some encouraging initiatives and developments, like the recent Make the Republicans stand and fillibuster campaign, but such blogosphere-initiated direct agencies of change remain too few and far between. Acknowledging the problem is but the first step, as the saying goes ...

Have you the democratic courage to do so?


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q, at Diatribune and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

And so it goes ...

This is what I wrote before concerning the primitive minds of neocons, right-wing madhaters and all those politicos who keep "toeing the party line":

"They lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end.

And this 'end' is the following: to promulgate, support and defend their beliefs or their ideologies.

Truth be told: these are the only things that truly matter to them."

Of course, such behavior constitutes nothing more than intellectual sloth-driven incompetence:

"Intellectual sloth is a human character flaw. It pushes any person who is guilty of it to wallow in ignorance, finding security in absolute ideologies, philosophies of thoughts, tenets of faith or various dogmas, without seeking to understand them fully or even less to question them. A person guilty of intellectual sloth is constantly in search of the quick-and-easy and instant gratification (...) Incidentally, a person guilty of intellectual sloth is egocentric and selfish, even greedy, in his/her immature search for facility and instant gratification. Furthermore, such a person refuses to accept any fact of reality which confronts, rattles, or even invalidates, the comfort of one's 'convictions'. To this effect, such a person will be arrogant, if not contemptuous, towards anything and anyone that confronts his/her ignorance generated by intellectual sloth (...).

(...) one who is afflicted with intellectual sloth is often deluded by intellectual vanity and invariably becomes a slave of expediency. Furthermore, everything is about image and appearance, instead of substance. Truthiness, instead of truth. All of these characteristics underlie incompetence - whether as nations, as communities, as citizens, as blue-collar/white-collar workers, as parents, and/or as thinking, reasoning human beings. In short, intellectual sloth transforms any adult person who is guilty of it into an irresponsible and reactionary child or adolescent, who lives only in the 'now' while remaining blind to 'yesterday' and 'tomorrow'. Such a person thus becomes incompetent - in dealing/composing with reality, or in at least trying to understand it (...)"

Let us review some recent news items (among so many to choose from) which further underlie my, ah, assertions - shall we?

1) Bush Dismisses Iraq Critics: ‘War Fatigue’ Is Affecting Their ‘Psychology’, Bush To Declare Gains In Iraq On Some Fronts, President Hopes To Move Past Furor Over Libby Sentence Commutation and Bush: Insurgents in Iraq same as 9/11 attackers - This is a classic example of an intellectual sloth-driven incompetent (in dealing/composing with reality) who refuses to accept any fact which confronts, rattles, or even invalidates, the comfort of his 'convictions'. To this effect, of course, he is arrogant, if not contemptuous, towards anything and anyone that confronts his ignorance generated by intellectual sloth. Furthemore, an incompetent will always find justifications and quaint rationalizations in supporting/defending his incompetence - including lying, misrepresenting and blaming others (on a related note: is al-Qaeda weaker ... or not? Incompetents often trip over themselves with their extensive tap-dancing and cherry-picking of facts ...)

2) Top Intel Analyst Says Surge Is Failing, Kristol Counters It’s Going ‘Better Than Anyone Expected’ and Escalation Architect Kagan: ‘Whatever You Can Say About The Current Strategy, It Has Not Failed’ - Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan keep behaving like Bush above (rather, I suspect that Bush gets the behavior from Kristol and Kagan - but I digress). This is quite expected of those two, especially since they are compelled to promulgate, support and defend their beliefs and ideology - the only things which truly matter to them. Hence, they lie and misrepresent, while being dismissive and contemptuous of those who prove them wrong - understandably, since they are deluded by intellectual vanity and are both intractable slaves of expediency (ergo Kristol's stance on attacking Iran and ... even Pakistan - after all, violence is the last refuge of incompetence). Then again, Kristol and Kagan have nothing on the Master Liar Extraordinaire.

3) Senate Conservatives Rush To Cheney’s Defense, Webb Amendment Protecting U.S. Troops Fails, Lieberman On The Webb Amendment: 'Give The American Soldier A Break…' and Wait Until Terrorists Strike The U.S. Again: Then We will Be Validated - Incompetents always defend/support other incompetents and they will lie, misrepresent, disassemble, obfuscate and blame others in doing so (with Iran being the favorite scapegoat à la mode recently). The promulgation and support of ideology is paramount above everything else - it is the only thing which truly matter to them. And the facts of reality be damned in the process (including the sanctity of the Constitution of the U.S.A. or the well-being of the troops or innocent lives lost or et al.). Greenwald has more on this matter, even if he does not mention intellectual sloth-driven incompetence - the actual root of the problem.

