Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The Horror, The Horror ...

Many items to deal with today - however, they all have a common theme on this Hallow's Eve: the banality of evil incompetence.


Pre-emptive strikes - at the local level: The Wild, Wild West is back, in a community near you! Indeed, 19 out of 50 U.S. states, mostly in the south and the central regions of the country, now have "Stand your ground" (or "Shoot first") laws which, in sharp contrast with traditional self-defense laws, do not require that a person who opens fire on an intruder/burglar be able to prove that he/she was physically threatened, that force was used only as a last resort, or that the victim had first tried to hide. And that is because such "Shoot first" laws generally stipulate that an act of intrusion (into a home or car) constitutes automatically a real threat of injury or death to its occupants - hence, all one needs is to "feel threatened" (whether justifiably or not) in order to be legally protected from prosecution when "firing first and asking questions later". Hmmm ... this sounds somewhat similar to Bush's Pre-Emptive Strike Doctrine, no? Not surprisingly, this sickening can of worms has already yielded its shares of tragedies, such as a father shooting his teenage daughter as she was sneaking back home after going out without permission, or the killing of a disguised Japanese exchange student on Halloween who made the fatal mistake of walking up to the wrong house - which happened to be the residence of an hysteric airhead and her gun-happy husband (h/t to CC for these two examples). Note to self: whenever I have to go to the U.S.A., remember to never take a stroll in any neighborhood in case I am mistaken for a stalker, would-be burglar or just a plainly "suspicious-looking stranger". Apparently, the natives are easily scared and prone to use their so-precious guns. Irrationality and fear rule the day indeed: welcome (again) to the Semi-Dark Ages. Which brings me to ...

Ignorance is bliss (isn't it?): The Bush administration's assault on science, science facts and scientific evidence continues unrestrained. Forget that the human population is living far beyond its means and inflicting damage on the environment that could pass points of no return - rely instead on the truth and reality defined by your government-approved Faux News service or, better yet, on good old folksy wisdom from government officials such as this one: "it is true that many people die from cold-related deaths every winter. And there are studies that say that climate change in certain areas of the world would help those individuals". Yes, this from the same (current) White House Spokeswoman with an active climate change denialism past, for whom trillions of dollars in war expenditure is not worrisome as long as the security of the country is assured, who views refusals to comply to executive orders constitute non-issues, and who is utterly confused about the separate branches of the government, the various levels of checks and balances, and her own country's laws. She even already admitted to speaking out of ignorance. The intellectual sloth-driven ignorance and incompetence - it burns, it burns! With such stellar "informed" and "knowledgeable" government officials, it pretty much explains it all - doesn't it? Incidentally, this brings me to ...

Fear-driven, tortured logic: Authoritarianism is increasingly being accepted while utter injustices are either ignored or complacently dismissed as "par for the course". Hell - dissent is more than ever perceived as a danger to society, especially by those ruled by ignorance and fear. Censorship of dissent is likewise de mise, while pandering to the Bush cult of personality continues on. In these sick and twisted times, where government agencies go as far as to mount fake news conferences in order to propagandize their efficiency, seeking to end a wrongful war of choice is "wasting time" whereas torture is not torture - or rather, it is difficult to say exactly what torture is and, therefore, it is the fault of Congress for having failed to define exactly what torture is ... and isn't. Besides - the U.S. does "not torture" (because "we say so" ) and, if it does, it is only in the hypothetical sense. Furthermore: since torture is legal, then it is not torture, or illegal. Consequently, that is precisely why it must be defended, especially since it yields "great intelligence results" - you know, like this one or these ones. Conclusion: one can justify anything in the name of fear (and if you feel like your head is about to explode, then welcome and join the club). All we have to fear, we must - indeed.

Iraq'ed: Apparently, violence is down in Iraq and, therefore, this constitutes a sign of progress there. But, what progress is this really when said downturn of violence coincides with increased ethnic cleansing and mass refugee displacement? How much progress is there when vital infrastructures such as dams risk of collapsing because of neglect, with the potential of killing hundreds of thousands in the process? Not taking into account the rampant, massive fraud and corruption? Speaking of criminal activities, their perpetrators and their enablers ... the Bush administration is now a de facto "accomplice after the fact" by having granted immunity to those Blackwater guards accused of war crimes in Iraq. This is not surprising, considering all that this utterly incompetent administration has invested in this mercenary company. As a result, the equally incompetent Iraqi government has drafted a bill which would lift immunity to all private mercenary companies operating in Iraq - unless, that is, the Bush administration define them as an extension of the multinational forces in Iraq, rather than private security guards (can you spell "huge-gaping-loophole"?). Such overall mendacity, stupidity and all around incompetence would be hilarious in the context of a zany, goofy comedy movie, if this was not so mind-numbingly tragic and catastrophic. The Iraq quagmire is indeed best summed up by those who are fighting there: "I don't think this place is worth another soldier's life". That is about just right. However, I would slightly amend the sentence thus: I don't think this venture was worth anyone's life, to begin with.

Global War on Terror(TM) - great for business: In addition to the ludicrous acts of fraud perpetrated by private contractors in Iraq (and in Afghanistan as well), the war on terror is proving to be one humongous profitable cash cow for the whole of the industrial-military complex. It has already become obvious that this so-called war has been diverting incalculable resources away from serious efforts to counter terrorism, leaving us with silly, irritating, abusive and utterly inefficient measures such as no-fly lists, airport security checks, and other such nonsense, in order to actually reward corporations that profit from high-tech weaponry that has little usefulness in genuine counter terrorism. Think about it: "With rare exceptions, the war against terrorists cannot be fought with army tank battalions, air force wings, or naval fleets—the large conventional forces that drive the defense budget. The main challenge is not killing the terrorists but finding them, and the capabilities most applicable to this task are intelligence and special operations forces. ... It does not require half a trillion dollars worth of conventional and nuclear forces. That half a trillion only covers the Pentagon budget for expenses beyond the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or the Department of Homeland Security. Those last three items total more than $240 billion in Bush’s 2008 budget requests. Add to that the $50 billion spent on intelligence agencies and an equal amount of State Department-directed efforts and you can understand how we manage to spend more fighting a gang of mujahedeen terrorists, once our "freedom fighters" in that earlier Afghan war against the Soviets, than we did at the height of the Cold War (...)". To this effect, the Institute for Policy Studies calculated last year that the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have pocketed a combined $984 million dollars since 9/11 - enough to cover the entire wage bill for more than a million Iraqis for a year. And while you chew on this bit of trivia, consider the following: "The 'war on terror' is fraudulent. The cruel war and the deceptive vocabulary that protects it are a cover for expanding US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and for constructing a functioning police state at home. A country in which people cannot make airline reservations without the government's permission is not a free country". Let it be known: the Global War on Terror(TM) is a fraud (doh!). And once again: as we let the neocons' wet dreams becoming reality (and such wet dreams go as far back as 1992), this is why we are the real problem with terrorism. Hence the question: how long before We The People stops performing as post-9/11 fear-driven dancing puppets to the controlling tune of Operation Enduring Propaganda? In the unlikely event that you would remain unconvinced of all of this, then I suggest that you re-read the previous four items above.


And that, as they say, is that - for now.

Next time around: The horror, the horror ... Canadian-style.

(Oh - and Happy Halloween!)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 29, 2007

The Secret History of the Impending War With Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know


punditman says: This article is a highly recommended read. It is a fascinating behind the scenes glimpse that sets the record straight on recent US-Iranian relations. It is also a tale of how the neo-cons within the Bush administration have done everything in their power to derail any sort of accomodation between the two sides, and, like the Valerie Plame affair, it demonstrates the lengths that this administration will go to threaten and punish whistle blowers.

By John H. Richardson
Esquire

Thursday 18 October 2007

Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration say the US has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise. It'll be Iraq all over again.

In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm - not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.

"The hard-liners are upping the pressure on the State Department," says Leverett. "They're basically saying, 'You've been trying to engage Iran for more than a year now and what do you have to show for it? They keep building more centrifuges, they're sending this IED stuff over into Iraq that's killing American soldiers, the human-rights internal political situation has gotten more repressive - what the hell do you have to show for this engagement strategy?' "

But the engagement strategy was never serious and was designed to fail, they say. Over the last year, Rice has begun saying she would talk to "anybody, anywhere, anytime," but not to the Iranians unless they stopped enriching uranium first. That's not a serious approach to diplomacy, Mann says. Diplomacy is about talking to your enemies. That's how wars are averted. You work up to the big things. And when U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had his much-publicized meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad this spring, he didn't even have permission from the White House to schedule a second meeting.

The most ominous new development is the Bush administration's push to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

"The U.S. has designated any number of states over the years as state sponsors of terrorism," says Leverett. "But here for the first time the U.S. is saying that part of a government is itself a terrorist organization."

This is what Leverett and Mann fear will happen: The diplomatic effort in the United Nations will fail when it becomes clear that Russia's and China's geopolitical ambitions will not accommodate the inconvenience of energy sanctions against Iran. Without any meaningful incentive from the U.S. to be friendly, Iran will keep meddling in Iraq and installing nuclear centrifuges. This will trigger a response from the hard-liners in the White House, who feel that it is their moral duty to deal with Iran before the Democrats take over American foreign policy. "If you get all those elements coming together, say in the first half of '08," says Leverett, "what is this president going to do? I think there is a serious risk he would decide to order an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations and probably a wider target zone."

This would result in a dramatic increase in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, attacks by proxy forces like Hezbollah, and an unknown reaction from the wobbly states of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where millions admire Iran's resistance to the Great Satan. "As disastrous as Iraq has been," says Mann, "an attack on Iran could engulf America in a war with the entire Muslim world."

Mann and Leverett believe that none of this had to be.

Full article...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 26, 2007

Late Friday Night Ode To ... Da Blues


'Nuff said!

The opening act: ZZ Top - Jesus Just Left Chicago

(Lyrics below the video)



Jesus just left Chicago and he's bound for New Orleans.
Well now, Jesus just left Chicago and he's bound for New Orleans.
Yeah, yeah.
Workin' from one end to the other and all points in between.

Took a jump through Mississippi, well, muddy water turned to wine.
Took a jump through Mississippi, muddy water turned to wine.
Yeah, yeah.
Then out to California through the forests and the pines.
Ah, take me with you, Jesus.

You might not see him in person but he'll se you just the same.
You might not see him in person but he'll se you just the same.
Yeah, yeah.
You don't have to worry 'cause takin' care of business is his name.



The middle course: Jimi Hendrix - Red House

(Lyrics below the video)



There's a red house, over yonder
That's where my baby stays
Yeah
There's a red house over yonder, baby
That's where my baby stays

I ain't been home to see my baby
In about a ninety-nine and one half days
It's about time to see her
Wait minute something's wrong
This key won't unlock this door
Wait a minute something's wrong, baby
The key won't unlock the door
Yeah
I got a bad bad feeling
That my baby don't live here no more
She ain't comin' about is she
That's alright i still got my guitar

Look out baby
Yeah, look out
Yeah that's alright
Yeah haha

I might as well a go on back down
Go back across yonder over the hill
Might as well go back over yonder
Way back over yonder across the hill
That's where i came from

Cause if my baby don't love me no more
I know here sister will!
Yeah.



And the closing act: Stevie Ray Vaughan - Couldn't Stand The Weather

(Lyrics below the video)



Runnin through this business of life
Rarely time if Im needed to
Aint so funny when things aint feelin right
Then daddys hand helps to see me through
Sweet as sugar, love wont wash away
Rain or shine, its always here to stay
All these years you and Ive spent together
All this, we just couldnt stand the weather

Like a train that stops at every station
We all deal with trials and tribulations
Fear hangs the fellow that ties up his years
Entangled in yellow and cries all his tears
Changes come before we can grow
Learn to see them before were too old
Dont just take me for tryin to be heavy
Understand, its time to get ready for the storm.


And that's all she wrote, folks - nuthin' but da blues to sooth them FUBAR aches and pains, eh?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

APOV's Friday Weekly Revue (10/26/2007)

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

Therefore, let us have a peek at what some of the various news departments of the progressive blogosphere have been dealing with in the past week:


From the "They must be insane, sociopaths, stupid or utterly incompetent - or all of the above!" department:
- A symbol of hate making an unwelcome comeback;
- The vapid, petty Beltway media mind;
- The G.O.P.'s battered spouse syndrome;
- Are Fox News and right-wing pundits illegally supporting blatant lies and propaganda?;
- No Siree;
- Still not getting it;
- Modern torture's scientific bible;
and - The MSM vs Al Gore.


From the "We are screwed!" department:
- Privatizing the constitution;
and - Global attitudes.


From the "Bush&Co Watch" department:
- Extraordinary rendition;
- When kings go crazy;
- Are we winning yet?;
- Priorities;
and - I am ashamed for our nation today.


From the "Holy smoke and self-righteous clowns" department:
- Further salacious charges;
- Cuz the Bible tells me so;
- An odyssey for truth;
and - This week in God.


And last, but not least - from the "Wake the hell up!" department:
- Principles voters: America's forgotten interest group


Until next week - have a great read.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Ill-informed Fox anchors spread fears of al Qaeda link to California fires

punditman says: This is hilarious.

Did al Qaeda start the California wildfires?

As more than a million people escaped the flames, Fox News anchors couldn't help speculating about a terrorism link to the blazes ravaging southern California.

"I've heard some people talk about this a little bit to me, but have you heard anybody suggest that this could be some form of terrorism," Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy asked Wednesday morning.

Correspondent Adam Housley said he's received "hundreds of comments" from readers of his Fox News blog speculating about a link to terrorism.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Iran Watch: Week Seven (10/25/2007)

Time yet again to put in review and perspective what has happened this past week with regards to Operation Enduring Propaganda and a looming confrontation with Iran.

You may refresh your memories of what has occurred so far with the previous installment of APOV's Iran Watch, Week Six.

Now, let us see what Iran Watch: Week Seven has brought us.


Item 1: But first, here is this week's mandatory public-service message, care of Operation Enduring Propaganda.

The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!

Be afraid! Be very afraid! Be very very afraid! We really mean it!

(Now that this is out of the way, let us proceed as usual ...)


Item 2: Bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran!

This past week, still more neocons, war hawks, chickenhawks and other assorted madhaters raised the loud beating of Iran war drums yet another notch or two - or three. Not to be outdone, especially in the wake of last week's WWIII comment from a chuckling and giggling President Bush (who, it turns out, was "only making a point" with such a statement - as if this explains it all - ri-ight), Unitary Regent Cheney chimed in with his usual diplomatically tactful approach - you know, like he did when he spoke out against Iraq in order to rev-up support for the Iraq war (as an aside: maybe this is proof again why Bush and Cheney deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? But I digress ...). In any case, this in turn compelled some of the current Presidential candidates to reaffirm their own "openness" for bombing Iran, namely Romney, Giuliani and, of course, Clinton.

Now, remember when I wrote about why the surge in Iraq must appear to be working, so as to push the "idea" that "the way to success for the Iraqi surge goes through Iran"? Well, dixit the Grand Poobah Neocon Extraordinaire himself, Bill Kristol: "(Iran) is now the only real threat, I think, incidentally, to relative success in Iraq". See? I. Told. You. So.

(And just in case: I apologize profusely in advance should it turn out that I unintentionally provided this ludicrous talking point to the likes of Kristol and Co. - in my defense, I was being sarcastic ... oh well)

Which brings me to the next item ...


Item 3: Just keep on making that (bogus) case for an Iran War!

Yes indeed - gotta make sure you end up with a whole slew of reasons to bomb Iran which can be used one after the other, as was done with regards to Iraq, right? (Remember these classics: "WMDs!", "Mushroom cloud!", "Terrorists!", "Saddam was involved in 9/11!", "Saddam-al Qaeda link!", "Saddam is a destabilizing force in the Middle East!, "There is a need for regime change!", "Bring democracy to Iraq!", etc.). So, what do we have so far in the case of Iran?

Iran is sponsoring terrorism? Check (Hey - even former British Prime Minister and still-Bush's-poodle Tony Blair said so as well - so it must be true, eh? But I digress).

Iran has links with al-Qaeda? Check.

Iran is linked to 9/11? Check.

Iran is proliferating WMDs? Check (and how convenient that the master spy who headed a task force at monitoring/ascertaining/stopping the progress, or lack thereof, of Iran in acquiring nuclear weapon technologies was outed for base political reasons in retaliation for her husband telling the truth about the bogus claims that Saddam was seeking enriched uranium, eh? But I digress ...)

Iran is a destabilizing force in Iraq and Afghanistan? Check and check.

There is a need for regime change in Iran? Check.

(You may want to read or re-read previous installments of Iran Watch in order to better appreciate the continuum of such yet-to-be-firmly-established accusations here, here, here, here, here and here, in addition to this week's)

And to the question of "any proof of this?", we still get the priceless "trust us - we know". Besides - the Bush administration would not impose stiffer sanctions on Iran if what they say is not true, right? Yeah - ri-ight. Sure. Gotcha.

(I mean - they lied blatantly and cooked intelligence with regards to Saddam's (non-existent) WMDs prior to the Iraq war and did it again recently with regards to Syria's nuclear program, so ...)

Regardless, other world leaders agree on the threat posed by Iran (winkwink), while others remain conspicuously silent on the issue (like, you know, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper).