4) Huckabee Takes Personal Shot At Michael Moore and Boehner Calls Anti-Surge GOP Senators 'Wimps' - Again ... incompetents lie, misrepresent, use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. Why? Because their intellectual sloth-driven, petty minds make them act like reactionary adolescents. This is especially laughable in the case of Boehner, who is reputed for weeping whenever he is arguing his "points". That is why I call this "Lie and Cry".

And last, but not least, 5) Chertoff Bases Warning Of Terror Risk On 'Gut Feeling' - Forget facts. Forget reality. Thrutiness, spin and appearances are all that matter. Why else go through such lenghts at censoring/rewriting science and cherry-picking facts (one more recent example here)? Beliefs and ideology must be validated at all costs. Digby calls this Red Queen Politics. I call this generalized intellectual sloth and the rule of the tabloid politics of fear and ignorance - and these are still working quite efficiently. And the problem here is that it is not confined to politics, but throughout society - indeed, it now constitutes a veritable cancer on the body democratic, economic, politic and society.

Now, you may look over these few news items and wonder: "How have we come to this"?

All I can say is that the answer will be found if you look in a mirror.

Once again: Mea culpa, mea culpa, vox populi.

And so it goes ...


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q and at Diatribune)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Thinking Blogger Award II

Seiche (one of my suspiciously favorite blogs) tagged APOV with its second Thinking Blogger Award today.

I greatly appreciate this disctinction from him, especially since he and I often agree to disagree (and still, we agree on many a thing nonetheless), and since there are hundreds and thousands of excellent blogs in the blogosphere to choose from. I thank you very much, Seiche - I am quite honored (and humbled) by this! And congratulations as well for receiving one yourself - you certainly, definitely deserve such a distinction (Seiche is an excellent writer who puts many of us, myself included of course, to shame)!

Thinking Blogger is the original "guilty party" to come up with the idea of this Thinking Blogger Award. Here are the three simple rules:

1. If, and only if you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think;

2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme;

3. Optional: Proudly display the Thinking Blogger Award with a link to the post that you wrote.

And now, here are the five blogs which make me think and which I have chosen to tap as the next recipients of this award (in no particular order - also, I am trying not to nominate the usual uber blogs and bloggers, nor those which have been awarded with such distinction recently):

1. Idealthoughts - Ideas, opinions, views, humor and analysis - nothing is sacred. Constitutionalist's blog is what I consider a true Thinking Blog. Not enough folks are reading this excellent writer IMHO. His insights and thoughtfulness are easily at par with the best of the best that is out there. Go. Read. Now!

2. The Newshoggers - Politics, Foreign Affairs, Opinion and the "News Less Travelled" - By The Newshog Partnership. Lead by Cernig, the Newshoggers have everything from expanded opinions/commentaries to snap-shot commentaries on various current news items. A must.

3. Who Hijacked Our Country - Tom Harper is another true Thinking Blogger IMHO, easily at par with the best of the best that is out there. Tom deals with all things current, being straight to the point and yet very engaging and thought-provoking. Do yourselves a favor and go read!

4. Red Tory - A right-from-center liberal or a left-from-center conservative? Proudly claiming his motto nill illigitimi carborundum!, Red Tory dissects, exposes and opines on all things current (mostly Canadian, but also American) with an "in your face" approach and a delicious mastery of Shakespeare's language that forces you to take notice, read and think. 'Nuff said, eh?

5. Accidental Deliberations - Opinions on this blog seem to me quite willful and deliberate indeed! Deals mostly about Canadian current events, but there is always room for American ones in there. Another Thinking Blogger who is engaging and thought-provoking.


So, there you have it. There are so many other sites I really enjoy (see my sidebars), but since the rules say five (and some of them have already been tagged to boot) ...

Please click on any and all of the links I've blogrolled (here and on my sidebar). I read them regularly and they all share one thing in common - they are all great.

Enjoy!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

They Are Winning Again - And Here's Why

While progressives continue their petty, self-indulging, cacophonic, disorganized rants and raves within their favorite echo chambers, the neocons, the right-wingers and the G.O.P. continue doing what they've always done: stay on unified, but disinformative, messages. Why should they do anything differently? Especially since that what worked before is apparently working still for them ...

Here we are in the second week of July 2007. What have we been hearing about in the MSM?

The surge is working! Really, really, really working!

Like Iraq before, Iran has expansionist desires to dominate its neighbors - therefore, we must attack! Attack! Attack!