Of course, Iran continues to shuffle its feet, not knowing how to react diplomatically, anymore. First, Iran made more boasts of its own to discourage a pre-emptive strike by the U.S., claiming that it can launch 11,000 rockets in one minute if attacked. Then, the Iranian Foreign Minister appealed to rationality, pointing out the obvious fact that the U.S. is in no position to launch another costly war. In response, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, said "there is more than enough reserve to respond (militarily) if that, in fact, is what the national leadership wanted to do", while the White House sent Congress an expanded 189.3 billion dollar request for funding for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the "broader war on terrorism" (winkwink), including monies to equip B-2 stealth bombers with new 30,000-pound bunker busters - just what the doctor ordered (and the U.S. military prefers) for bombing Iran.

Hence the characterization of the Bush administration's foreign policy as "politics of appeevement".

So, despite talks of remaining resistance from the U.S. military (including, surprisingly, Adm. Mullen himself) on the idea of launching an Iran war, many a folk out there (like myself) remain worried that it will happen soon nevertheless.

Now here's the kicker: the war with Iran is apparently underway already (h/t The Moderate Voice) ...

Food for thought, no?


And that concludes this week's Iran Watch.

As usual, I sincerely hope that there will be nothing for me to report in next week's installment ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

The Politics of "Appeevement"

Is There a Method to Bush's Middle East Madness?

By RANNIE AMIRI

Over the past several weeks, the United States has gone out of its way to offend, irk and otherwise provoke a select group of leaders and nations. Through a series of deliberate and calculated actions intended to purposefully estrange those most likely to succeed at diplomacy with Iran, its failure has been ordained and the stage for military action set. For those who think the upcoming war will be another Bush-Cheney folly (as they believe Iraq to be), the collusion of the Democrats in the process again belies that assumption.

The groundwork was laid in September, when the Senate overwhelmingly approved a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard a "foreign terrorist organization"--the prerequisite term needed to justify the use of force and the first ever such characterization of a governmental entity.


Keep Reading...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Light Posting Ahead ...

Being knee-deep into scientific writing (grant applications, papers, etc.), posting will be light on my part for the coming two to four weeks. Regular features such as the Iran Watch or the Weekly Revue will not be pre-empted; however, any other posting activity of mine will be more of the "Various Items" or "Round'em Up" type of format (as opposed to my more "long-winded" usual fare) until current demands on my scientific writing activity return to "normal" levels. I apologize for the inconvenience.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 22, 2007

Forgotten Faces of War

by James Carroll

One news story from Afghanistan last week told of two tragedies. In Paktika Province a young man, whose chest was wrapped with an explosive vest, was en route to the place where he would detonate himself. But then, he saw people at prayer in a mosque, and he changed his mind. He went to the police. He began removing his explosive vest, but it went off. He alone was killed.

In Uruzgan Province, a young man, recently home from Pakistan where he had attended a religious school, announced a similar intention to his family. He was going to kill the enemy by killing himself. The article said that he handed over $3,600, presumably a reward for what he was about to do. In front of his mother, brother, and two sisters, he displayed his explosive vest. The young man’s mother was horrified, and she immediately tried to remove the vest from his body. The bomb detonated. The young man, his mother, and his three siblings were killed instantly.

Reports from Afghanistan and Iraq have been numbingly discouraging, in part because, in the United States, they come as a steady stream of abstraction. We see the faces of American casualties on the evening news, and the fate of wounded GIs draws sympathy, but otherwise the human cost of the war is kept vague.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, October 21, 2007

A Generation In Waiting Or Sulking?

The following is a response to this DKos article, by georgia10, titled: "A generation in waiting".

In said insightful article, georgia10 proceeds to criticize Thomas Friedman's "Generation Q" article, which essentially contends that the current generation of college students, which he dubs Generation Q (for "Quiet American"), "may be too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country’s own good".

I agree with georgia10 that Friedman used "dull threads of myth and misrepresentation" and likewise agree overall with georgia10's deconstruction of this recent offering by Friedman.

Unfortunately, georgia10 not only missed the crucial points made by Friedman, but ended up validating/demonstrating his points for him.


Mind you - Thomas Friedman is quite known for being wrong on many-a-thing. Nevertheless, the main concerns of Friedman, and which are too quickly brushed aside by georgia10, are the following (emphasis mine):
When I think of the huge budget deficit, Social Security deficit and ecological deficit that our generation is leaving this generation, if they are not spitting mad, well, then they’re just not paying attention. And we’ll just keep piling it on them.

There is a good chance that members of Generation Q will spend their entire adult lives digging out from the deficits that we — the “Greediest Generation,” epitomized by George W. Bush — are leaving them.

(...) Generation Q would be doing itself a favor, and America a favor, if it demanded from every candidate who comes on campus answers to three questions: What is your plan for mitigating climate change? What is your plan for reforming Social Security? What is your plan for dealing with the deficit — so we all won’t be working for China in 20 years?

(...) America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for — to light a fire under the country. But they can’t e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won’t cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.
While I am certainly no fan at all of Thomas Friedman, I agree strongly with these points. Indeed, this is what I wrote a while ago (emphasis added):
Living in a democracy is a right and a responsibility. And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)?
To which I added in a subsequent post (emphasis added):
(...) we must continue to expose, document and discuss incompetence - but we must also be willing to get off from our couches and convince those outside of the blogosphere to join in, or at least to make the effort to keep themselves critically informed. At the same time, we must keep organizing and pressuring to make the changes required to save the gravely ill patient that is society (...).

It is a long and winding road indeed - but competence as citizens requires (nay: demands) this from all of us.

After all, our revolutionary participatory democracy is not just about ranting and raging, eh?
And specifically with regards to blogs, bloggers and blog readers/commenters? This was my conclusion (emphasis added):
(There are those) 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" 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.

(...) 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.

(...) First and foremost, all of us must accept the reality that achieving change and progress requires patience, determination and perseverance.
Or, to put it another way: we must actively engage ourselves directly if we are to enact sustainable change in our democratic societies.

Which now brings me to georgia10's conclusions with regards to the current generation of college students, now dubbed the "Generation in waiting" (emphasis mine):
We are a generation filled with energy and ideas and promise. We are a generation that yearns for real government and real leadership. We are a generation in waiting, busily occupying ourselves with causes and civic service but shuffling our feet as we wait to find ourselves and our voice in this national discourse.

We are a generation brimming with potential that need not be realized necessarily by street protests and by acts of resistance (the face of modern activism is about so much more than that). We chatter productively amongst ourselves, convinced that the government is too busy screwing up or playing politics to give a damn what we say, waiting for the cloud of idiocy to pass so that some sort of rationality and reason can shine on our nation once more.

We are a generation in waiting. Waiting to be treated as more than just a focus group, waiting to be treated to more than just a Facebook add, waiting for a government and a country that is willing to speak with us rather than to us. And when that time comes, when we are asked to and can speak with a national voice, well, then, "Generation Q" won't be so quiet after all.
Hence, not only does georgia10 demonstrate Friedman's points outlined above, my own points shown herein find themselves likewise demonstrated.

Here's the rub of it, folks, as I commented in georgia10's article:
"We" can "wait" all we want until we turn blue in the face.

Being proactive is what this should be about. Don't wait to have the necessary conditions to engage - create the changes you need to engage yourself.

Waiting for the right conditions or waiting to be "asked" before speaking is like backseat driving: your hands are not on the wheel and you have no say to where the bus is going - not even a say where or when it stops.
Hence the question in the title of the present response, considering georgia10's conclusions: is this the Generation In Waiting, or the Generation Sulking?

"Talking the talk" has never resulted in anything productive - except when it is backed by "walking the walk".

And waiting without doing anything to enact changes in government and politics will always translate in "plus ça change, plus c'est pareil" (the more things change, the more they stay the same). Indeed, we must never forget this simple truism (emphasis added):
We The People - this is what it has, and always has been, about. In a democracy, it is the electorate who holds all the keys and guard all the doors - provided that the citizens actually live up to their responsibility.

(...) we are the ones who have broken the "contract between citizens and their government" because, in essence, we thought somehow that our vigilance and implication were optional.

We have abrogated our responsibilities by virtue of A) that we do not get involved in party politics and nominations; B) that too many of us do not bother to vote; and C) that voter apathy not only perpetuates, but furthermore exacerbates, the problem. Yet, now, we are carping about our rights - all the while conveniently ignoring our responsibilities in the matter.
It is a noble thing to be raging against the drying of the light. But will it save it from dying nonetheless?

Don't wait - join us now.

We need you.


(Cross-posted at DKos)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Valid Questions Vs Excercises In Stupidity

So many exercises in incompetence and outright stupidity, and so little time to cover all of them individually.

That is why I round them up herein:


Item 1: Shorter James Watson: "whites are more intelligent than blacks". It doesn't matter that he is a renowned scientist (having discovered the structure of DNA, along with Francis Crick) - my question to Dr. Watson is: aren't you in fact demonstrating that "whites" can be as incompetent, as unintelligent, as dumb and as stupid as any other person of any race by making such a declaration utterly devoid of scientific facts?

And as follow up questions: where did you get your Ph.D., Dr. Watson - from a Cracker Jack box? Good thing Dr. Crick was there to help in the discovery of the structure of DNA, eh?


Item 2: Shorter Margaret Wente: "you are right, Mr. Gore, but could you STFU so that I can remain cozily comfortable and undisturbed with my head buried deep in the sand? Thank you". To which I reply with the following question: next time you find yourself uninspired to write an intelligent and cogent column, Margaret, could you simply write nothing and spare us anymore of your vapid, insipid and utterly inconsequential prattle to excuse your pettiness and incompetence as a columnist and as a human being?


Item 3: Shorter Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, John H. Marburger III: "yes, humans are producing too much carbon dioxide but temperature changes won't affect people's lives, nor will they cause weather-related disaster events". Translation: "global warming, shlobal warming!" Hence my question to John H. Marburger III: when exactly did your Ph.D. in applied physics miraculously transmuted into one in climatology, thus not only making you an expert on all things climate change, but furthermore a "better" expert than the actual consensus of an overwhelming majority of scientists on this very real crisis?

And as obvious follow up questions: where did you get your Ph.D., Dr. Marburger - from a Cracker Jack box? Good thing you are not only playing the (incompetent) political crony to your environmentally-misinformed and -ignorant boss, President George W. Bush, eh? (winkwink)


Item 4: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to Maher Arar: "tough luck for what we did to ya - but hey - we need extraordinary renditions and torture to keep us safe. Too bad you happened to be really innocent, even if you are a Muslim". Here's my question to ya, Rep. Rohrabacher: if such barbarity saves lives as you oh-so-conveniently claim, why is it we never heard of a single instance of a terrorist plot twarted (along with the arrest of terrorists involved), let alone "advertised" and publicly "paraded" to this effect?

And as follow-up questions: is your current suspicious defense of renditions and torture more informed, less informed, or equally non-informed, than your previous suspicious defense of (convicted) lobbyist Jack Abramoff? Or are you simply a G.O.P. mindless robot who defends all things G.O.P.-related regardless of truth, facts and reality?


Item 5: Attorney General nominee Mike Mukasey:"don't grant anymore rights to unlawful enemy combatants detained in Gitmo than they already have - that's my excuse to justify my position against a restoration of habeas corpus and I'm sticking to it". To which I reply with this question: what rights do they have to begin with, jackass?

And this obvious follow-up: and what about the absence of habeas corpus for Americans, you authoritarian bozo?


Item 6: Shorter Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte: "al-Qaeda resurging in Afghanistan and other areas? It's all good, man - cuz then they're not in Iraq anymore!" To which I reply with the following question: Mr. Negroponte - how desperate and stupidly inane can you get in trying to sell the (false) idea that there is "success" and "progress" in Iraq?

With the obvious follow-ups: Does Prime Minister Stephen Harper, staunch promoter and defender of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, have anything to say about this? Does he also applaud the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, since this would obviously justify his pledge to extend the deployment of Canadian troops there beyond 2009?


Item 7: Speaking of which ... Shorter Harper government throne speech:
"Everything done before January 2006 was bad, Canada was not a leader of anything - especially not on the environment question or on the world stage - and Canada was certainly not united. Now, all has been put aright since January 2006 and all is well and good - consequently, we will stay the course.

(including more proscratinating on the global warming question, and with more crime and security measures to be implemented because, well, we must stay afraid of them baaaaaad criminals and terrorists - the latter which again justify our staying longer in Afghanistan, at least until 2011)

And God Bless the United States of America Canada. Thank you; good night.
"
My question, to whit: do we need anymore proof to support the point that the Conservative Party of Canada is nothing more than a Canadian franchise of the G.O.P.?

And adding these obvious follow-up questions: could our Mini Leader be more laughable in his earnestness in trying to please his idol, President G.W. Bush? And where does that leave us Canadians?


Item 8: Parti Québecois leader Pauline Marois pushes for a "Québec Identity" legislation which, among other things, calls for denying "Québec citizenship" to immigrants who fail to learn French, consequently barring them from holding public office at any level, raising funds for political parties, or petitioning the National Assembly for redress of a grievance. Question: how can you deny fundamental, constitutional rights to Canadian citizens because they fail your petty little litmus-test for "Québec citizenship", Mme Marois?

Follow-up: Mme Marois - are you so ignorant of constitutional rights in our country (Canada) and province (Québec) to come up with such an insipid and utterly stupid piece of legislation, or are you in truth a lowly bigot in disguise despite all your pretenses to the contrary?

And these other follow-ups: could any current provincial political figure make me more ashamed of being a Québecois than I am now? What's next - "deport" those immigrants who failed to learn French to other provinces? Will someone please stop this insanity? Anyone? Please?


Teh stupid - it burns, indeed. Granted, there is so much more out there that could have been dealt with herein, but my brain has now come too close to the irreversible, exploding point.

Hence, this concludes this installment of Valid Questions Vs Excercises In Stupidity.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 19, 2007

Late Friday Night Ode To ... Habeas Corpus


A year and two days ago, on October 17, 2006, the Military Commissions Act and the consequent death of habeas corpus came to pass.

Incidentally, one song - and one song only - kept running through my head on that fateful day.

The very same song annoyed me yet again when the adulterated FISA-gutting bill was hastily passed by Congress back in August.

And that same damn song has kept playing in my head over and over while telecom companies are this close to get retroactive immunity as accomplices of illegal gathering of private information by the U.S. government, as the Harper government pledged to not only strenghten the Anti-Terrorism Act (in his Throne Speech of three days ago), but also still seeks to allow the gathering of private information without court warrants, and while habeas corpus remains dead and interred in the U.S..

Once again, the recent words of Colin Powell ring as true as ever (despite his disgrace for having played in the charade to sell false/cooked intelligence to sell the Iraq war):
What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change (our) way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?
And what is this annoying/damning/telling song, you ask? Here it is: Burden in my hand - Soundgarden:

(Lyrics below the video)



Follow me into the desert
As thirsty as you are
Crack a smile and cut your mouth
And drown in alcohol
Cause down below the truth is lying
Beneath the riverbed
So quench yourself and drink the water
That flows below her head

Oh no there she goes
Out in the sunshine the sun is mine

I shot my love today would you cry for me
I lost my head again would you lie for me

Close your eyes and bow your head
I need a little sympathy
Cause fear is strong and love's for everyone
Who isn't me
So kill your health and kill yourself
And kill everything you love
And if you live you can fall to pieces
And suffer with my ghost

I shot my love today would you cry for me
I lost my head again would you lie for me
I left her in the sand just a burden in my hand
I lost my head again would you cry for me

Just a burden in my hand
Just another anchor on my heart
Just a tumor in my head
And I'm in the dark

So follow me into the desert
As desperate as you are
The moon is glued to a picture of heaven
And all the little pigs have gone

Oh no there she goes
Out in the sunshine the sun is mine
Sun is mine

I shot my love today would you cry for me
I lost my head again would you lie for me
I left her in the sand just a burden in my hand
I lost my head again would you cry for me

Would you cry for me.



More than ever: only we are the real problem with terrorism ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

APOV's Friday Weekly Revue (10/19/2007)

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

Therefore, let us have a peek at what some of the various news departments of the progressive blogosphere have been dealing with in the past week:


From the "They must be insane, sociopaths, stupid or utterly incompetent - or all of the above!" department:
- Studies in wingnuttery;
- Neocon twisted and insane fantasies I: the "Dark Leftist" America;
- Neocon twisted and insane fantasies II: neocon vision of America;
- Poverty? What poverty?;
- Careful, Prime Minister Harper: your colors are showing!;
and - Canadian neocons still sucking up to Bush & Co..


From the "We are screwed!" department:
- What's wrong with Verizon;
and - Yet another duplicitous scam from Insurance Companies.


From the "Bush&Co Watch" department:
- The Bush scandal list;
- FISA: Bush spies - Bush lies - Bush treason;
- Bush: an equal-opportunity screwer;
- The convenient excuse of 9/11;
- The CIA goes after its own independent oversight authority;
and - Fascism, anyone?.


From the "Holy smoke and self-righteous clowns" department:
- This is what theocracy looks like;
- The hypocrisy in politicizing morality and righteousness;
and - Debbie Schlussel decides who the "true" Jews are.


And last, but not least - from the "Wake the hell up!" department:
- A STOP sign is not an option;
- Burma: sound and fury, signifying nothing;
and - What are Americans, when anti-torture and other values fade?