It is unthinkable to enact a phased withdrawal of troops in Iraq - historical precedents be damned.

America is Teh Best and Americans never had it so good - ever - before like right now ... thanks to Republicans, of course.

We are winning the Global War of Terror(TM) - it is going so well, we are in fact killing terrorist leaders twice over for good measure.

Not just Iran, but also China is arming the Iraq insurgents!

Global warming is a scam and Al Gore should be put in prison!

It is healthy and politically conductive to hate.

There's still no evidence that Valerie Plame-Wilson was a covert agent - and thus there was no crime in outing her.

Notice the consistency of the disinformation and outright lies, here - as well as the good old politics of ignorance and fearmongering.

For them, it is all about ideology and winning elections.

And make no mistake: it is working. Again. Just like it did in 2000 and in 2004.

Why?

Because:

A) Americans still would rather be serviced an opinion than to go through the effort of making an informed one for themselves;

B) American progressives are still acting like reactionary, self-indulging, gratification-seeking, ranting adolescents (the reactions to one DKos diary here clearly illustrate this - especially since it was actually recommended!), or fighting among themselves (one example here), rather than work hard, unified, to organize the equivalence of what the neocons, right-wingers and G.O.P. have, in order to effectively counter their lies.

C) The blogosphere is not enough (not now, not just yet, at least) to counter the massive ongoing disinformaton and lying campaigns currently going on.

D) Progressives are still stuck in the mode of reacting to the news, rather than making them.

Once again - just like in 2000 and 2004.

And it looks like history will be indeed repeating itself in 2008.

Food for thought, eh?


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q and at Diatribune)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Other (Conveniently Forgotten) Quagmire

(Updated below)

Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the sister of the Iraq War that is barely noticed by the American public, has been dragging on for almost seven years now - with no end in sight. And like it's younger sibling, this war is rife with incompetent decisions, wrongful approaches and utter failures. Strangely enough, this older quagmire is barely spoken of by the American MSM.

It was on 10/07/2001 that American and British forces undertook an aerial bombing campaign targeting Taliban forces and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan - thus marking the beginning of the Afghanistan War. Other U.S. allies, namely Australia and Canada, also joined in this war. By the summer of 2002, the Taliban had been removed from power and its remnants, like those of al-Qaeda, had gone into hiding. By the end of spring 2003, then-still U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared major combat operations over. However, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, by then fully allied by necessity, had already regrouped along the Afghani-Pakistani border, recruiting heavily while training in guerrilla warfare tactics - thanks to consistent funding seemingly transiting through Pakistan. Then the Taliban insurgency followed - which has been lasting to this day.

At the time, President Bush justified the launching of the Afghanistan War as a response to 9-11 and the failure of the Taliban to meet his demands concerning terrorists, including delivering Osama bin Laden. Following the trauma and outrage brought by 9-11, an overwhelming majority of Americans supported the War in Afghanistan - and President Bush was believed at face value when he claimed that the replacement of the Taliban regime was a requirement for keeping the U.S.A. safe from another al-Qaeda attack. However, there was a rather meek international support for such justifications initially, especially since: 1) the U.S.A. had turned a convenient blind eye when the backward, fundamentalist Taliban regime seized power in 1996 (after all, the U.S.A. had supported the Taliban); 2) although the Taliban was indeed characterized by its parochial, fundamentalist and theocratic-driven ruthless rule, it was never a terrorist organization to begin with; 3) the Taliban was certainly not involved in 9-11; 4) the Taliban had agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan for trial (10/01/2001, but Pakistan refused); 5) the Taliban then offered to try bin Laden themselves (10/07/2001, but the offer was rejected by Bush); and 6) the Taliban thereafter offered to hand him over to the U.S., provided that proof was shown that bin Laden was responsible for 9-11 (10/14/2001, but this offer was likewise flatly rejected by Bush). Furthermore, there was evidence that the Afghanistan operations were motivated at least in part by oil interests - not Afghani oil per se, since Afghanistan doesn't have any, but rather in the building of a major oil pipeline going through the Afghan territory. In addition, overall moral, ethical, effectiveness and competence questions were already being raised there and then, with regards to Bush's military/bombing approach against terrorism.

Nevertheless, faced with the reality of this war and seeking to salvage the most out of it humanitarian-wise, the United Nations Security Council authorized an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan on 12/20/2001, which not only included N.A.T.O. forces but was also to be lead by N.A.T.O. itself. The ISAF's original peacekeeping mandate was for a duration of six months - however, partly because of the Taliban insurgency and partly because the U.S. has been "too busy" with its Iraq War since it began in 03/2003, the ISAF's mandate was thereafter extended in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and then extended anew until 03/2008 ... with talks already in the works for a further twelve month-extension beyond this date. In between, N.A.T.O. expanded its Afghanistan mission by increasing its forces in 2005 and in 2006 (including Canadian ones) - because its peacekeeping mission had transformed into a counter-insurgency one.

The two initial objectives of the Afghan War were: 1) defeat the Taliban; and 2) defeat al-Qaeda. Two other objectives/justifications were added along the way: 3) bring freedom and democracy to the Afghanis (especially to women); and 4) protect the world from terrorism. Let us see how these have worked out so far, shall we?

1) Defeat the Taliban: Although having been successfully pushed out of power, the Taliban insurgency rages on in spite of the wishful thinking that it is weakening. Similarly to the Iraq theatre, the guerrilla warfare tactics of the Taliban extoll a terrible price (recent instance here) - and keeps confounding regular military tactics, for example leading to inevitable friendly-fire deaths (older instance here). In addition, the military's "shock and awe" approach only increases the tally of "unfortunate" civilian casualties - which does not help to win the hearts and minds of the Afghanis. Pakistan has not proved much helpful here, considering that it freed some 2500 Talibans in 2006 and that the Taliban keeps hiding along its border with Afghanistan, as well as within its territory - in the interim, Pakistanis are also being killed by N.A.T.O.'s bulldozer approach against the Taliban insurgents. And through it all, of course, the commanders, generals and leaders see only progress in Afghanistan ... just like in Iraq, I suppose. "Operation start over again" indeed - thanks in large part to shoddy post-war planning and the desire to rush into war with Iraq. Should we be surprised, then, that the Iraq post-war planning was equally shoddy and, as the situation there keeps worsening as well, we've been treated also with talks of war with Iran in between? I thought so ...

2) Defeat al-Qaeda: Osama bin Laden got away and is still in hiding, along with most of the al-Qaeda leadership - even if he and his organization were the prime justification for going into Afghanistan in the first place. But not anymore, it would seem - maybe because Bush declared that the "success" of Afghanistan constituted a victory in the Global War on Terror(TM), back in 2004? But if that is the case, then why has Regent Cheney expressed concerns that al-Qaeda has regrouped and helps the Taliban in the insurgency? In the meantime, Pakistan is once again of little help here - not only are bin Laden and al-Qaeda apparently hiding in Pakistan, Pakistan freed suspected al-Qaeda members in 2006, whereas al-Qaeda funding keeps going through Pakistan (at one point, Pakistan even "lost" the trail of bin Laden - sure). So all in all, it looks like the Global War of Terror(TM) is being won indeed ... in Afghanistan, just like in Iraq. Right. Gotcha.

3) Bring freedom and democracy to the Afghanis: There have been positive steps towards democracy in Afghanistan - but such gains are far from being faits accomplis. Corruption and the resurgence of opium trafficking are but two of the prevailing problems which keep undermining said gains. The biggest problem of them all lies with the remaining powerful, brutish Warlords. Although having been elected in 2004, President Karzai holds power in Kabul only ... with the consent of the Warlords who now hold power practically everywhere else, thanks to more short-sighted, expedient incompetence on the part of the Bush administration. It doesn't help either when one of them declares allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And Karzai's government is hardly stable, thanks to the ongoing insurgency. Furthermore, the Afghan militias are not only poorly effective, but easily open to bribes - and their disbanding is proving quite a slow and difficult process. In the meantime, Afghanistan's nascent army remains far from being ready to go at it alone. Then, you have your prisoner/detainee abuses which are still occuring to this day - as in Iraq. Last, but not least, what of the Afghani women? Little has changed since 2001 ... whereas freedom of the press is not that free just yet. And as for the "rebuilding" of Afghanistan - well, let's just say that it is going as well as in Iraq and leave it at that.

4) Protect the world from terrorism: go read again the "progress" concerning the second objective above, then tell yourself that "protecting the world from terrorism in Afghanistan is working as well as in Iraq" while clicking your ruby slippers three times.

Thus I conclude: Afghanistan is as much a "success" as in Iraq - provided that the reality-based operative definition of "success" here actually means "quagmire".

To this effect, this is one quagmire who has no end in sight as well.

Are we having fun, yet?


Update: 07/07/2007 - In the first half of 2007, the N.A.T.O.-lead ISAF forces have killed more Afghani civilians than Taliban and/or al-Qaeda members ... I did say this was another quagmire, right? Right.