Until next week - have a great read.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Target Iran: Where's Harper?

punditman says: Harper is busy getting his marching orders from his master, George. And if George says shut up about US plans to attack Iran, then Stephen knows exactly what to do and say: nothing.

- By Murray Dobin:

As we go through the numbing process of listening to what passes for news these days — Britney Spears losing custody of her kids, O.J. arrested for kidnapping and Pamela Andersen getting married — Canadians seem blissfully unaware of the increasing signs of a global catastrophe. There are extremely worrying indications that the U.S. is planning — and soon — to attack Iran.

According to the Guardian, the hawkish French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, recently stated “we must expect the worst, and the worst is war.” John Bolton, Bush's former UN ambassador, used a Tory conference in Britain to call for a strike against Iran. Rumours persist a strike could involve tactical, “bunker busting” nuclear weapons.

Keep Reading...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Iran Watch: Week Six (10/18/2007)

Time again to put in review and perspective what has happened this past week with regards to Operation Enduring Propaganda and a looming confrontation with Iran.

You may refresh your memories of what has happened so far with the previous installment of APOV's Iran Watch, Week Five.

Now, let us see what Iran Watch: Week Six has brought us.


Item 1: But first, here is a mandatory message from Operation Enduring Propaganda.

The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!

(Now that this is out of the way, let us proceed as usual ...)


Item 2: Bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran!

This past week, more neocons and G.O.P. Presidential candidates raised the loud beating of Iran war drums yet another notch or two. Especially Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, with the latter increasingly looking like the scariest candidate of them all.

But wait - Iran has also become an obsession among Democratic Presidential candidates, especially in the case of Hillary Clinton - who is increasingly sounding (and acting) pretty much like a neocon where Iran is concerned.

Oh - and more of the MSM got on board to bang those war drums ... reassuring, is it not?

Iran: a veritable inflatable Bogey Man so beloved by all those Iran hawks.


Item 3: Just keep on making that (bogus) case for an Iran War!

Something old, something new: guess who's this week's culprit for 9/11? That's right - after al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, now it's Iran's turn to be responsible for 9/11! Next month, I expect it will be revealed that Syria was behind it all along. And then in December, it will be Santa Claus who will be shown the reallyreallyrealactualtruecrossmyheartaandhopetodie culprit for 9/11. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, the same old bogus accusations regarding Iran are being floated about (including that of foistering terrorism), in addition to raising the fearmongering meter even higher with regards to its nuclear energy program. A true PR operation is on the way to hammer the message home (or, as I've always called it: Operation Enduring Propaganda - but it's just me).

But why wait? The Bush administration warned U.S banks that Iranian "entities" may try to skirt financial sanctions by using various "deceptive practices" and therefore to be on the look out for this, while U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would set off a regional arms race and raise the risk of a major Mideast war.

(Nevermind that it has never been proven so far that Iran has a nuclear weapons research program. And never you mind that Iran certainly does not have a nuclear weapon at present, and that a recent N.I.E. indicates that if it were trying to get one, it would take until at least 2016 - and then only if the international environment were conductive to the high-tech imports necessary to achieve a successful construction and testing of such advanced weaponry. Indeed - nevermind such facts and just be afraid ... as in the case of the pre-Iraq war build-up, back in 2002.)

(Which in turn brings up the exact same question that I asked myself repeatedly during the pre-Iraq war build-up, concerning Saddam's (non-existent) WMD's: whatever the hell happened with "trust, but verify"?)

In the interrim: apparently not satisfied anymore with his previous warnings of a "shadow of a nuclear holocaust", President George W. Bush ramped it up and laid it on the line: World War III is going to happen if Iran goes nuclear. Really. In other words: ya'll have to bar Iran from going nuclear or all Hell will happen.

Why, the Bush administration, seeking to position itself (once again) as being the "reasonable one" as opposed to Iran, said that it might change its goals of developing a missile shield if the "Iranian nuclear threat" subsides.

Overall translation: WWIII is worth starting over Iran - you know, a weak third-world regime with no air force to speak of. Yet, never you mind such details because, as Operation Enduring Propaganda has been putting it, Iran plots a military strike on the U.S., the planet's sole superpower. In fact, this third-world regime is led by a genocidal commander-in-chief who serves a global (terrorist/islamofascist) conspiracy and, to stop him, the President of the superpower that is the U.S. might be compelled to launch an aggressive war.

(Yeah - that's it! That's the ticket!)

On a related note: Russia's President Vladimir Putin has become wary enough of a possible U.S. attack on Iran so as to actually warn that Russia is considering withdrawal from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF) unless it is expanded to include other states (you know, like Iran, maybe?). This in turn prompted President Bush's reassurances that the U.S. will continue to work with Russia on ways to defuse Iran's nuclear program (I kid you not!), while U.S. Secretary of State of Condoleezza Rice felt compelled to express concerns about Russia's increasing military "assertiveness" (Sheesh - did she look at what the U.S. has been doing in the last six years-or-so - at the very least?!?).

And speaking of Condi and her Condi-Style diplomacy: as she is working hard to gather support and momentum for an international peace conference on the Middle East, she could not help herself at lowering expectations to their barest of minimum (as in zero) - in true incompetent fashion.

On a final (related) note: a Patriot missile was launched from a U.S. military base in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar.

Accident, rehearsal or goading Iran into "jumping" in to make the first strike?

Food for thought, eh?


And that concludes this week's Iran Watch.

As usual, I sincerely hope that there will be nothing for me to report in next week's installment ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Iraq: Twelve More "Phony" Soldiers Speak Out

This morning's Washington Post: "The real Iraq we knew", penned by twelve former U.S. Army captains (Jason Blindauer, Elizabeth Bostwick, Jeffrey Bouldin, Jason Bugajski, Anton Kemps, Kristy (Luken) McCormick, Luis Carlos Montalván, William Murphy, Josh Rizzo, William "Jamie" Ruehl, Gregg Tharp and Gary Williams).

Once again, Iraq vets lay it on the line, describing reality in lieu of the typical lies, spins and misinformations that are thrown day in and day out by the "knowledgeable" politicos, the "serious" pundits, the "expert" war scholars and the "truthful" generals (or, as I like to call this: Operation Enduring Propaganda).


These twelve Iraq vets did not dance around the issue as they begin their Op-Ed thusly:
Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.
This bluntly put summary of the situation in Iraq is in sharp contrast to what we heard back in September, when Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker testified that the surge is working and that there has been significant progress in Iraq.

However, such a description by these twelve Iraq vets echoes almost exactly what other Iraq vets have been saying, writing or blogging, so far. Even some MSM correspondents are now publicly admiting the harsh truth of it.

Even young officers are beginning to question seriously the validity of the Iraq war.

It is therefore not surprising to hear that the testimony of Gen. Petraeus may have been "misleading" (doh!).

But the present twelve Iraq vets did not stop there (emphasis mine):
As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.

What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.

Iraq's institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves. At the local level, most communities are still controlled by the same autocratic sheiks that ruled under Saddam. There is no reliable postal system. No effective banking system. No registration system to monitor the population and its needs.

The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.
Add to this the rampant war profiteering and fraud enacted by U.S. private contracting firms there, not taking into account the inherent problems and moral dilemma caused by the accountability-free contracting of merc companies like Blackwater and other private security firms, and it become obvious why Iraq is a veritable senseless quagmire - even worse than Vietnam in this respect.

(Incidentally, we are hearing essentially the same kind of "horror" stories out of Afghanistan - but I digress)

The twelve Iraq vets then drive the point home (emphasis mine):
U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much "battle space," are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks -- on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.

Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few. As it is, Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And, again, corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we're gone.

This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.
Translation: we had no business there to begin with, we made things worse by going in there and there's no way things will get better.

So much for "progress" in Iraq, eh?

For the closer, the twelve Iraq vets articulate plainly and bluntly what has been discussed and pointed out by rational voices prior to the launching of the Iraq war as well as ever since its beginning, voices which have been consistently ignored or largely ridiculed (emphasis mine):
There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.
No better way to say this - nor can one underestimate the power of these words considering who wrote them.

Then again, you will always have your usual despicable chickenhawk bottom-feeders to smear such brave men and women as either "ignorant", "unpatriotic", "traitors", "cowards", "phonies" or any other such mendacious epithets.

Even commanders and/or generals who speak against the war, or dare criticize it, are not exempt from such base and vile smearing. That, or they are simply ignored.

And sadly enough, these twelve brave men and women who wrote today in the Washington Post are now being targeted - true to form.

(After all, if you have no qualms at smearing children, then attacking vets is "no big whup" indeed - but I digress again)

In any event, the concluding words of this Op-Ed by these twelve brave men and women, which have been going around for years now, cannot be ignored any longer.

We The People have to make a choice once and for all - and keeping your head in the sand will not make this senseless catastrophe go away any time soon.

In fact, having keept your head in the sand ever since "Mission Accomplished" only made things tragically worse.

It's your call, America.

It has always been your call - even prior to this war of choice.


(h/t Comments from the Left Field)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

'Many in the US Military Think Bush and Cheney Are Out of Control'

punditman says: Irrational people are prone to do irrational things...

In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Amsterdam-based military historian Gabriel Kolko talks about the prospect of war with Iran and argues that many in the US military now view the White House as being 'out of control.'

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Kolko, editorials in US papers like the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard and the National Review are pushing for military action against Iran. How does the leadership in the US military view such a conflict?

Gabriel Kolko: The American military is stretched to the limit. They are losing both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything is being sacrificed for these wars: money, equipment in Asia, American military power globally, etc. Where and how can they fight yet another? The Pentagon is short of money for procurement, and that is what so many people in the military bureaucracy live for. The situation will be far worse in the event of a war with Iran.

Many in the American military have learned the fundamental dilemma of modern warfare: More money and better weapons don't mean that you win. IEDs, which cost so little to make, are defeating a military which spends billions of dollars per month. IEDS are so adaptable that each new strategy developed by the United States to counter them is answered by the Iraqi insurgents. The Israelis were also never quite able to counter IEDs. One report quotes an Israeli military engineer who said the Israeli answer to IEDs was frequently the use of armored bulldozers to effectively rip away the top 18 inches of pavement and earth where explosive devices might be hidden. This is fantastic, as the cost of winning means destroying roads, which form the basis of a modern economy.

Keep Reading...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 15, 2007

The Health Of The Planet: The Road Not Taken

Google/Blogger has called this day of October 15, 2007, a Blog Action Day with the Environment as the theme.

I thought it might be an opportunity to reflect upon where we are now, as opposed to where we could have been, with regards to global warming.

First, here is a riveting video which drives home the message that "Global Warming is real" - and it does indeed bear repeating over and over:


Now, here is a speech given by Al Gore (then still U.S. Vice-President) on the occasion of Earth Day, back in April 2000, and which merits another read (emphasis mine):
I have worked on environmental causes for more that two decades now. But in all my years of work on this issue, I have never seen a more hopeful sight that the crowd that is gathered here today.

Standing with us are captains of industry; labor leaders and working men and women; Teamsters and auto workers; lifelong environmentalists.

Ten years ago, if you’d told me you were assembling this crowd, I’d have thought it was an episode of Crossfire.

We’ve come a long way. Today, we’re not shouting at one another – we’re standing shoulder to shoulder, working together, meeting our responsibility, doing the right thing.

To see how we have come together, for our economy and for our environment – to see how former adversaries are working together, and planning together, for a cleaner and stronger future – all this gives me a sense of renewed optimism for our country and for our environmental future.

The people in this room have shown that if we make the right investments – if we make the responsible choices – we don’t have to choose between the economy and the environment.

Look at the past seven years. We’re cleaning up the great American rivers. We’ve speeded up toxic waste clean-ups. We’ve worked with industry to strengthen the public’s right to know about chemicals released into their air and water. America is taking strong measures on its own to fight global warming.

Our environment is cleaner than it has been in a generation. At the same time, we have entered the longest period of economic growth in our entire history. America has almost 21 million new jobs. Here in Detroit, you can be proud that after fourteen years of trailing Japan, America has led the world in car and truck production for six years in a row.

Today, we take the next great step forward – to create good new jobs for American families; to keep pollution out of our air and water; and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil at the same time.

It has been seven years since we first joined with the leading auto makers to create the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. Our goal was to work with the best manufacturers to come up with vehicles up to three times more efficient than what we had then -- with no sacrifice in performance, safety, or cost.

From the beginning, this partnership was designed to make our auto industry even more competitive in world auto markets. And it will.

As I announced last month, we can now look forward to a date in the next three or four years when cars with far greater fuel efficiency will be mass-produced, and on the showroom floors, being bought by American families.

We can also look forward to the day when families will be able to buy cars with remarkable new fuel cell technology – engines that run on water, and are likely to increase fuel efficiency by 400 percent. These vehicles will create no greenhouse gas emissions at all -- and the concept cars at this year’s auto show not only got over 100 miles per gallon, they can drive for 500 miles without re-fueling.

Starting next year, we’re going to expand this research partnership to place a greater focus on how we can produce cleaner and more fuel-efficient SUV’s as well as cars.

Today, we take another important step toward a cleaner, stronger future. Together with the nation’s leading manufacturers of heavy trucks and truck components, we are launching a new 21st Century Trucks Initiative – to dramatically improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions from America’s heavy trucks and buses.

Through the hard work of all the people in this room, we believe we can double the fuel economy of an eighteen-wheeler by 2010. And we believe we can triple the fuel economy of heavy pick-up trucks and large delivery vans in that same period.

This new partnership will save businesses, truckers, and taxpayers billions of dollars a year in reduced fuel costs -- while cleaning the air and helping to combat global warming.

And the United States Army, which owns a quarter of a million trucks and buys them for all our armed forces, will be a strong and central partner in developing the new technologies, in buying them, and in putting them on the road. In fact, since more efficient military trucks can go a lot farther without refueling, this partnership will increase our Army's fighting strength.

Just as importantly, by investing in these energy-efficient trucks and technologies – by encouraging their purchase and their use – we can cut America’s reliance on foreign oil, which will mean lower prices at the gas pump, not just in the near-term, but in the long-term.

This new partnership pursues a strategy against pollution that must reach across our economy, and all around the world in the coming years. A strategy that sees people as allies, not adversaries, in meeting environmental challenges. An approach that builds upon our responsibilities to one another – to the air, the water, and the land that we hold in common, across borders and across the generations.

It continues a journey that many of us have made for many years now. I remember one part of my own journey a decade ago, in a different kind of vehicle – one that moves just a bit faster than today’s showroom models.

The trip was on the U.S.S. Pargo – a nuclear submarine that traveled under the Arctic ice sheet all the way from Greenland to the North Pole.

When we reached the pole, the sub broke through the summer icepack – and as I climbed through the hatch, I caught my first glimpse of the North Pole. The light was stunningly bright; clouds of ice crystals sparkled in the frozen air.

That submarine was part of a U.S. fleet patrolling secret routes under the ice – routes that took our subs and missiles close to the former Soviet Union’s northern border. In the process, the Navy had been collecting data about the thickness of the ice cap – merely to identify spots where subs could break through the ice.

Most of the information that was gathered had no national security purpose – so it was recorded and stored, but never examined or analyzed. It was “exformation” – it existed, but no one knew what it said.

As that submarine returned from the pole, deep beneath the ice, it occurred to me that if we shared this data with scientists, we could map a timeline of the ice cap, and the effects of global warming.

When I returned to Washington, I began to discuss the idea with our military and intelligence agencies. One hundred top environmental scientists gained top-secret clearance to review the data, and scrub it of anything that could compromise our national security. Later, as Vice President, I held a conference with Russian government officials and scientists, where both sides agreed to share our scrubbed data about the Arctic – as well as previously-secret sonar and satellite data about the northern oceans.

The results were startling. We learned that the Arctic ice cap had thinned by 40 percent since the 1970’s – a story that made headlines all over the world. The loss has averaged four inches a year for the past decade.

When I first started working on this issue more than two decades ago, this information was accumulating – but no one had ever seen it. It was easier to make excuses, to ignore the threat altogether, or to attack the messenger.

Now it is increasingly clear that global pollution risks not only our quality of life, but the very fabric of life itself.

Each generation of Americans has its own unique challenge, its own special responsibility.

In this decade, in this generation, we have been given one of the greatest responsibilities of all: saving the environment -- not just for ourselves, not just for our children, but for generations far into the future.

I believe we have to make the next ten years the Environment Decade, in America and around the world.

I believe we can and must turn the tide against pollution and global warming. And the people standing here today are proving that we can save our environment and safeguard human health – while sustaining our economy as the strongest in the world.

We know there are still powerful apologists for pollution – despite the new partnerships we are forging together. Some will always argue that pollution is the inevitable price we pay for our prosperity.

That is false; and even worse, it invites and excuses a politics of environmental irresponsibility. A lot of us have been fighting against this irresponsibility for a long time.

I remember the fierce criticism I got eight years ago, when I wrote “Earth in the Balance.” I expected that criticism then, and I wear it as a badge of honor today.

The critics rushed to assail the idea that we could create cleaner, more efficient cars, and end our dependence on the internal combustion engine over a period of, say, 25 years.

We were told that this process would mean an end to the auto industry. In fact, we all know now that it will mean new, more efficient, more competitive cars and trucks; it will mean new jobs for Michigan, and new business for America.

So let me say to the critics on this issue: the people in this room – the workers, the manufacturers, and the business leaders of Michigan – are proving that the skeptics were wrong.

And I have an admission to make. I was wrong, too, when I thought we could end our reliance on the internal combustion engine in 25 years. Because of our work together, we can do it in less than 25 years – while preserving and creating good jobs.

That is why the companies here today are investing so heavily in cleaner, more efficient engines. They know it’s a smart investment. By seeing to it that America leads the growing market for cleaner cars and trucks with lower gas mileage, we will create jobs, not destroy them – good union jobs for Teamsters, for the UAW, and for all working Americans. We will strengthen industry, not weaken it. We will sell more to the world, not less.

We have heard – and in the months ahead, I’m sure we will hear – every possible scare tactic on this issue. But we will not give in, and we will not back down.

It is not extreme but mainstream to champion cleaner fuels, and energy efficiency. It’s the right thing to do – and it’s the responsible thing to do.

When it comes to our air, our water, and the Earth itself, we all have a responsibility to look not just to ourselves, not just to the politics of the moment, but to future generations.

This weekend, we mark the 30th anniversary of the first Earth Day – and the first Earth Day of the 21st Century.

Earth Day has always been a recognition of our most powerful common link, the air, the water, and the planet we share. This year, on this Earth Day, let us renew our resolve to meet our responsibility

To achieve strong and sustainable growth that does not undermine human health, or disrupt the climate of the world.

To forge a future where none of our children have to worry whether the water they drink or the air they breathe is safe and pure.

To create a more livable America -- where there are parks and open spaces, instead of endless, cookie-cutter sprawl; where families can walk and bike and play together; where a clean environment and a high quality of life are a source of security, dynamism, and hope for the future.

In the Environment Decade, we must form partnerships with every industry – just like the ones here today, which will produce fuel-efficient trucks that the critics said could never be made.

In the Environment Decade, we have to make the free market the friend of the environment, not its enemy – and the clearest examples are our partnerships for cleaner cars and trucks.

In the Environment Decade, we have to invest more in conservation, in renewable energy, and in fast-growing technologies that combat pollution.

In the Environment Decade, we need to enforce tough, realistic, achievable standards to reduce smog and soot, and protect our children’s health.

In the Environment Decade, we have to expand the right to know to every area where pollution of any kind threatens public health. As we work to clean up abandoned Brownfields and toxic waste sites, parents need to know if a street-corner is unsafe – or if poisonous chemicals can lead to sickness and disease.

In the Environment Decade, we have to protect our forests and our rivers and our precious public lands – so that families have places where they can hike and climb, and reach out toward the stars.

In the Environment Decade, we have to encourage smarter growth, and more livable neighborhoods – so every community will have the chance to grow according to its own values, in a way that preserves its own character.

In the Environment Decade, we must also meet persistent global environmental challenges. We must continue to ban the chemicals that eat away at our ozone layer and expose us to dangerous, cancer-causing ultraviolet rays. If we face this challenge head-on, we have the prospect of completely closing the ozone hole over Antarctica over the next two generations.

And in this time, we must take decisive steps – not just in this country, but everywhere -- against global warming. I believe we have to ratify the Kyoto agreement, which would commit America to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I know we don’t yet have a consensus on this issue -- and that many in this room may still have disagreements. I feel very strongly that we must move forward. But I pledge to you today: I will work with all of you, to move forward in a way that is good for our economy, good for our environment, and good for the entire world.

We must ensure that all developed and developing nations are committed to doing their part. And I believe we can combat global warming in a way that creates jobs – by aggressively pursuing a global market for new energy technology that is expected to reach $10 trillion in the next two decades.

I know these challenges are not easy. And for me, they have never been without controversy. More than a decade ago, when I set out to write “Earth in the Balance,” I was warned not to do it; that it was politically foolish to make so clear a commitment to environmental protection, written down in black and white, for all to see.

But for me, a commitment to the environment has always run deeper than politics. We have to do what’s right for our environment, because it involves all of our lives – from the simple security of knowing that our drinking water is safe, to the more ominous thinning of the ice caps at the top of the Earth.

One hundred years from now, when our great grandchildren gather to mark the first Earth Day of the 22nd Century, I want them to know that we were thinking of their time with the same vision, the same dedication, and the same commitment that we applied to our own time.

I want them to know that their future meant more to us than the irresponsible pursuit of short-term gain.

For the earth is in the balance. Save it we can, and save it we must – for this is the great responsibility of our generation. Now let us resolve to finish the job.
Al Gore made this speech looking back on the preceeding 8 years as his days as Vice-President waned, while he sought the higher office of the U.S. Presidency.

Al Gore spoke these words with optimism and rightly so - because back in 2000, some eight years ago to this day, things did look optimistic with regards to the environment and the potential technological and economic solutions that would not only slow down global warming (at the very least), but furthermore ensure continued employment and economic growth.

That was the road which lied ahead of us some eight years ago.

Instead, we ended up with the Bush administration, the death of Kyoto, an increased reliance on fossil fuels, wars in the Middle East, and a worsening of global warming overall.

Some eight years after that speech by Al Gore, the electric cars have long disappeared mysteriously while George W. Bush is still pushing for his duplicitous "voluntary measures", supported by his equally environmentally-inept, disassembling and procrastinating Canadian (neo)conservative emulator, Stephen Harper.

Some eight years ago, thanks to decicated leadership on the part of Al Gore, industry, unions, workers and environmentalists had begun working together. Business was at least seeing the potential for profits and sustained economic growth in "going green".

Again - thanks to dedicated leadership.

Some eight years ago, Al Gore called our then-coming decade the Environment Decade. In lieu of its promises of a better and healthier world in the eight years since, we have instead been reaping the rotten and dead fruits of a complete absence - if not actual deficiency - of leadership as we find ourselves actually having regressed beyond the eight years spoken of in 2000 by Al Gore.

Hence, over sixteen years, we find ourselves back to square not one, or even zero, but minus one. We find ourselves in our very own Semi-Dark Ages.

That is the most eloquent and damning argument against "voluntary measures" I will ever hear, read or see.

Without leadership, you have laissez faire.

And with laissez faire, you have what we have today.

This is the road we have been riding on since January 2001.

How often I wonder about that other road not taken ...


(Cross-posted at DKos, at NetRoots, at A Creative Revolution, at NION, and at Progressive Historians)

Bloggers Unite - Blog Action Day

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Canada: Where We're Going Instead Of Where We Should Be

A study in contrast is on the menu today - one that I would hope our politicians will take notice of and thereafter dwell upon the conundrum that it poses with regards to the current direction our country has taken.

Two news columns were penned in two different newspapers. One appeals to our higher and nobler principles, whereas the other appeals to our most basest ones.

The problem? It seems we as a country are fast riding down the road paved by the latter, instead of courageously hanging on to the former.


First off, we have Janice Kennedy's Obstructing the peace, whereby she discusses the recent events concerning American anti-war activists (like Alison Bodine and others) who are being stopped at our borders in order to be detained or refused entry into our country. Mrs. Kennedy's thoughtful and insightful piece illustrates well the slippery slope we've been heading down lately. A few excerpts, if you will allow me (emphasis mine):
Part of our national soul has been lost.

(...) On the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war, Montreal Gazette journalist Jack Todd - who made that profound border-crossing himself - spoke with the CBC. "That decision to come to Canada in 1970," he said, "is the bravest thing I ever did, and I'm damn proud of it ... I think we were right, and what we did was an important thing."

Many Canadians agree. But not all. And certainly not the ones making the rules these days.

So now we turn away peace activists. Now we don't even let them in for the day to talk peace with Canadian peace groups.

For some time now, many Americans have been seeing horrible parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. There are similarities in the pointlessness, the unwinnability, the relentless flow of body bags, the obscene costs. The catastrophic Iraq adventure, not five years old, is on track in 2008 to nearly equal the economic drain of nine years of Vietnam. At the moment, Iraq is costing U.S. taxpayers an estimated $255 million a day. A day. This, in a country where the poor keep getting measurably poorer and nearly 50 million people have no health insurance.

And yet when people at our border want to come in and discuss such obscenities with us, we send them packing. What (American activists) clearly didn't know was how we've changed, how we've allowed the pervasive war mentality from the U.S. to seep in, poisoning our atmosphere and transforming us.
Mrs. Kennedy sees a direct causality between this gradually devolving sad state of affairs and creeping militarism in our country, something Punditman touched upon weeks ago. Dixit Mrs. Kennedy (emphasis mine):
You see it everywhere, war glorified and peace gestures shoved aside as wimpy and full of Chamberlain-esque appeasement. All war is good and honourable, all combatants heroes. When I wrote critically some weeks ago about the "Support our Troops" decals as statements of support for combat in Afghanistan, one correspondent took me to task from a unique angle.

We must honour our troops, she said, so that they don't come home like the U.S. troops from Vietnam - heroes, all, but lacking in the respect they'd earned. There is no point wondering how they could all be heroes, because heroism is the prevailing mythology.

(...) It's the same kind of spurious reasoning that had the American and Canadian neocon crowd circulating a bit of e-mail satire last month, a Second World War-vintage portrait labelled "General Eisenhower or General Lies and Power?" Supposedly distributed by the "'Twas Time to Move On Political Society" (a sneer at MoveOn.org, the U.S. political action group that has campaigned relentlessly against the war in Iraq), it says: "General Eisenhower will not admit what everyone knows: America is in an unwinnable war ... General Eisenhower has become General Lies and Power for not retreating and sending our troops home."

Lacking both subtlety and logic, it suggests that the war against Germany and Japan is somehow comparable to the botched misadventure in Iraq. And it does so because that great levelling concept of war - that it's all the same, no matter what the context or who the participants - is part of the temper of our times.

The mythology of war and heroism is powerfully attractive. We borrow freely from it as often as we can, sometimes failing to notice that it's not a good fit, that it's just borrowed clothes. But we don't want to give it up.

Sadly, some wars are indeed unavoidable. How else, for example, would the nightmare of Hitler have been ended? And the sacrifice made by men and women to do that terrible job should never be forgotten.
Mrs. Kennedy then goes for the home run (emphasis mine):
Forty years ago, Canada had a sense of self that included a national belief in peace. Now we have not only abandoned that part of the Canadian soul, we've replaced it with something that isn't even our own.

From the government of our friendly (though foreign and sometimes frightening) next-door neighbour, we have borrowed an unsettling paranoia and a militaristic world view that feels wrong and is not who we are. We have jumped on to the Bush bandwagon, heedless of the terrifying fact that it is careening downhill, out of control.

And we won't even listen to those who want to warn us.
Mrs. Kennedy makes for a compelling argument and, again, not unlike the one Punditman made previously.

It is true that, especially since January 2006, we've been seeing the same tactics and hearing the same talking points from our (neo)conservative government as those being pushed by the Bush administration - whether concerning the Global War on Terror(TM), gobal warming, climate change, Kyoto and the environment, or Afghanistan, etc. (I know I've blogged often enough about such things).

In fact, Prime Minister Harper (a.k.a. Mini Leader) and his Harpies have often made me wonder who they serve: us or the U.S.?

However, I do not entirely subscribe to this whole "creeping militarism" angle as to why we have been increasingly following our southern neighbors down the same road to perdition with regards to our constitution, our civil rights, our obsession with Holy Security and our taste for war (especially concerning our mission in Afghanistan).

Which brings me to the second news column I would bring to your attention, this one penned by Tom Brodbeck and titled Leaders should be honest on Afghanistan motives. In this "piece", Mr. Brodbeck expresses his discontent with all Canadian politicians with regards to the current debate concerning our mission in Afghanistan, hoping that the announcement by our Mini Leader of the creation of an independent panel that will make recommendations on Canada's future role in Afghanistan, will bring about a focus on the actual reason as to why Canada is in Afghanistan. This reason? Let us allow Mr. Brodbeck to articulate this for himself (emphasis mine):
(...) But if we're going to have a real debate about Afghanistan, politicians have to start being honest with Canadians about why we have troops there.

There's a false perception in this country that we're in Afghanistan to keep peace and to bring Afghans freedom and democracy.

We're not.

We're there for one reason and one reason only: to prevent terrorist regimes from rebuilding their forces in order to reduce the risk of another terrorist attack against a North American target.

We're not there to bring equality to women and we're not there to open schools or liberate anybody.

Those may be side benefits. But those aren't the chief objectives.

We're in Afghanistan to protect our own hides from a future attack.
Mr. Brodbeck outlines his point further thus (emphasis mine):
This is what former prime minister Jean Chretien said in a 10-minute television address six years ago when he committed Canadian troops to Afghanistan:

"I cannot promise the campaign against terrorism will be painless, but I can promise that it will be won," said Chretien.

"We must remain strong and vigilant. We must insist on living to our terms, according to our values, not on terms dictated from the shadows."

Six years later, we're still in Afghanistan because we fear that if we and our allies leave, terrorist groups may flood back into the country, rebuild their forces and come after us again.

(...) There are still terrorist groups all over the world and many have simply relocated from Afghanistan, including bin Laden.

But we did accomplish what we set out to do - remove a pro-terrorist government from power, capture some key al-Qaida operatives and frustrate their operations.

Have we reduced the risk of another 9/11 as a result? Of course we have.

Al-Qaida is more fractured and less organized now than it was prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

The challenge today is to try to train Afghan security forces so they can, on their own, prevent terrorist groups from reforming.

No one knows if that's possible. But that's why we're still there.

And it's probably not prudent to leave until we think those measures are in place.
Where to begin?

First off - Mr. Brodbeck repeats the usual falsehoods concerning the Taliban regime (which I dealt extensively already here and here), as well as the neoconservative spin that the Afghanistan war (and by association, the Iraq one as well) have made all of us safer. This last one has been proven wrong time and time again - and therefore I will not endeavor to debunk it yet again.

Second, Mr. Brodbeck pushes the typical mantra that we are in a generational war which will take a long time to "win". How so? By his own statement that "there are still terrorist groups all over the world and many have simply relocated from Afghanistan, including bin Laden" along with his "but that's why we're still there, And it's probably not prudent to leave until we think those measures are in place". That is, in essence, what the so-called Global War of Terror(TM) is all about: a never ending war. Why? Because it is simply ludicrous to wage war against a technique of fighting or of causing terror.

But intellectual sloth-driven folks like Mr. Brodbeck cannot see this simple truism, just like they cannot help themselves from drinking the usual Bush administration/Harper government kool-aid which claims that "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here", that "we're winning the war on terror" and how "being in Afghanistan and Iraq have made us safer", and then regurgitate it along.

Folks like Mr. Brodbeck not only want to believe such things, but they actually need to believe.

Because such folks are ruled by fear.

Case in point: Mr. Brodbeck's projection of his fears conflated what happened to the Americans on 9/11 with the possibility that it will happen to us as well. In fact, he considers 9/11 to have happened to Canada as much as to the U.S.A., considering his choice of words and the way he framed the context of his "arguments".

Incidentally, such folks are often what I call false patriots:
That is why they keep boasting of their courage and resolve in the Global War on Terror(TM).

That is why they blindly support any initiative, however much an affront to our constitutions it may be, as long as it is with the objective of fighting terrorists and preventing another 9/11.

(...) That is why they call for more wars, always seeing yet more moving shadows which must certainly seek to attack and harm - and yet they do not enlist, nor encourage those closest to them to enlist.

That is why "might makes right" constitutes a fundamental principle for them - especially as long as other people die in their stead.

And that is why they are the loudest self-proclaimed, chest-beating "Patriots".
And therein lies the real reason why Canada has been fast-riding down the same "road to perdition" as the U.S.A.

Fear.

I said it before and I'll say it again: we are the real problem with terrorism.

Allow me to reproduce here part of what I wrote recently on the 6th anniversary of 9/11 (emphasis added):
So - what exactly happened on the day after the fateful and tragic morning of 9/11?

We lost and the terrorists won.

Right there and then.

Whatever else has happened in the six years which followed to this day merely constitutes the gradual and methodical enactment of the terms of our surrender.

No more, no less.
Or, to put it another way:
Hence, this is why we are quite willing to put aside our fundamental rights and our simple human decency, if not our humanity, in the name of security;

This is why we accept to be probed, surveyed and monitored any time and everywhere, day in and day out;

This is why we accept that the rule of Law be bent, twisted or ignored;

This is why we accept that our governments wage war indiscriminately in other countries, against a technique of fighting;

This is why we are slowly surrendering the very principles of our democracies to increasing authoritarianism;

This is why reason and competence have given way to fear and hate-driven incompetence;

This is why we are the real problem of terrorism;

And, consequently, this is why the terrorists have already won.
And this is why we have devolved in going as far as refusing entry to peace activists into our country: we have come to the point where we won't even accept dissenting points of view on what we are doing in Afghanistan, or concerning the senseless and wasteful waging of war against a technique of fighting.

All because of irrational fear, such as that expressed by Mr. Brodbeck who, sadly enough, constitutes but one example among all too many of us. Including too many of our politicians.

How ironic then, and quite à propos, that Mr. Brodbeck ends his opus this way:
That's the real debate.

The rest is just political noise.

We should at least stick to the real reasons we're in Afghanistan when we debate what our next move should be.
In other words: long live the politics of fear.

Which only reinforces the axiom that "we have met the enemy, and it is ourselves".

And there you have it: on the one hand, we have Mrs. Kennedy's appeal to our nobler principles and, on the other, we have Mr. Brodbeck's appeal to our basest emotions.