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q, at Progressive Historians and at Diatribune)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

APOV: Gone On Vacation - But Still Opining

Well folks, it is that sweet time of the year for me - vacation time (a whole month!).

During that said sweet time, I will be gone away from APOV Headquarters between July 4th and July 12th.

I do intend to keep on posting while I'm "away" - however, I know for a fact that the internet connection that will be available to me is rather unstable (aye - such are the caveats of life, I suppose).

Hence, I will endeavor to post once every two days, but chances are my offerings will be - let's say - less long-winded and substantial than my usual fare.

I thank you all for your understanding ...

And now, here's a little "going away" send off from me, for your viewing/listening pleasure: Joe Satriani - Satch Boogie!

And for an encore: Joe Satriani - Surfing with the Alien!

(Does it show that I love/play guitar? Hehehe)

I wish to all of you good folks a great summer (as well as a grand vacation time to boot!) - and remember to keep on rockin'!

(I'll be back at H.Q. in eight days hence ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Happy 4th Of July To My American Friends

Who else but Jimi Hendrix to offer this classic rendition of the Star Spangled Banner? Sometimes, as I am fond of saying, a song says it all ...

Happy 4th of July, folks - and may the years to come bring back at last a healthy Republic and the Constitution for which it stands.


(Cross-posted at Suzie-Q)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Step Back, Take A Deep Breath And Look Hard In The Mirror

Why was there such surprise, shock and outrage upon the news that President George W. Bush commuted the sentence of I. Lewis Libby?

I actually laughed when I heard the news.

Because.
It.
Was.
Oh so.
Predictable.

And I dare go one step further: such predictability comes from much beyond the current administration and goes much deeper than today's Washington Beltway culture.

Indeed, it all comes down to "We the People of the United States of America".

The origin of what would lead to the current state of affairs lies with the 1974 pardon of disgraced former-president Richard Nixon by former-president Gerald Ford. When Ford addressed the American People, he said this:

"(...) ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would again be polarized in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad (...) As President, my primary concern must always be the greatest good of all the people of the United States whose servant I am (...) My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as President, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book. My conscience tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquillity but to use every means that I have to insure it. I do believe that the buck stops here, that I cannot rely upon public opinion polls to tell me what is right."

Nixon had already escaped impeachment by resigning his office in the wake of Watergate, but he could still face criminal charges - and such proceedings would have certainly exposed all of what had been going on in Nixon's corrupted White House. Ford could have none of this and thus played the "father card": the children (re: the American People) could not suffer anymore prolonged turmoil and therefore, in their best interest as well as in preserving the tranquility of their fragile emotional make-up, the "books" had to be closed on these matters once and for all. In short: father knew best than the emotionally-unstable and fragile children.

Of course, the "children" were outraged nonetheless but, after a short period of tantrums and such other outbursts of indignation, nothing else happened. Yes, Ford was not re-elected in 1976, but so what? There had been no demonstrations, no pressures on Congress to impeach Ford for this action and, in fact, the idea that "Ford did it to allow the Nation to heal" became entrenched as the accepted mantra.

In other words: the precedent had been set and accepted by We the People.

Then came the Iran-Contra affair (1983-1985) during the tenure of President Ronald Reagan. Of course, there was a short period of tantrums and such other outbursts of indignation from the "children", yet nothing else happened - again. Laws had been broken, officials had to resign over this and Reagan's image did suffer transiently - but no demonstrations and certainly no pressures on Congress to impeach Reagan. As a matter of fact, Reagan's popularity rebounded thereafter in such a way that he left office in 1989 with the highest approval rating of any president since Franklin Roosevelt!

Ergo: the "children" did not want to go through another round of emotional-wrenching turmoil via impeachment proceedings. Everything was forgotten quickly for the sake of peace of mind. And this was proven quite eloquently when, in 1992, President George H.W. Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger - along with five others - before the latter went on trial for his implication in Iran-Contra: although this constituted another obvious act at covering-up and thus prevent all the (ugly) facts from coming into light, possibly even exposing former-president Reagan to criminal charges, the "children" let this pass on rather quietly - lest they would have had to trouble themselves with more "bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that was closed".

In other words: there were some outbursts of indignation here and there, but still no demonstrations and certainly no pressures on Congress to impeach George H.W. Bush, let alone to investigate Reagan nonetheless.