Quite symbolic of what we've been going through since 9/11, eh? Of how Canada has been heading down one road, when our country should have steadfastly and courageously stayed on the one we were engaged on prior to this tragic day.

Come what may, I know which one of the two appeals I have been following all along, even after 9/11.

What about you?


(Cross-posted at A Creative Revolution and at NetRoots)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Dodging Impeachment

by Ralph Nader

The meeting at the Jones Library in Amherst, Massachusetts on July 5, 2007 was anything but routine. Seated before Cong. John Olver (D-MA) were twenty seasoned citizens from over a dozen municipalities in this First Congressional District which embraces the lovely Berkshire Hills.

The subject-impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney.

The request-that Cong. Olver join the impeachment drive in Congress.

More than just opinion was being conveyed to Cong. Olver, a then 70 year old Massachusetts liberal with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These Americans voted overwhelmingly during formal annual town meetings in 14 towns and two cities in the First District endorsing resolutions to impeach the President and Vice President.

Presented in the form of petitions to be sent to the Congress, the approving citizenry cited at least four “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

They included the initiation of the Iraq war based on defrauding the public and intentionally misleading the Congress, spying on Americans without judicial authorization, committing the torture of prisoners in violation of both federal law and the U.N. Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, and stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights by jailing them indefinitely without charges and without access to legal counsel or even an opportunity to challenge their imprisonment in a court of law.

Full article...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, October 13, 2007

A Coup For Junk Journalism

(Updated below)

Al Gore was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

As expected, the smear attacks and indignant cries of right-wingers, global warming denialists and all assorted anti-Gore maniacs have been flooding the blogosphere.

Incidentally, the same thing is going on in numerous MSM outlets.


Just this day, I found four columns from so-called news columnists/editors - each one repeating the same barbs, same lies and same global warming denialism.

Four different columns, each one equally displaying utter junk journalism.

Let us begin with Terence Corcoran's piece in the National Post, titled "A coup for junk science". Here is the opening line of Mr. Corcoran's opus:
Global warming theory has been in political and scientific trouble for some time.
Yawn. The same type of blatant lie as the one pushed by creationists/IDists with regards to evolution. Same quack tactics - not surprisingly, because what else can deniers do in the face of an established scientific consensus among an overwhelming majority of scientists?

In any case, this opening line from Mr. Corcoran's column is quite telling of the kind of incompetent news columnist that he is.

But it gets better. Then comes the (expected) parroted barbs and sneers against the actual value of the Nobel Peace Prize:
Rescuing and rewarding the obscure and the absurd has been a Nobel sideline for some years. The award has gone to half a dozen fringe movements and futile causes (the Gameen bank, Mother Teresa, nuclear disarmament, land mine activists, peace negotiators), ineffectual United Nations agencies and personalities (including KofiAnnan and the UN itself ), occasional warmongers (Yasser Arafat), plus an international assortment of minor and woolly-headed players on the world stage (Wangari Masthai, Jimmy Carter).
From there, Mr. Corcoran goes for the jugular:
Onto this heap of forgotten causes and marginalia the Nobel has just tossed Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN's official climate science group. What a blow the award must be to the IPCC, self-proclaimed home of scientific rigour, to now be lumped in with Reverend Al and his Travelling Snake Oil Road Show and Climate Terror Machine.

If history is any guide here, the IPCC is now doomed to slide into obscurity, joining the list of similarly feted UN agencies that beaver away in relative obscurity and ineffectiveness, their Nobels rotting on shelves: The International Atomic Energy Agency (2005), United Nations peacekeeping forces (1988), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (1981), the International Labour Organization (1969) and the UN Children's Fund (1965).

The first task of the IPCC now, one would think, is to craft a statement disavowing any link with Gore, whose film and book, both titled An Inconvenient Truth, deserved a Nobel for science fiction rather than peace. Not that the IPCC is squeaky clean on the science of climate accuracy. Even the Nobel committee's statement on the IPCC captured the agency's primary role as political shaper of opinion and builder of consensus. IPCC scientific reports have "created an ever-broader informed consensus" about man-made global warming. The Nobel committee said it wanted to "contribute to a sharper focus" on climate change around the world.
This illustrates well the intellectual vapidity and dishonesty of Mr. Corcoran.

First, he casts aspertions on the IPCC for its scientific rigor because, well you know, that is all ignoramuses like Mr. Corcoran can do in order to reassure themselves that their intellectual sloth-driven "beliefs" are sound - nevermind if you have no idea what science and the scientific method are all about. Hence, in Mr. Corcoran's primitive mind, the scientists affiliated with the IPCC must be suspect in their scientific rigor and, consequently, wrong about global warming. Yeah - that's the ticket!

Second, Mr. Corcoran can't help himself but spit literally on Mr. Gore by seeking to ridicule him.

Hence, what we have here are two classic tactics of right-wing nutterers, denialists, fundamentalists and other assorted madhaters: refuse to recognize competence in, and heap ridicule upon, those who "threaten" your ignorance-based beliefs and ideologies.

Typical incompetent human behavior.

Then, of course, Mr. Corcoran perpetuates junk journalism by parroting junk journalism from elsewhere, with regards to that recent ruling by a U.K. judge concerning Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth:

Just hours before the Nobel announcement, Gore was busy spinning his way out of a devastating United Kingdom court case that found nine substantial science errors in the film version of An Inconvenient Truth.

The nine errors, listed on Page A19 of this newspaper, are truly major. But Gore's office, in true political form, tried to turn the science disaster into victory, claiming he was "gratified" that the U.K. court had not totally banned distribution of his film in British schools. Instead, it would have to circulate like a package of cigarettes, with a warning label: Children watch this movie at peril of being politically manipulated by Al Gore into thinking what they are watching is true.
Mr. Corcoran is referring to another article in the same journal where he contributes, which in turn draws exclusively from the same misinterpretations of other (mostly) conservative-leaning newspapers from the U.S., the U.K. and Australia.

As I am fond of saying: garbage in, garbage out.

To this effect, do take the time to read the actual ruling of this U.K. judge here. You will notice this very telling passage:
In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.
As someone else puts it: "if you noticed the quotation marks around 'error' (...) Burton is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that Downes alleged were errors".

In other words: junk journalists like Mr. Corcoran and all others of his ilk have been listing without thinking (or perhaps knowingly indeed) nine instances put forth by the plaintif which the complaint deemed "scientific errors" and yet not recognized by the U.K. judge, because the judge himself ruled that it is essential to appreciate that the hearing before him did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions!

Hence, the judge never outlined errors in Gore's movie and never ruled them as errors!

(For more on this blatant excercize of incompetence on the part of journalists with regards to the ruling of this U.K. judge, read this excellent article).

So, once again, what we have here is another display of stenographing and amplifying outright falsehoods through MSM outlets - thanks to incompetent journalism.

But this doesn't stop Mr. Corcoran from ripping away at Al Gore, his movie (and even his 1997 climate change book as well!), leading to his conclusion:
Given his science gaffes, and his political liabilities, the Nobel may be more of a liability, not just to Gore but to the entire global warming community. The prize has elevated junk science, gross exaggeration and outright misrepresentation to high international stature, the most prestigious award in the world, discrediting all who work honestly to find the facts and do the right thing.
Actually, what we have here is another blatant excercize of junk journalism - nothing more, nothing less.

And as I mentioned at the beginning of the present article, Mr. Corcoran was not alone in displaying utter incompetence today.

Indeed, we were also graced with the "serious, thoughtful and knowledgeable" David Warren, with his piece "If only there were a Nobel prize for deception" in the Ottawa Citizen. I've already discussed Mr. Warren's utter ignorance of all things related scientific. Suffice it to say that his column of today is a mere mirror image of Mr. Corcoran's column discussed above, complete with the same displays of shameless ignorance, vapidity, inanity and parroting of falsehoods (once again, especially with regards to the ruling from the aforementioned U.K. judge). And since three's company, the "serious, thoughtful and knowledgeable" David Frum likewise penned a column on the very same subject in the National Post (again), titled "Honouring a panic-monger", filled to the brim with the same falsehoods, sneers and blatant display of intellectual sloth-driven ignorance and incompetence.

A fourth column, an editorial by The Gazette and titled "Al Gore is out of his league", proved to be somewhat of an exception today. Indeed, the editorial does not dispute global warming but could not help itself in seeking to demean the value and significance of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to (gasp!) Al Gore while mentionning the now-robotic misinterpretations of the U.K. judge's ruling on his movie. But considering the sad and tragic current state of journalism, credit must nonetheless be given where credit is due - I therefore do so by outlining the ending of this editorial:
Despite all this, however, nobody could deny that Gore has done much to spread the word about climate change, a problem with the potential to create resource conflicts in many parts of the world.

Gore's co-winner of the Peace Prize, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was lauded by the Nobel committee for scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."

Gore's crusade has helped the world understand those reports. The challenge now, for all of us, is to find sensible ways to slow down emissions and cope with those effects that are already inevitable.
Again - although this is far from constituting a call for mobilization to fight global warming, at least we do not have yet more climate change denialism on display in an MSM outlet.

All in all, and considering the offerings we were served today, I can only conclude that Mr. Gore's Nobel Peace Prize constituted an opportunity for duplicitous, mendacious, ignorance-based and/or outright sloppy journalism to rear its ugly head again.

(Where Mr. Gore and global warming are concerned - nothing new here, unfortunately)

In short: today was a veritable coup for junk journalism.

But truth be told - days like today seem increasingly like just another typical day in MSM Land.

Sadly enough.

Yet another truth laid bare - applicable anywhere.


Update: 10/14/2007 - Faux News hosts and commentators keep reacting like shrilling and sniping, utterly ignorant tweenies with regards to Mr. Gore's Nobel Peace Prize - again, not surprisingly. You can read more on the junk journalism about this subject here. On a related note, you can read another exhaustive and reality-based analysis of the U.K. judge's ruling on An Inconvenient Truth here. Enjoy.


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Progressive Historians, and at Revolt Today)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 12, 2007

Late Friday Night Ode To ... Participatory Democracy


Once again, the title of tonight's Ode says it all ...

We have to get involved in "local" party politics in order to ensure that the best qualified candidates are nominated to run for elections, instead on the usual trite, jaded and all-too-often "for sale" bozos that do end up as candidates.

This is the only way that we can enact long-lasting changes - like healing the roots of the rotting tree in order to save it.

Remember that the participatory democracy which the blogosphere represents is not just about ranting, raging and criticizing.

We have to get involved in the real-life nitty-gritty of politics - or else, democracy dies.

This is our responsibility as citizens of democratically-based societies.

As they say: together we stand ...

Hence, I give you Triumph - Allied Forces:

(Lyrics below the video)



I've got something on my mind
I want you to know;
Rock troops are on the move,
It's startin' to show.
Paratroopers everywhere,
Can't you see
Strategic weapons
Are something we don't need

Allied Forces in every nation,
Allied Forces gonna take control.
Allied Forces of my generation;
Allied Forces of rock 'n' roll.

Youth culture in overdrive
Mass frustration;
Too much, too little, too late:
Class alienation.
Denim armies working,
Consolidate the might;
War games, maneuvers
Rehearsals in the night.

Allied Forces in every nation,
Allied Forces gonna take control.
Allied Forces of my generation;
Allied Forces of rock 'n' roll.

I've got something on my mind,
I want you to know;
Rock troops are on the move,
It's startin' to show.
Paratroopers everywhere
Are ready to fight;
We're mobile allies,
Marchin' every night.

Allied Forces in every nation,
Allied Forces gonna take control.
Allied Forces of my generation;
Allied Forces of rock 'n' roll.



And as always - keep on rockin'!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

APOV's Friday Weekly Revue (10/12/2007)

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

Therefore, let us have a peek at what some of the various news departments of the progressive blogosphere have been dealing with in the past week:


From the "They must be insane, sociopaths or plain stupid - or all of the above!" department:
- Gimmick;
- Ann Coulter: the prefected Jew;
- "Perfected" idiots;
- Graeme Frost & why I am ashamed to be a blogger today;
- The Frost family fiasco: a right-wing smear gone awry;
- Winning the hearts and minds?;
- Anatomy of a smear;
- Breed and be warlike;
- George W. Bush believes in the right to privacy!;
- A real problem;
and - A nation of Rich Lowrys.


From the "We are screwed!" department:
- Private efficiencies;
- De-skilling America's labor force;
- The utter corruption of the U.S. telecom industry;
- The demonstration why we need single payer health care;
and - Think like water when fighting terrorism.


From the "Global Warming Watch" department:
- Gore wins Nobel prize and some hope he'll run;
- 2007 - the year of climate change;
and - Scientists were sooo wrong: it's even worse than they thought!


From the "Those self-righteous clowns keep blowing holy smoke!" department:
- You can feel the intellectual vacuum from here;
- The next great threat to America: Anime!;
- Scandal rocks Oral Roberts University;
and - Sweet Jesus!

(On a related note: if you haven't already, I invite you good folks to read "Creationism victimization: if it quacks like a duck ...", written by yours truly two days ago)


And last, but not least - from the "Wake the hell up!" department:
- Sorry, Canada is now closed;
- This is not America!;
- Canada gouged at the pump;
- The power of the People;
and - Things change when we realize WE are the government.


Until next week - have a great read.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Iran Watch: Week Five (10/11/2007)

Time again to put in review and perspective what has happened this past week with regards to Operation Enduring Propaganda and a looming confrontation with Iran.

You may refresh your memories of what has happened so far with the previous installments of APOV's Iran Watch: Week One, Week Two, Week Three and Week Four.

Now, let us see what Iran Watch: Week Five has brought us..


Item 1: But first, here is a mandatory message from Operation Enduring Propaganda.

The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!

(Now that this is out of the way, let us proceed as usual ...)


Item 2: Bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran!

Yes indeedy - more neocons and their loyal MSM stenographers have kept beating the Iran war drums, even increasing the decibels a notch or two. But wait, here's a new spin: if there is a U.S.-Iran confrontation, it will be one of Iran's choice! That's right - because the Iranians refuse to be dictated by the U.S. Bully, it will be their fault if the Bully attacks them in return. Oh yes - the U.S. is "doing everything" they can to avoid start war with Iran, that is if only Iran would be more ... compliant and subservient.

(Isn't that what these same insane folks were saying during the build-up to war with Iraq - that any Iraq war would be Saddam's choice for refusing to comply to the U.S. demands, or something like this? Come to think of it - didn't they do the very same thing as well in the case of the Afghanistan war? Hmmm ... is it just me, or is there a pattern here?)

A couple more steps for the wet dreams of them neocons into becoming reality ...

To read more on this subject, I suggest the following: Neo-connecting the dots to Iran parts III, IV and V (the first two parts were suggested in last week's Iran Watch).


Item 3: Just keep on making that (bogus) case for an Iran War!

The Grand General Petraeus keeps pushing the (false or at least still-unproven) accusations that Iran is exporting chaos to Iraq. Of course, there remains a lot of doubt about the veracity of such accusations. Furthermore, the Grand General may have been not so, ah, truthful, with regards to his testimonial "report" this past September (well, duh!). But no matter - Grand General Petraeus has gone as far as to detain Iran's ambassador to Iraq, claiming that he is in fact a member of an Iranian Elite Force with, of course, chaos-mongering nefarious intentions. Proof of this? As usual: trust us, we know!

Keep building up that (fake) casus belli, baby! And repeat the lies often enough, folks will come to believe them as facts (as in the case of, you know, Iraq). Heck, it may even spur on allies into joining you for the party, once you get it started.

Meanwhile, Iran keeps going on its path towards a nuclear energy industry (not bombs - at least as far as Russian President Putin is concerned) and has ruled out any negotiations with world powers over its right to sensitive nuclear activities. Take that, eh? One more example that the good old Condi-Style Diplomacy has kept working like a charm indeed ...

On a totally unrelated note: cholera is spreading from Iraq to Iran (and not the other way around). The dormant cynic in me just woke up and is now chuckling at the obvious dark symbolism of this tragic news item.

In any event, the neocons in the White House want their Iran war - and by God's Will, as well as the Senate's, they will have it any which way they can, even if it means stampeding over those within (or without) who are opposed to it, or ignoring sound intelligence demonstrating that Iran is no threat (as opposed to, you know, the Big Lie) ... as in the case of Iraq!

On a related note: in true Operation Enduring Propaganda fashion, the White House is once again saying "nothing to see here", "move along now" in the matter of a soon-to-come Iran War - as I am fond of saying: deny, deny, deny.

But it seems to be working - some folks are even seeing a light at the end of this dead-end tunnel.

(I ain't so convinced, folks ...)


And that is it for this week's Iran Watch.

Let's naively hope that there will be nothing to report in next week's installment, shall we?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton: Fooled Again or Neo-Conned?

Punditman: the following was written by Donna Saggia.

Hillary Clinton is fond of saying that, if she knew in 2002 what she knows now, she would not have voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. To this day Clinton does not regret her vote, she only regrets “the way the president used the authority that Congress gave him.” Her campaign mantra, “The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress,” is an attempt to draw a veil of innocence over her vote and implicate all of us in the Iraq swindle.

Well, “all of us” really can’t continue to buy this argument. George Bush may have pulled the trigger, but Republicans and too many Democrats were holding the gun. Iraq was and continues to be a bipartisan war, and Hillary Clinton, until only recently, has been a vociferous cheerleader. Had events in Iraq taken a different turn, Clinton would be first in line to congratulate Bush on a job well done.

So, was Hillary “fooled” on Iraq? And what about her recent vote to give Bush an opening to attack Iran? Was she “fooled again”? If she indeed was misled by Bush, we’d expect her speeches to be filled with alternative strategies and policies, but they’re not. In fact, if we look at Clinton’s words and votes regarding the Middle East, it becomes clear what a foreign policy under “President Hillary Clinton” would look like – indistinguishable from Bush’s and bearing a strong resemblance to the neocon agenda.

The ABC’s of the neocon agenda

At first glance, the neocon agenda for the Middle East appears to be based on three transparent convictions:

The US has a duty to promote democracy around the world, using its unrivaled power if necessary. Since the Middle East is a region of despotic Muslims, democratic transformation must begin there. And, since Israel is the only democratic outpost in the region, we must protect Israel’s right to defend itself.

But if we read between the lines, where the neocon agenda really lies, we can break the code with a few simple substitutions:

A. for “promote democracy around the world” substitute establish free markets; for “unrivaled power” substitute preemptive military force;

B. for “despotic Muslims” substitute Islamic terrorists; for “democratic transformation” substitute regime change;

C. for “Israel’s right to defend itself” substitute the right to continue the military occupation of Palestine and bomb Lebanon, Syria, and Iran if necessary.

The deciphered neocon agenda thus reads:

The United States has the duty to establish free markets around the world, and to do so by preemptive military force if necessary. The Middle East is a hotbed of Islamic terrorism and needs to undergo regime change in order for free markets to survive. Israel’s aggressive use of military force was successful at containing Muslim terrorists for almost 40 years and is a shining example of how democracy can be spread throughout the entire region.

Hillary Clinton and the neocon agenda -- how to “negotiate” like a neocon

That the neocon agenda places Israel’s security in such a prominent position, and that Hillary Clinton is on board with that agenda, have been evident for many years. The neocon perspective sees Israel as a valiant little nation defending itself against a Muslim monolith. It’s the David versus Goliath myth, with a twist: neocons also see the US as vulnerable to that same Goliath. National Review's Larry Kudlow summed it up nicely: “Israel is doing the Lord’s work. They are defending their own homeland and very existence, but they are also defending America’s homeland as our frontline democratic ally in the Middle East.”

To the neocon mind, the fate of the US is tied to the survival of Israel.

Although the right-wing talking heads have been slow to see Hillary’s inner neocon, there are signs that some of the neocon elite are becoming very comfortable with her foreign policy positions. They see her foreign policy goals as being very consistent with their own, and Clinton’s vigilant defense of Israel’s security bears this out.

The last time Clinton had anything hopeful to say to the Palestinian people was in May 1998, when she told a group of Arab and Israeli youth that the eventual emergence of a Palestinian state was “very important for the broader goal of peace in the Middle East.” When Clinton was severely criticized by Jewish groups for her early support for a Palestinian state, she began to shift her support away from Palestinians and towards Israel, even commenting on what would later be a critical final status issue for peace negotiations, the division of Jerusalem, about which she stated in 1999: “I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel.”

Since being elected as the Senator from New York in 2000, Clinton’s support for Israel has become entrenched to the point where now, as Clinton supporter Steve Rabinowitz recently stated, she “has personally proved herself to the Jewish community on Israel, on which she was once questioned.”

Hillary continued to “prove” herself by lashing out at the Palestinian leadership and adopting neocon talking points and strategies in her Middle East positions. After Bill Clinton’s July 2000 Camp David Summit failed to broker an accord to end the military occupation of Palestinian territory, the neocons had a field day blaming Arafat for “missing the opportunity” to negotiate a peace. In reality, the Summit is a neocon model for how to negotiate with your enemies when you really don’t want to negotiate.

The Summit failed, but not for the reasons the neocons thought. It failed partly due to Clinton’s one-sided diplomacy, but mainly due to the tactical sabotage that passed as “negotiations.” Apart from the details of the final status issues, which leaned heavily in favor of the Israelis, the major stumbling block – and one that continues to undermine every negotiation the US or Israel are involved in – was Israel’s tactic of imposing “unacceptable preconditions”: Israel demanded that the Palestinians dismantle the militias as a precondition to Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories. In other words, the Israelis would agree to end the occupation only after the Palestinians ended their resistance to the occupation. Arafat, of course, refused and was blamed for sinking the summit.

The neocon lesson from the Camp David summit was simple: never agree to talk to your enemies without first establishing unacceptable preconditions, and only negotiate peace based on threats and fear. This model is evident in Bush’s foreign policy approach to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, where first Powell and then Rice either ignored offers to talk or set such absurd preconditions that talks were impossible. It’s also evident in the Israeli refusal to talk to Hamas or seriously negotiate with Palestinian leaders without deal-killing preconditions.

One indication that Hillary has learned this lesson well is found in her own recently released campaign statement, in which Richard Holbrooke, former UN ambassador in Bill Clinton's administration, states:

“As she has said many times, Senator Clinton believes we need to engage in vigorous diplomacy after the cowboy approach of the Bush years. She has said she would initiate serious, responsible dialogue with nations with whom we don’t agree in order to further the national security interest of the United States. But she is right not to risk the prestige of the presidency by unconditionally committing to meet with leaders of adversarial nations.” [My emphasis.]

Clinton and neocon/AIPAC talking points

Since her earlier tactical error in supporting a Palestinian state, Clinton has been working hard to cultivate Jewish support, and it’s really paying off. The Jewish Daily Forward recently reported that she is going to get the lion’s share of donations from the Jewish community for her 2008 presidential campaign. Unfortunately, that support comes at a price – total commitment to Israeli government positions regarding Israel’s security – and Clinton seems eager to pay it. She is a regular at AIPAC functions and her speeches invariably weave together the mutuality of US and Israeli security. Her speech at the 2005 AIPAC conference shows how in synch she is with the neocon belief about a democratic Israel and the mutuality of US and Israeli security:

Now, Israel is not only, however, a friend and ally for us, it is a beacon of what democracy can and should mean…. So if people in the Middle East are not sure what democracy means, let them look to Israel, which has been and remains a true, faithful democracy.”

But we know that the goal, the important, essential goal of a democratizing Middle East is complex, and it is not without risks….So there is no doubt that America has started down a path [the Iraq war, author], with blood and treasure, to try to create the condition for democracy and freedom in the Middle East -- which has consequences for the entire region, for our security, and certainly for Israel's.

Clinton and the separation wall

One of the least reported consequences of the Israeli military occupation is the separation wall that Israel began building in 2002, ostensibly for security reasons. The major grievance Palestinians have with the wall is that much of it is built on Palestinian land, violating the 1967 borders that were supposed to become the boundary of the eventual Palestinian state. On a three-day visit to Israel in the fall of 2005, the Clintons toured the separation wall.

The wall is mainly concrete, but some sections include electrified fencing, two-meter-deep trenches, electronic ground/fence sensors, thermal imaging and video cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), sniper towers, and razor wire. As of May 2004, construction of the wall had already uprooted an estimated 102,320 Palestinian olive and citrus trees, demolished 75 acres of greenhouses and 23 miles of irrigation pipes, and confiscated 3,705 acres of land from Palestinians.

In 2004, just a year before Clinton’s visit to the wall, the International Court of Justice ruled that the wall was a violation of international law. At that time, Clinton, along with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), stood in front of UN headquarters with the Israeli ambassador and denounced the International Court of Justice ruling. “It makes no sense for the United Nations to vehemently oppose a fence which is a non-violent response to terrorism rather than opposing terrorism itself,” Clinton said.

In 2004, the World Council of Churches demanded that Israel halt and reverse construction on the barrier and strongly condemned it as a violation of human rights. Amnesty International condemned the wall as a violation of international humanitarian law, and Human Rights Watch has protested Israel’s confiscation of land to build the wall. The Red Cross declared the wall to be in violation of the Geneva Convention and, in 2004, the International Committee of the Red Cross stated that the Israeli barrier “causes serious humanitarian and legal problems” and goes “far beyond what is permissible for an occupying power.”

So, it’s safe to say that, by the time Hillary and Bill Clinton visited the wall in November 2005, its devastating impact on the Palestinian people was clear, as was its illegal and immoral standing in the eyes of most of the world. Yet, Clinton’s reaction to the wall, as reported in Haaretz, was no different than her initial reaction a year before. Clinton stated that she “supports the separation fence Israel is building along the edges of the West Bank, and that the onus is on the Palestinian Authority to fight terrorism.” Haaretz also quoted Clinton saying, “This is not against the Palestinian people. This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism.”

Clinton and the bombing of Lebanon

Clinton’s hammering at the security issue to constantly justify Israel’s actions has produced some ridiculous contortions in her speeches. On July 12, 2006, Israel bombed Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and killed over 1000 civilians, including four unarmed UN peacekeepers – supposedly in response to the border crossing and kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. However, according to the business magazine Forbes (July 12, 2006), the French news service AFP (July 12, 2006), the Asia Times (July 15, 2006) and the Lebanese police, the Israeli soldiers were captured within Lebanon in the area of Ai’tu Al-Chaarb, a Lebanese village a few kilometers from the Israeli border. That would make Israel’s bombing of Lebanon a war crime. The bombing lasted almost two months because the US refused to call for a halt, while most of the world looked on, appalled at Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force.

According to sociologist James Petras, “The Jewish networks and lobbies were able to secure 98% support from Congress for a resolution supporting Israel’s invasion of Lebanon” and the Lobby “pressured and threatened the White House” to prolong the bombing.

On July 13, 2006, a day after the Israeli attack, Hillary Clinton issued a statement condemning Hezbollah and Hamas: “The unprovoked attacks on innocent Israelis and the killing and abduction of Israeli soldiers by the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah are dramatic escalations of violence against Israel. The United States must stand by Israel as she defends herself.”

Five days later, Clinton addressed an AIPACcrowd of several thousand in New York, calling for solidarity and support for Israel. Responding to worldwide criticism of Israel’s disproportionate response to the border skirmish, Clinton said she supported “whatever steps are necessary” to defend Israel against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. Deliberately distorting events and playing to the paranoia and frenzy of the crowd, Clinton screamed, “I want us here in New York to imagine, if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks from extremists?”

Beyond semantic contortions, Clinton’s allegiance to Israel often forces her into blatant hypocritical positions. Just last month, when Israel bombed Syria, did Clinton demand a Senate resolution condemning this blatant act of aggression? Hardly. Instead, the neocons cheered and Clinton endorsed the attack. At the Democratic debates at Dartmouth College she stated: “We don't have as much information as we wish we did. But what we think we know is that with North Korean help, both financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that…. I think it is fair to say what happened in Syria, so far as we know, I support.”

Clinton and Iraq

Perhaps no other issue has given Clinton more of a headache on the campaign trail than her 2002 vote to give George Bush the power to attack Iraq. Her entire defense of that vote rests on the claim that she was misled by Bush into believing that Iraq had WMD and was an imminent threat – the “Hillary fooled” argument.

But Andrew Cockburn has convincingly demonstrated that, not only did Hillary Clinton know Saddam had no WMD, but her husband’s political maneuvering during his presidency had suppressed that fact and gave birth to the WMD myth that Bush and the neocons later used to sell the pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

Cockburn explains that, back in 1997, the Clinton administration deliberately sabotaged UN weapons inspections in Iraq. The inspectors had been investigating Saddam’s weapons for six years and were about to declare Iraq in compliance with Security Council Resolution 687 (which required Iraq to destroy all WMD) and recommend lifting sanctions. Feeling the neocon pressure, Clinton had Secretary of State Madeleine Albright deliver a major policy speech at Georgetown University on March 26, 1997, in which she stated: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted." Sanctions would remain unless or until Saddam was driven from power.

Bill Clinton’s switch of focus from compliance to regime change neatly removed any incentive for Saddam to work with the UN inspectors, and in 1998, all the inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. Clinton then launched nearly 400 cruise missile strikes and flew 650 air attacks against Iraq. His strategy proved successful, from a neocon perspective: Iraq remained under sanctions; Saddam grew progressively weaker; and the neocon dream of a US empire dominating the Middle East came closer to realization.

Now, fast forward to 2002 and Hillary Clinton’s vote to give Bush authority to bomb Iraq. In “Hillary's War,” Jeff Gerth and Don Van Vatta Jr. offer some interesting insights into Clinton’s distortion of the facts about Saddam that helped to sell the war.

On October 10, 2002 – the day before the war powers vote – Hillary Clinton argued before the Senate that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. Many politicians delivered pro-war speeches on that day, but Clinton went far beyond other pro-war Democrats, warning that, “Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program,” and arguing that Saddam gave “aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.”

Both of these statements were false, contradicted not only by the National Intelligence Estimate report, which was available to every senator (whether they read it or not) but also by the intelligence from Bill Clinton’s administration that Saddam no longer had WMD. Hillary certainly was privy to that intelligence, yet she still voted for war.

And she continues to support the war, notwithstanding her lame attempts to convince us otherwise. While her war position has wiggled over the years, it has never firmly supported a full troop withdrawal. In a revealing moment, Clinton recently joined three other Democratic candidates in refusing to state that they would guarantee to pull all US combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

The neocon influences that got us into this war are keeping us there, working side-by-side with pressure from the Israeli government. Reporting on an AIPAC meeting held in March 2007, Ray McGovern states:

Those taking part in last month's meeting of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington heard stern warnings from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni that America not show "weakness" on Iraq -- warnings that a U.S. troop withdrawal would make the neighborhood far more dangerous for Israel.

Once again, Israel’s security – the focal point of the neocon agenda – steers American foreign policy. In this light, it can be argued that Clinton’s claim that she was mislead by Bush about Iraq, though ingenuous, is more politically acceptable than the alternative – that she is and has been promoting the neocon agenda.

Clinton and Iran

While “Hillary fooled” can now be laid to rest, we still have to deal with “Hillary fooled again.” Will someone be asking Clinton why, if she has learned her lesson from the Iraq war vote, she recently voted to make it easier for Bush to bomb Iran?

This September, the US Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate amendment that designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a “foreign terrorist organization.” This is the first time a military arm of a sovereign nation has been so designated, and the repercussions could be grave.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Virginia), who opposed the amendment, cautioned that the amendment could be used to declare war on Iran, since the Revolutionary Guard is part of the Iranian government – if the Guard attacks us, it would mean that Iran is attacking us. Webb argued that the amendment would, for all practical purposes, mandate the military option against Iran: “It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them….At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.” Thus, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is the Iranian twin of the Iraq War Resolution. The amendment passed 76-22, which is almost identical to the 77-23 Iraq war vote. Hillary Clinton (and 29 other slow-learning Democrats) voted for it.

Hillary has always been antagonistic towards Iran, calling it one of Israel's greatest threats, demanding that sanctions be imposed, and threatening that no option can be taken off the table when dealing with Iran. She has consistently parroted the distorted reporting that the Iranian president has denied the holocaust and calls for Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. When Ahmadinejad recently spoke at Columbia University, Clinton supported the AIPAC-organized Stop Iran Now Rally, repeating again the accusations against Ahmadinejad – who actually has little power in the Iranian political system – as a basis for a bellicose and aggressive policy towards Iran.

Ironically, Hillary’s views on Iran contradict those expressed by her husband just two years ago. At a 2005 meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill Clinton stated: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”

But the neocon and Israeli pressure to bomb Iran – and their influence on Clinton and other Democrats – cannot be underestimated. In a recent interview with Seymour Hersh, Jon Wiener asked, “Who wants to bomb Iran?” Hersh replied:

Ironically there is a lot of pressure coming from Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran. Clearly the pressure from Democrats is a reflection of - we might as well say it - Israeli and Jewish input….a lot of money comes to the Democratic campaigns’ from Jewish contributors.

The question that begs to be asked is, If elected, will Clinton continue the neocon agenda under the cover of a legitimately-elected Democratic president? If so, Clinton’s foreign policy will be as much a failure as is Bush’s. Her neocon bias will preclude any “honest broker” approach to Middle East problems, and her presumption to negotiate only with unacceptable preconditions will mean many more decades of stalemate and bloodshed.

There are some who dismiss Clinton’s neocon policies as simply “pandering” to AIPAC for votes and contributions. They believe that, once elected, Clinton will shed her bias and negotiate from a more balanced position. This is hopeful, but naïve thinking. Hillary Clinton has spent the last seven years building up a constituency that now determines her foreign policy approach. If elected, she’ll need to “stay the neocon course” through her first term in order to get the votes and contributions for a second term. In her second term she’ll have to reward her supporters. Liberal pundits often refer to Hillary as “Bush-lite,” but they’re wrong. Honestly, there’s nothing “lite” about her.

Donna Saggia is a freelance writer living in St. Paul, Minnesota. She can be reached at: donnasaggia@msn.com

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Creationism Victimization: If It Quacks Like A Duck ...

Here we go again.

Yet another fundamentalist Christian news columnist (Joseph Quesnel) penned yet another piece in yet another MSM outlet, pushing for the validity of Creationism and invalidity of Evolution.

It has all the classic elements one has come to expect from such feuilles de chou: "evolution is being disproved", "creationists are being persecuted", and "mainstream scientists are amoral and godless, secular humanists" - complete with outright, blatant lies. Of course.