And then came about the sham impeachment proceedings of President William J. Clinton in 1998-1999. Not only did such proceedings actually trivialized impeachment, but the American People let it happen nonetheless, despite a clear majority of them being against it. Once again: there were outbursts of indignation (or cheering) here and there, but still no demonstrations, no pressures on Congress to stop such shameful hypocrisy, stupidity and incompetence.

Once all was said and done, especially with Clinton coming out of this with only a censure, the "children" breathed a collective sigh of relief and once again strove to put it all behind - for the sake of peace of mind.

Was there any significant introspection done in the wake of this? Was there any serious efforts and insistence at dialogue with politicians and the media in order to enact changes in the political landscape, so as to put the country back onto a path of competent rule of Law?

Nope. Zip. Nada.

We the People were just glad that it was all over and done with.

Consequently, we now come to the day after the commuting of Libby's sentence by President George W. Bush.

Also predictably, everyone has been busy dissecting and analysing what Bush and his cronies are saying/have said on this subject in order to keep playing the game of "gotcha" - I will spare you linking to any of these, since they are legion throughout the progressive blogosphere. To all of this I say the following:

Of course this is a cover-up. Of course Bush went against his own words. Of course this is obstruction of justice. Of course, of course, of course!

The signs of incompetence have not only been there all along, they were obvious right from the begining.

Upon looking back, the painful facts are plain and simple, folks:

Regardless, We the People facilitated the ascension of Bush in 2000;

We the People re-elected him in 2004;

We the People elected all those Representatives and Senators in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006;

We the People have done squat about impeachment and, as a matter of fact, contributed to and allowed its devolution into its current state of semi-irrelevance, as I outlined above - it is therefore not surprising that Representatives and Senators likewise have had no stomach for it.

In short: We the People, or the "children" if you prefer, have allowed the cancer on the body democratic to spread throughout all these years - for the sake of peace of mind.

Conclusion: Mea culpa, mea culpa, vox populi.

As I wrote before: "not impeaching (Bush-Cheney) will represent the ultimate expression of lack of democratic courage, principles and responsibilities". To this I also added: "not impeaching (Bush-Cheney) would increase the bar of minimal requirements for impeachment so high, no one will ever be impeachable".

In other words: impeachment is a must if the health, the sanctity and continuity of the U.S. Constitution are to be preserved and protected.

Period.

To this effect, the case for impeachment kept being made by itself day in and day out since 2001. Although many have shouted and screamed for impeachment, the fact remains that there has never been any serious pressure on Congress to do so. Instead, folks have contented themselves at railing against the democratically cowardly position of keeping impeachment "off the table" by elected Representatives. Furthermore, how many have been actually arguing logically and emotionally against impeachment - the common refrain here being "it's not worth the trouble, it won't help, it's too late", and so on?

Yet since yesterday, how many now scream for impeachment? Even MoveOn is only now putting impeachment back on the table!

In closing, I would repeat here what I have written before: "our revolutionary participatory democracy is not just about ranting and raving, eh?"

So, on this upcoming 4th of July, step back, take a deep breath and look hard in the mirror.

Then ask yourself: what am I going to do about this?

Time for ranting and raving is long over, folks.

And time for serious engagement in pressuring Congress into begining impeachment proceedings is fast running out.

Nevertheless, competence as U.S. citizens requires (nay: demands) from all of you that you organize and enact pressure to make the critical changes that are required to save the gravely ill patient that your Republic has become.

And the first step to recovery is impeachment - whether it fails or not.

Then, and only then, will We the People have the momentum to get rid of the corrupt political elite that they have allowed to emerge in the first place.

'Nuff said.


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q, at Diatribune, at Progressive Historians, and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Meanwhile, Back In Canada ...

Neoconservatism hubris, lies and incompetence are not just the lot of our neighbors south of the 49th parallel.

While many have expounded (rightly so) on the great qualities of Canada and Canadians on this 140th anniversary of our country, the speech given by Prime Minister Stephen J. Harper (a.k.a. Mini Leader) on the occasion of Canada Day-related celebrations highlighted the fact that our Canadian principles are being slowly eroded away by him and his neoconservative Harpies.

I have outlined numerous times enough (here, here, here, here and here, as examples) how Harper and his Harpies not only keep on parroting echoes of the same talking points put forth by the now-fully exposed, unlawful and disgraced Bush-Cheney administration, but are actually working seemingly in conjunction with said shameful, neocon- and incompetence-driven U.S. administration.