The premise for this "piece" is outlined right in its first three paragraphs (emphasis mine):
The opening of a new creation museum in Winnipeg should cause people to stop and think and, hopefully, question their long held assumptions about the origins of life.

Although the museum is small and opened without much fanfare, it represents a very small part of a much wider debate that should be occurring in society, but is clearly not.

Nestled in the basement of Oxford Bible Church -- a local evangelical Christian congregation - the museum showcases exhibits outlining the scientific case for what many call young earth creationism, drawing from modern geology and paleontology.
As any "true believer", Mr. Quesnel works from a dogmatic (i.e. unproven, untrue or outright false), self-serving assertion: that creationism vs evolutionism is currently a subject of a "wide debate". That is patently false - except in the minds of creationists like himself. As in the case of global warming, the science "has been in" a long time with regards to evolution. No debate here, except for ignorant deniers like the author of this column. However, such a false assertion on his part is necessary in order to push his argument that such a debate "should be occurring in society, but is clearly not". The obvious reason why such a debate is not occurring is because - once again - there is no debate to have here. Finally, the author uses the same old subterfuge of seeking to validate creationism as a science by pointing out that this new creation museum draws "from modern geology and paleontology".

Right. We've already seen such shameless exercises in utter ignorance, lack of understanding and/or outright adulterating of scientific facts in order to make "things fit" neatly in support of their beliefs. We know how such museums exhibits constitute pitiful spectacles of intellectual sloth, ignorance and religious fundamentalism-driven fantasy. We know that these are nothing more than black holes of human knowledge.

And with regards to "drawing from modern geology and paleontology" - perhaps creationists should stop claiming that modern geology and paleontology are wrong with their dating methods, chemical analyses and other approaches that these scientific disciplines use. Then again, when people are engaged in a continuous, never-ending exercise of disassembling and cherry-picking of facts, one should expect them to be consistent with their inconsistencies in reasoning.

As I illustrated before: you can't dismiss portions of a scientific discipline without dismissing it altogether, including all other related disciplines and/or fields.

This, of course, goes with evolution as well.

But before getting to my actual, bottom-line point, let us read a little more of Mr. Quesnel's drivel (emphasis mine):
Of course, the reality that Christians accept the biblical account of the origins of the universe and humanity is not really news. Many Christians refuse to accept the secular compromise offered by "theistic evolution" that many mainline denominations have succumbed to. It is also the case that Christian believers are refusing to hide the growing evidence undermining Darwinian evolution. The creation museum at Oxford Bible Church outlines ample reasons to think twice about what many are taught about evolution. Whenever I open the news, I am hearing about new findings challenging evolution.
Like a true fundamentalist, Mr. Quesnel condemns those denominations who are not as fundamentalist and parochial as he is. No surprises there.

In addition, he makes sure to take a swipe at theistic evolution, or evolutionary creationism, another (equally) shoddy belief which seeks to compromise between the actual science of evolution and religious beliefs that God created it all. Again, a true fundamentalist like Mr. Quesnel would not find such a "compromise" acceptable, since he unsurprisingly adheres to the absolute literacy of Bible - and thus, all has happened as described in Genesis.

Yes, yes, yes - the scientific theory of evolution is "collapsing" (or so creationists have been clamoring over almost two centuries now, to this day). And, of course, the Earth (and the Universe) is about 6-10 thousand years old (once again: despite what modern geology and paleontology say about that). Welcome to our Semi-Dark Ages indeed.

Furthermore, if that is what other creation exhibits are saying, then it must be true (so writes Mr. Quesnel himself)!

Just like "the blind leading the blind", what Mr. Quesnel is condoning approvingly here is "the ignorant leading the ignorant".

Or perhaps this should be "the disassembler leading the ignorant", or "the liar leading the ignorant"? For indeed, Mr. Quesnel's claim that "whenever I open the news, I am hearing about new findings challenging evolution" can only be characterized as a blatant lie in order to fool the unwary and ignorant. I read and watch the news day in and day out - and never have I read or heard any such "findings" which challenge evolution. Of course, I do mean "scientifically credible" findings here - unless Mr. Quesnel refers to feuilles de chou columns like his? Or even worse: creationist blogs who keep plugging the same type of phony arguments, misunderstandings, misinterpretations and overall ignorance-base distortions of scientific facts and knowledge?

Talk about your typical echo chamber ...

And now, let us read the pièce de résistance from Mr. Quesnel's column (emphasis mine):
Witness the case of Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design in the United States. Meyer wrote a peer-reviewed academic article in a scientific journal affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution about his ideas and almost lost his career. This is a scientist who is not a young earth creationist and yet he faced blacklisting by a prominent scientific organization.

(...) This shows how resistant mainstream science is to anything that questions the dominant ideas of Darwinian evolution.
Once again: this is what you get from someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

Let us take a quick look at what peer- review is all about:
Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review system aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.
Is such a process perfect and infallible? Of course not. But it remains the best means that science and the scientific method have in order to ensure the validity and reality of scientific research results and conclusions. That is also the means by which scientific consensus is achieved.

Which is what global warming and, especially in the present case, evolution are all about.

Here is a refresher of what a scientific theory is, and what this means, from a previous article of mine (emphasis added):
(...)

That is when two other major historical landmarks occurred.

One was the increasing need not just to observe and derive explanations (theories) for said observations, but for experimental demonstrations of said explanations. In other words, this gave the birth to the scientific theory, which must not only be based on observations but, if it is "right", it will predict experimental results and/or additional observations. If experimental results/observations differ from what the theory predicts, then the theory is either flawed (and needs to be reworked) or is plainly wrong (and another will take its place - only to be likewise relentlessly "tested" in turn).

The other was the subtle but quite significant change in the way questions in scientific investigations were asked: instead of asking "How", which assumes potentially false knowledge to be "true" (or as dogma - see above), investigators began asking "Why", which turns out not to assume anything to begin with. Furthermore, asking "Why" gave birth to the scientific hypothesis, which must be verified by observation and experimental results. Once a hypothesis is thus verified, it becomes an established observation or fact of reality.

Hence, a solid scientific theory will be comprised of one or numerous verified hypotheses, all backed by repeated experimental and verifiable demonstrations, in addition to offer an overall explanation of all these results underlying a phenomenon, as well as predicting the outcome of other experiments. Eventually, a scientific theory which has been proven time and time and time again to be right becomes accepted as a Law of Nature.

Therein you have the essence and purpose of the scientific method.
To this effect, evolution was a scientific theory proposed by Darwin and which has been supported and proven and demonstrated over and over and over again - especially thanks to the modern fields of cellular biology, molecular biology and genetics.

And consequently, evolution is inching closer and closer to becoming a genuine Law of Nature - like the Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Electricity-Magnetism, the Law of Gravity, the Law of General and Restrained Relativity, the Laws of Genetic Inheritance, etc., etc., etc..

After all, science - and the scientific method - constitute a process of fact-based and experimental demonstration-supported inquiry which allows Humanity to gain further understanding of the inner workings of the Universe, of Life and, ultimately, of ourselves - from all their complexities to the minutest of details.

In other words, science has the unmitigated gall to take it upon itself to demonstrate and prove its explanations - and therein lies the "threat" posed by science and for which it keeps coming increasingly under attack by fundamentalists: scientists not only seek to understand and explain reality, but furthermore strive to ensure the validity of their explanations (which means question everything that is not supported by facts or which has not been demonstrated or proven as a fact).

Consequently, being refused a publication by a peer-reviewed scientific "mainstream" journal is absolutely not the equivalent of being "blacklisted" - and I should well know, considering that I am a scientist and that I've had my share of submitted papers being rejected at first, only to be accepted later on after performing additional experiments and therefore adding more convincing experimental data, in order to better/fully support my conclusions. Hence, a "creationism paper" being flatly rejected for publication by a credible scientific journal is no surprise here, considering that creationism and/or Intelligent Design have nothing to do with science or scientific facts, but all about unproven, non-demonstrated logical, philosophical and/or theological argumentation. This is also why any proponent of creationism or ID will have little or no credibility as a bona fides scientist.

Which, incidentally, brings me to my bottom-line point. Let us examine what quackery/bogus science is all about and how it works:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.

Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
These fit Creationism, ID and their supporters to a tee.

Add to this the "victimization" angle pushed by Mr. Quesnel in his columns as shown here, in addition to other "sad" examples of persecution he mentioned, and one gets the full picture of what this is all about: quackery.

In essence, creationists/IDists and their religious fundamentalist supporters are no different than those vitamin pushers, miracle diets sellers, snake oil salesmen, quack devices promoters, and other assorted quacks. They use the same duplicitous selling tactics, banking on the ignorance of people in order to convince them.

Or, to put it another way (emphasis mine):
They play on fear. They cater to hope (..) Its promoters wear the cloak of science. They use scientific terms and quote - or misquote - scientific references. Talk show hosts may refer to them as experts or as "scientists ahead of their time".

(...) First, they appeal to people's curiosity in order to persuade them to "try and see". Then they appeal to their vanity in order to convince them to disregard scientific evidence in favor of personal experience — to "think for themselves".

(...) Another potent technique is cultural association, in which promoters ally themselves with religious or other cultural beliefs by associating their product or service with an article of faith or prejudice of their target audience.

(...) Quacks are involved in a constant struggle with legitimate health care providers, mainstream scientists, government regulatory agencies and consumer protection groups. Despite the strength of this science-based opposition, quackery manages to flourish. To maintain their credibility, quacks use a variety of clever propaganda ploys. Here are some favorites:

"They persecuted Galileo!" The history of science is laced with instances where great pioneers and their discoveries were met with resistance. Harvey (nature of blood circulation), Lister (antiseptic technique) and Pasteur (germ theory) are notable examples. Today's quack boldly asserts that he is another example of someone ahead of his time. Close examination, however, will show how unlikely this is. First of all, the early pioneers who were persecuted lived during times that were much less scientific. In some cases, opposition to their ideas stemmed from religious forces. Secondly, it is a basic principle of the scientific method that the burden of proof belongs to the proponent of a claim. The ideas of Galileo, Harvey, Lister and Pasteur overcame their opposition because their soundness can be demonstrated.

A related ploy, which is a favorite with cancer quacks, is the charge of "conspiracy" (...) Claims of "suppression" are used to market publications as well as treatments. Many authors and publishers purport to offer information that your doctor, the AMA, (mainstream scientists) and/or government agencies "don't want you to know about".

Organized quackery poses its opposition to medical science as a "philosophical conflict" or "paradigm shift", rather than a clash between proven versus unproven or fraudulent methods. This creates the illusion of a "holy war" rather than a conflict that could be resolved by examining the facts. Another diversionary tactic is to charge that quackery's critics are biased (...).

Quacks like to charge that, "Science doesn't have all the answers". That's true, but it doesn't claim to have them. Rather, it is a rational and responsible process that can answer many questions—including whether procedures are safe and effective for their intended purpose. It is quackery that constantly claims to have answers for incurable diseases. The idea that people should turn to quack remedies when frustrated by science's inability to control a disease is irrational. Science may not have all the answers, but quackery has no answers at all!

Many treatments advanced by the scientific community are later shown to be unsafe or worthless. Doctors also make mistakes. Such failures become grist for organized quackery's public relations mill in its ongoing attack on science. Actually, "failures" reflect a key element of science: its willingness to test its methods and beliefs and abandon those shown to be invalid. True scientists have no philosophical commitment to particular approaches, only a commitment to develop and use methods that are safe and effective for an intended purpose. When a quack remedy flunks a scientific test, its proponents merely reject the test.

Each of these ploys represents a basic technique called misdirection - analogous to what magicians do to shift the audience's attention away from what is important in order to deceive them. When faced with a criticism they cannot meet head on, quacks simply change the topic.
Dixit Mr. Quesnel in his closing remarks:
This shows how resistant mainstream science is to anything that questions the dominant ideas of Darwinian evolution.

Let's hope Winnipegers are not as resistant about their own creation museum.
If it walks like a duck ...

Yet another universal truth laid bare - applicable anywhere.


Addendum: for your reading pleasure - two other takes on Mr. Quesnel's feuille de chou here and here. Enjoy.


(Cross-posted at DKos)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Confirmation: Regent Cheney Planned Regency

OURUS: Office of the Unitary Regency of the United States of America.

Back in July of this year, I wrote three articles (here, here and here) describing the OURUS and how Dick B. Cheney came to be the de facto Unitary Regent of the U.S., along with George W. Bush as his Puppet President.

With regards to the subject at hand, here are relevant excerpts to refresh your memories (emphasis added):


This is not a "Co-Presidency", nor is it a (misnamed) "Fourth Branch" of the U.S. government.

Rather, this is a Unitary Regency - Dick B. Cheney's Regency actually - which has been the de facto Executive Power behind the Puppet Presidency of George W. Bush since January 2001.

(...) the idea of a "Co-Presidency" runs counter to the very concept of a Unitary Executive - and as a matter of fact, Cheney's long-held core beliefs on this subject are so extreme that they can be summed up in two words: "Executive Supremacy".

This is why I submit (again) to you, good folks, that Dick Cheney sought nothing less than such Executive Supremacy. Some (myself included, until recently) may call this an Imperial Presidency, I now prefer to call it a Regency - because this was the true objective that Cheney had for himself all along: to be the true Head of State of the U.S.A., ruling quietly behind a Puppet President which acted as concealment and facade.

To this effect, the inept Bush must have been a dream come true for would-be-Regent Cheney, back in 2000, when the former approached the latter for guidance and counseling in the vetting of potential running mates. After all, Bush's propensity for minimal workload and eager willingness to delegate constituted a golden opportunity for Cheney's complete involvement in the formulation and execution of policy. Ergo: Bush was the perfect Puppet for the Master Puppeteer. Consequently, Cheney seized the occasion and chose himself as Bush's running mate.

To paraphrase Alexander Hamilton and, to some extent, Harvey C. Mansfield: decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch are the characteristics of a vigorous Unitary Executive. It goes without saying that Regent Cheney followed this axiom to the letter. Allow me to provide a few examples to support this:

Decision: Regent Cheney made the decision that terrorist suspects held by the U.S. were to be stripped of access to any court and be confined indefinitely without charges, in order to be tried, if at all, in closed military tribunals. The Regent made his Puppet sign the Executive Order and thus the deed was done. This is only one example. Among. So. Many.

Activity: Regent Cheney shaped and enacted (through his Puppet President) foreign policy (Iraq, Iran), anti-terrorism policy, homeland security (the Patriot Act, the Military Commission's Act, the Catastrophic Emergency Presidential Executive Order, as obvious examples), domestic initiatives, energy policy, environment policy and economic policy. He also shaped SCOTUS by vetting nominees. And. So. Much. More.

Secrecy: Regent Cheney gathered his Cabal of the Regent's Men (nearly all of which he picked himself), he had his spies and his modus operandi was to "never leave tracks" (so that his unlawful Regency ever remain effective, hidden and secure). Just the fact that it is only now that we are learning of the reality of this Office of the Regency of the U.S.A. is proof enough that secrecy, spying and deniability were an integral part of Regent Cheney's "characteristics" as a "vigorous" Supreme Executive.

Dispatch: Whether through monies marked for "vague items" (e.g. "black ops") or through other more dubious monetary sources, Regent Cheney has been approving secret intelligence operations against Iran - most likely by contracting private intelligence ops firms. I think we can legitimately ask the question: what else?
Then, in early August, Regent Cheney made a telling slip of the tongue, essentially confirming the reality of his Regency.

Well, here is a new case in point: Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage reveals that Cheney has been on a thirty-year quest to implement his views of unfettered executive power.

As Mr. Savage puts it:
Cheney was looking for a moment to “seize” power in the weeks before 9/11:

"We are going to expand presidential power in any way we can. This was discussed in January 2001 at the first meeting of the White House legal team after the inauguration, long before 9/11. If an opportunity arises to expand presidential prerogatives, you will seize it."
Hence, Q.E.D.

Or, to put it another way (emphasis added):
Through it all, it is therefore no wonder that poor, little Puppet George W. felt compelled to shout for all who would listen that he is the "War President", the "Decider", or the "Commander Guy", even going as far as to prance in flight suits and such (in this respect, I suppose little Puppet Georgie must be quite disappointed at not being the Commander-in-Chief anymore, being replaced to this effect by a soon-to-be-installed War Czar).

Henceforth rejoice, my dear American friends! For since January 2001, you have been living under the Regency of the United States of America, with Richard B. Cheney as your benevolent Regent, and George W. Bush playing the Puppet President.
Are we having fun, yet?

(Cross-posted at DKos)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

The Big Lie: ‘Iran Is a Threat’

Punditman notes: Ritter is someone who knows of what he speaks...

by Scott Ritter

Iran has never manifested itself as a serious threat to the national security of the United States, or by extension as a security threat to global security. At the height of Iran’s “exportation of the Islamic Revolution” phase, in the mid-1980’s, the Islamic Republic demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited to war-torn Lebanon.

Iranian military capability reached its modern peak in the late 1970’s, during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. The combined effects of institutional distrust on the part of the theocrats who currently govern the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the conventional military institutions, leading as it did to the decay of the military through inadequate funding and the creation of a competing paramilitary organization, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC), and the disastrous impact of an eight-year conflict with Iraq, meant that Iran has never been able to build up conventional military power capable of significant regional power projection, let alone global power projection.