To this effect, I dare say that the Harper government is actually mimicking the Bush-Cheney administration. Let me count the ways:

A) "It's the fault of the previous Liberal Party governments": Sounds an awful lot like the classic "It's Clinton's fault" sham defense being harped day in and day out by the Bush-Cheney administration and its apologists, in order to excuse their own incompetence, no? (A couple of examples here, here, here and here, among so many) We've been hearing Harper and his Harpies use the same type of pathetic defense/excuse (with regards to the previous Liberal Party governments) ever since they were elected in 2006, whether the subject is about climate change/global warming and Canada's failure to meet Kyoto targets, or non-ratification of bills because they were shoddy or sent late, or whenever things slow down in Parliament, and so many other things - in fact, it is such a running joke that Harper himself plays along with it on comedy shows. Still, "blame the others" remains a staple of neocon escapism from responsibility and accountability - especially when Reality shines a bright spotlight upon their incompetence, as well as on the failures of their short-sighted vision, of their inability to understand the complexities the world, and of their ineptitude at governance. In this respect, Harper and his Harpies are no exceptions to this rule.

B) Rewrite recent history: Bush-Cheney and their neocon supporters/defenders are good at this (two examples here and here, among many). In his Canada Day's speech, Harper made much of his conclusion that Canada is once again a player on the world stage. To this claim, I ask the same question that others are asking: when was Canada ever "gone" from the world stage? The way Harper apparently thinks, it is Him and His government who took charge of Canada's missions concerning the "security" of Afghanistan (right) and Haiti (excuse me?!? ), in addition for being responsible in elevating Canada as a leader on climate change (sure). Some call such behavior mendacious self-delusion, while others make mention of being incapable of telling the truth and/or facing up to Reality - I call this a pathetic attempt to artificially inflate one's resumé in order to appear competent when, in fact, one is not. That is the lot of incompetents. And the sad truth is that Canada under the Harper government has been losing credibility on virtually every global/international issue out there - whether it is with his blind support for Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon last year, his "Good versus Evil" approach to the Middle East, his hypocritical and disassembling approach to climate change, his wishes for extending the Canadian Afghanistan mission beyond 2009, Canada's pledge for Africa aid efforts, et al. "Canada's back" indeed ...

C) Politicize the apparels of Government: Much has been made in recent weeks about the systematic approach of Bush-Cheney and their neocon cronies at politicizing all levels of government (the DOJ is one good example among many). Not surprisingly, Harper and his Harpies are on the same path - even the board of directors of the Royal Canadian Mint is not safe from pure ideological/partisan litmus-tests in nominations. Cronyism and right-wing ideology loyalty above and beyond actual credentials - another staple of neocon incompetence ... and once again, Harper is no exception here.

D) Pander to/adopt Christian Right fundamentalist values: This is not new with regards to the Bush-Cheney administration (examples here, here and here, among many) and the GOP itself as a party. Interestingly, Harper, an evangelical christian, has the dubious honor of being the first Canadian Prime Minister to end his speeches with "God bless Canada" (first time here) - which, of course, pleases the Canadian Christian Right and others similarly-minded to no end (three examples here, here and here). Not surprisingly, one of the first things Harper did as head of government was to re-open the debate (and voting) on the already settled issue of same-sex unions - around the same time Bush and the GOP revisited the matter in 2006, I might add. And then, in his Canada Day speech, Harper even went as far as saying this: "From the natural wealth of the land that God created to the talents, energy and imagination of people drawn from all nations of the Earth, we are a country that has been truly blessed" (emphasis mine). No wonder Harper played along with the global warming denial machine, before finally acknowledging its reality and yet doing nothing much about it. Just. Like. Bush-Cheney. I am seriously wondering if, like these guys, or especially this one, Harper does not accept the reality of evolution, or the actual age of the Earth - including how continents were shaped throughout billions of years of geological and biological weathering, erosion and tectonic plate movements. Considering his aforementioned words on Canada Day, it wouldn't surprise me if he, in fact, does not.

E) Be a warhawk/chickenhawk: I will spare you revisiting all the accumulated evidence in support of the fact that Bush-Cheney and their supporters/defenders are warhawks (and chickenhawks) - suffice it to say, we only need to look at the Iraq War and the current rattling of sabers with regards to Iran. And of course, neither Bush or Cheney ever actually served in combat situations. Similarly, Harper never served in the military. Like Bush, he likes to dress up as a soldier. Not surprisingly, not only did he support Bush's adventurism in Iraq, but actually stated that it was a serious mistake on the part of Canada by staying out of it. Harper and his Harpies have been using the same chickenhawk rhetoric for Afghanistan as their American neocon counterparts keep using for Iraq - almost verbatim at that. Same thing with regards to the "Good versus Evil" simplistic view on the Global War of Terror(TM). Therefore, I hope you will understand why I was far from being surprised at Harper's support for Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon last year and his desire to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan beyond 2009. After all: "we must fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here", right? Regardless of all those innocent civilians caught in the cross-fire, right? But I do have a question, though: what is it with those neocons and their pathological need to prove their manliness through war and the sacrificing/killing of countless others at their behest? Just wondering, is all ...

F) Use faux patriotism: This goes hand-in-hand with E) above, along with flag-waving. As with Bush-Cheney and supporters who accuse/have accused/keep accusing Iraq War critics of being cowards, of not supporting the troops, of wanting the enemy to win and/or of being unpatriotic (if not treasonous) (other examples here, here and here, among a myriad of others), so do Harper and his Harpies vis à vis Afghanistan War critics (examples here, here, here, here and here, among many others). Proof again that posing and posturing matter more than substance and actual self-sacrifice.

And I could go on and on. For instance, just like Bush-Cheney and torture investigations, Harper and his Harpies are saying/doing everything to deny/keep the abuse of Afghan detainees under the rug. Also, the Harper government initiated a no-fly list in Canada and, just as in the U.S.A., it is critically flawed and will/has already lead to abuse. Then, Harper not only keeps on defending his ludicrous softwood lumber deal of last year with the U.S.A. (very accommodating for the U.S.), but furthermore considers making even more concessions on this matter. And last, but not least, there is Harper's big push for the deeper integration of Canada with the U.S.A, including the relaxation of rules for foreign (read: American) law enforcement officers who carry weapons into Canada and the allowance of special activities/operations by NORTHCOM on Canadian soil. Considering the propensity of Harper and his Harpies in mimicking and integrating with the Bushies, and considering how said Bushies have no qualms about illegal surveillance operations on their own citizens, I find myself asking this dreadful question: to what extent has the Harper government been allowing similar illegal electronic surveillance on Canadians (presumably by the RCMP and CSIS), and to what extent is such data shared with the U.S.A.?

In conclusion, Canada is currently being governed by incompetent people who are more interested in pleasing Bush-Cheney (and related U.S. interests), and thus surrendering our sovereignty in the process, than actually promoting, protecting and serving the interests of Canada.

This is a very disturbing conclusion which I have reached previously - however, the purpose of this extended article on this matter is to provide, as best as I can, further awareness of this unacceptable, if not actually mendacious, situation.

Harper and his Harpies have been heading the Canadian government for about one year and a half. And already, despite being a minority government, they feel quite "comfortable" to declare the House of Commons unconstitutional because the opposition parties have passed a bill to obligate them at meeting Kyoto targets (remember this one from Bush?). Therefore, look again at their record so far and then try to imagine how much they can further "accomplish" in another year hence - or two, or even more ...

Consequently, my fellow Canadians, I ask you one last question for this day: what are we going to do about this?

Will we ...?

Happy Canada Day again, eh ...


(Cross-posted at Dkos at Diatribune, at Suzie-Q, at Progressive Historians, and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Lieberman: Another Portrait Of Utter Incompetence

Dixit Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT): "I hope these terrorist attacks in London wake us up here in America to stop the petty partisan fighting going on about electronic surveillance (...) We’re at a partisan gridlock over the question of whether the American government can listen into conversations or follow email trails of non-American citizens (...) The Brits have got something smart going (...) They have cameras all over London (...) I think it’s just common sense to do that here much more widely (...) I would say that Democratic candidates, in the larger questions of American security, have been disappointing".

So, in other words: the U.S.A. need more electronic surveillance, because they must fear the terrorists, and it is the fault of the Democrats - who are weak on security - that the U.S.A. are not safe enough and that there is not allowance for increased, wide-spread domestic surveillance.

Coupled with his staunch and blind support for the Iraq War (latest: "The surge is working!"), his frequent calls for attacking Iran and his pro-authoritarian stance on the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, it is quite obvious that Joe Lieberman is a little man with a petty mind ruled by ignorance, intolerance and fear.

Or, to put it in the context of the Eight Principles of Incompetence: We have the Zeroth (Incompetence is driven by intellectual sloth), Second (Incompetence is ethics-impaired), Fourth (Incompetence does or says anything to defend itself), Fifth (Incompetence always supports incompetence), Sixth (Violence is the last refuge of incompetence) and Seventh (Incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself) Principles in action here.

Joe Lieberman - just another pathetic portrait of utter incompetence as a human being.


(Cross-posted at Suzie-Q)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)