Keep Reading...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 8, 2007

Yet Another "Phony" Soldier Speaks Out

In light of Rush Limbaugh's declaration that soldiers who support American withdrawal from Iraq are "phony soldiers" and his comparison of them with terrorist suicide bombers, and considering that right-wing senators, representatives and assorted right-wing madhaters are not only hypocritically absent in condemning him, but have even stooped as low as to defend him and support him, while seeking to officially commend him, I thought this insightful article (h/t C&L) penned by John Bruhns, an Iraq vet, might put the whole ludicrous episode in perspective - especially with regards to the sheer insanity of the Iraq War.

The most illustrative and telling passage on the utter incompetence and mendacity of the Bush administration is the following (emphasis mine):


It was a rough ride to Baghdad. Right from the start 150,000 troops were cluttered and stacked upon each other with our vehicles breaking down due to the harsh terrain of the southern Iraqi desert. We were in the middle of nowhere and out in the open. If there were ever a time for Saddam to use his weapons of mass destruction it would have been the perfect opportunity for him. We were in the perfect location for him to attack us - out in the open desert with no other population. He could have launched the alleged stockpile of WMD directly upon the US military and killed no one but our troops. If Bush really was convinced that Saddam had such a massive WMD arsenal why would he place us in the most vulnerable position for him to use them on us? Probably because Bush knew they did not exist otherwise he never would have allowed such a stupid battle plan to take place.
And this other passage, which fully illustrates the maddening insanity of this war of (incompetent) choice (emphasis added):
I participated in the training of the Iraqi Security Forces. Their training cycle was one week long and it was extremely insufficient. There was no trust factor between us and them. During their weapons qualification I can recall being told by my range NCO to stand directly behind the Iraqi soldier just in case he tried to turn the weapon on us. My instructions were to "jump him and kill him." When the training cycle was over we incorporated them into our units to accompany us on missions in order to train them. Prior to the missions we never told them where we were going because we were positive that the insurgency had infiltrated the Iraqi Security Forces. If they knew where the mission would take place they could tip off the larger insurgency element and set us up for an ambush. Almost all of them covered their faces out of fear or shame of being seen with American troops in their communities. As a rifle team leader leading a team of Iraqis wearing hoods and carrying AK-47 assault rifles down a narrow alley in Baghdad it is needless to say that my anxiety level was through the roof.

Before I left Iraq I made a promise to myself that I would do everything in my power to stop this war if I was lucky enough to make it home.
This echoes perfectly what seven other "phony" soldiers wrote (Buddhika Jayamaha, Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, Edward Sandmeier, Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy), back in August of this year (emphasis mine):
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

(...)

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear (...).
Incidentally, of these seven "phonies", one was wounded (Jeremy A. Murphy), whereas two others were killed (Omar Mora and Yance T. Gray).

On this tragic note, allow me to leave the final words to John Bruhns as he concludes in his toughtful and insightful piece which I cannot recommend enough to read:
I will fight for an end to this war with my last breath. We all must.
Got war?

(Cross-posted at DKos)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Coming Full Circle In Afghanistan

Alternate title: Afghanistan - What Was It For, Again?

Recent developments with regards to the Afghanistan quagmire illustrate the sheer inanity of this "mission" while at the same time exposing the so-called Global War on Terror(TM) for the duplicitous scam that it has been from the very beginning.

In essence, the core-reasons for going into Afghanistan are now being disavowed in order to embark on a political salvage operation of appearances - with the price continuing to be exacted with the lives of N.A.T.O. soldiers and Afghan civilians.


Remember the mantra "we do not negotiate with terrorists"?

We heard it again back in August when South Korea made a deal with the Taliban in order to free South Korean Christian aid workers who were held hostage by Taliban militants.

Indeed, not only did U.S. President George W. Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai chanted the mantra, but likewise did Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier - who went as far as to add the corollary "such negotiations only lead to further acts of terrorism".

What a difference a couple of months make: over the last two weeks or so, President Karzai has been calling for negotiations between his government and the Taliban, going as far as to offer Taliban positions in the government. All with the nod of approval from the U.S. and Canada.

In order to fully appreciate the ludicrous enormity of it all, let us first go back to the core-reasons for the Afghanistan War:
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, and despite President Bush's "convictions", a lot did not sit well with his invasion of Afghanistan (emphasis added):
(...) 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).
Hence, the Taliban regime was not a terrorist organization and had made a significant number of overtures to deliver Osama bin Laden - however, all such overtures were rejected.

Why? Because of the expedient desire to go to war - which happened on 10/07/2001, when 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.

We all know how this has been turning out so far:
(...) 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.

(...)

Although having been successfully pushed out of power, the Taliban insurgency rages on in spite of the wishful thinking that it is weakening.

(...)

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.
In other words: due to the incompetence of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz et al. (especially by their demonstrated incapacity to keep focused on the Afghan mission at hand and complete it soundly before moving on), N.A.T.O. had to change its peacekeeping/reconstruction mandate to full combat operations - because the Taliban and al-Qaeda were back in force (after being essentially allowed to flee to Pakistan in order to regroup), and enough to enact a significant insurgence at that. So in effect, N.A.T.O. ends up trying to finish the job the Bush administration should have completed to begin with, but instead botched - i.e. N.A.T.O. is trying to make up for the ludicrous mistakes of the demonstrated incompetence of Bush and Co..

How so? The Powell Doctrine was already established and demonstrated after Desert Storm. But then the resident incompetents in the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al.) tossed it aside when they went into Afghanistan - especially because, as it has been revealed, they already had their sights on Iraq. So, they went in Afghanistan without massive deployments, made those stupid deals with the Afghan Warlords and their militias, contented themselves with routing the Taliban and al-Qaeda away from Khabul (and for the life of me, I never understood why no one figured out that the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban would run into Pakistan and, consequently, take strategic steps to block off the border in order to prevent this - then again, they never had enough boots on the grounds to enact such a basic strategy to begin with - but I digress), and then they asked for U.N./N.A.T.O. help because they had begun occupying themselves with Iraq.

In short: their shoddy pre-war and post-war planning, as well as their desire to rush into war with Iraq, constitute the root-cause as to why Afghanistan is a quagmire - granted, not a big one like Iraq or Vietnam, but one nonetheless.

And through it all, of course, the commanders, generals and leaders keep seeing only progress in Afghanistan.

Yes - there is progress in Afghanistan, or so we keep on hearing again and again and again. It is apparently a big success.

I want to believe this - I really do, if only because it would mean that all those U.S., Canadian and British soldiers who have died there so far, as well as all those innocent Afghan civilians, did not die for nothing.

But it is very hard for me to believe there is significant progress in Afghanistan when violence there keeps increasing significantly, when we have difficulties in winning the hearts and minds of Afghanis, when the Karzai government is mired in corruption, when Warlords keep using brute force to gain power, when not much has changed for most Afghani women with regards to equality and all that jazz, when opium/heroin Khans easily buy free passes from arrest and prosecution, when Afghan forces are unable to hold villages that have been secured against the Taliban, and so on and so forth.

It is indeed very hard for me to "believe" there is progress when Canada's Harper government will go as far as to do everything it can to discourage, belay, hamper (or even ridicule) members of the opposition from going to Afghanistan and see for themselves what progress there is. Why such blatant politicking of the Afghan War on the part of the Harper government if there is indeed significant progress there? What is there to fear from independent verification of facts, other than the potential full exposure of the harsh, not-so-rosy reality, perhaps?

A year ago, senior British military officers estimated that it would require 15 to 20 years to fully achieve success in Afghanistan. Now they are speaking of a 30-year "marathon mission" against the Taliban. Meanwhile Canada is still struggling with the question of leaving in 2009 once its "tour of duty" is done or continue on, at the same time seeking more involvement from actual U.N. peacekeeping troops.

I doubt there will be much "success" there, however poignantly convincing the arguments may be, especially when considering that Afghanistan is indeed a quagmire. One further case in point: Japan will be pulling out of the mission soon.

(Who knows? Perhaps if "blue helmets" were seen instead of U.S., Canadian or British flags, the "mission" might become more palatable to the Afghanis in general? But I digress ...)

Through it all, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been conflated together as terrorists, especially since Taliban militants are using the same road-side bombing and suicide bombing tactics as their allies of necessity.

Consequently, six years after the beginning of the Afghan War, we have come full circle with those calls for negotiating with the "terrorist" Taliban.

Something that was rejected by the Bush administration initially. Something that has been decried over and over again: we do not negotiate with terrorists.

And yet, here we are today.

As someone else puts it:
I applaud Karzai for his attempts to end Afghanistan's nightmare through negotiation. Ultimately, a political solution is the only way out.

But at the same time, I wonder how the parents and husbands and wives and girlfriends and boyfriends of (...) soldiers killed in Afghanistan will feel if he succeeds – if (Taliban leader) Mullah Omar becomes Karzai's prime minister; if, as part of a coalition deal, more severe forms of sharia law are imposed on women; if the very few gains Afghanistan has made in the field of human rights are reversed.

Won't they wonder if the whole thing was a waste of time? Won't they suspect their lovers and sons and daughters died for nothing?
And this is not considering the fact that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are still at large (no thanks in good part to Pakistan).

In essence, the core-reasons for going into Afghanistan are now being disavowed in order to embark on a political salvage operation of appearances - with the price continuing to be exacted with the lives of N.A.T.O. soldiers and Afghan civilians in the meantime.

There is indeed only one conclusion that can be drawn here: people and soldiers have been dying over the last six year for nothing more than what in the end has amounted to a needless political exercize on the part of incompetent "deciders".

Thus, to the question "Afghanistan - what was it for, again?", the blunt answer is "A big fat nothing, all across the board".

Global War on Terror(TM) my ass ...


(Cross-posted at DKos, at A Creative Revolution, at NION, at Progressive Historians, at Revolt Today and at Diatribune)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 5, 2007

Late Friday Night Ode To ... Hope


The title of tonight's Ode says it all ...

May we rise up from our current Semi-Dark Ages and fear the light of knowledge no more - that is my humble hope.

Hence I give you Iron Maiden - Remember Tomorrow:

(Lyrics below the video)



Unchain the colours before my eyes,
Yesterday's sorrows, tomorrow's white lies.
Scan the horizon, the clouds take me higher,
I shall return from out of fire.

Tears for rememberance, and tears for joy,
Tears for somebody and this lonely boy.

Out in the madness, the all seeing eye,
Flickers above us, to light up the sky.

Unchain the colours before my eyes,
Yesterday's sorrows, tomorrow's white lies.
Scan the horizon, the clouds take me higher,
I shall return from out of fire.



As always - keep on rockin'!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

APOV's Friday Weekly Revue (10/05/2007)

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

Let us see what some of the news departments of the progressive blogosphere have been dealing with in the past week:


From the "Wake the Hell up!" department -

Q&A for the people of a forsaken republic; Honesty, accountability and transparency; and A letter to a young patriot.


From the "Hypocrites and the hypocritical hypocrisies that they display" department -

More G.O.P. hypocrisy on military slurs; Shattered glass houses; The Right's double-standards on the use of "nazi" insults; Neoconservative hypocrisy with regards to Christian fundamentalists; and More MSM vapidity and hypocrisy.


From the "Just fact-checking the facts, M'am!" department -

It has always been about the oil, stupid!; Timing matters when promoting democracy; Making America safe for mean-spiritedness; The Academy: still under attack; and Mixing politics and religion is bad for both.


From the "We're a nation of Jack Bauers!" department -

I've got a secret ... government; The secret state of torture; and Just throw the bums out already!


From the "Yes it's snark, but it is still truth spoken!" department -

Open letter to President Bush re: Burma; and Presidential disqualifiers.


And last, but not least ... from the "We gotta deal with our consciences" department -

Blogging guilt trips.


Until next week - keep on rockin'!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Shut It Down October 17, 2007

Shut It Down October 17, 2007

punditman says...This idea needs to go beyond the blogosphere and go international as well.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

U.S. peace activists say Canada setting dangerous precedent keeping them out


punditman notes...

WASHINGTON - Canada is setting a "dangerous" precedent by refusing entry to Americans convicted of misdemeanours during peaceful anti-Iraq protests, say two women who couldn't cross the border this week.

The high-profile activists, who are listed in an FBI database called the National Crime Information Center, say they were detained for more than two hours Wednesday at the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls, Ont., before being turned away.

"First, the FBI should not have put us on that list," Ann Wright, a retired army veteran, told a news conference Thursday outside the Canadian Embassy.

"And secondly, the Canadian government should not be doing the dirty political intimidation work for the Bush administration by using that database."

Full article...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Free Burma - International Bloggers Day

Free Burma!



October 4 is International Bloggers Day for Burma.
For more information, click on the image.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Iran Watch: Week Four (10/04/2007)

Time again to put in review and perspective what has happened this past week with regards to Operation Enduring Propaganda and a looming confrontation with Iran.

You may refresh your memories of what has happened so far with the previous installments of APOV's Iran Watch: Week One, Week Two and Week Three.

Now, let us see what Iran Watch: Week Four has brought us.


Item 1: But first, a mandatory message from Operation Enduring Propaganda.

The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims may use dirty bombs! The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!

(Now that this is out of the way, let us proceed as usual ...)


Item 2: Bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran!

Yes - the song remains the same indeed. More neocons keep beating the war drums louder and louder in favor of a U.S. attack against Iran: i) we have Freedom Watch who, among other things, has pledged to make the case for an Iran War; ii) not to be outdone, attack dog (and ex-U.N. ambassador) John Bolton renewed his call for bombing Iran, insisting that regime change is needed there as in the case of ... Iraq; iii) also not to be outdone, Norman Podhoretz displayed his unshakable faith by claiming that he fervently believes that Bush will attack Iran before leaving office; and iv) neocon journalists are convinced that an attack on Iran is imminent.

As each week goes by, neocons keep on salivating even more at the prospect of seeing their wet dreams becoming reality. For further reading on these matters, I suggest neo-connecting the dots to Iran (part I and II), war alarms drowned by beltway bloodlust, and so what about Iran?


Item 3: Keep making that (bogus) case for an Iran War while preparing for it, baby!

The Bush administration and their neocon supporters persist in making a case for war with Iran. Remember when I said "the success of the Iraq surge goes through Iran", back in August? Well, I can now say "I told you so" because President Bush himself said (again) that leaving Iraq would embolden Iran, while others are claiming that a war with Iran will be about protecting the troops in Iraq. At the same time, the mantra that money and weapons from Iran are getting into Iraq keeps being repeated yet once again. But wait a minute - now British military intelligence officers are also claiming that Iran is supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan with the same bomb-making equipment it provides to insurgents in Iraq (and forget that the U.N. already said "not so" with regards to similar American claims made last week ...)! Any tangible proof? "Trust us, we know" is the reply - as usual. And of course, the media keeps lapping it up big time (something which yours truly has been calling all along "Operation Enduring Propaganda").

In the meantime, the news came out that the Bush administration has indeed prepped up plans for an Iran War, which include a redefinition of the Iraq War as one with Iran, the use of diplomatic double-speaking which in essence means a ruling out of negotiations with Iran, the training of friendly Persian Gulf forces in the case of a "parallel war" (i.e. Iran War), and the selling/waging of the Iran War by making it one of "surgical" airstrikes (because, of course, it is first and foremost a matter of "selling" the war to the American people ...), among other things.

And the U.S. military brass is said to be on board with this.

On a related note: a U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates is apparently not shy about her feelings for Iranians - which is rather indicative of the prevailing mood in the Bush administration, if you ask me.

On another totally unrelated note: Russia has evacuated its entire staff of nuclear engineers and experts who were working at the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran, while the U.S. has strangely backed down from its push for tougher sanctions against Iran just when the E.U. is poised to debate on the need for ... tougher sanctions.

(Ergo: the U.S. apparently doesn't "need" to go the way of tough sanctions against Iran anymore - maybe in order to allow them to claim a failure of "diplomacy", just like they did with Iraq in 2002? Hmmm ...)

All of this further supports the notion that Bush can and will attack Iran. As I wrote before: it is not a matter of if, but of when.

On a related note: in true Operation Enduring Propaganda fashion, the White House is once more saying "nothing to see here", "move along now" in the matter of a soon-to-come Iran War - yeah, right: deny, deny, deny.


And to end on a (relatively) lighter note:

Item 5: We're terrorists? Then so are YOU!

That's right (h/t Booman Tribune) - Iran's parliament approved a nonbinding resolution labeling the CIA and the U.S. Army "terrorist organizations", in apparent response to a Senate resolution seeking to give a similar designation to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

I guess we're all terrorists now.

That Condi-Style diplomacy is surely working fine all around, eh?


And that, as they say, is that for Iran Watch: Week Four.

As always, I sincerely hope that I will have nothing to report for next week's installment.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

A Definite Recipe For The Death Of Democracy

I never thought I would get to read what I have read today in any other place than, perhaps, a high school student-run newspaper - a mind-boggling exercise in utter intellectual sloth-driven immature, reactionary adolescent-thinking drivel published at Information Clearing House (no less!) and titled "Time to Boycott Voting", care of one Joel S. Hirschhorn.

In essence, Mr. Hirschhorn argues the following: "Just imagine if voter turnout was cut to 25 percent or less! Let the whole world see Americans boycotting a broken and corrupt political system and rejecting what has become a delusional democracy. To keep voting in an unjust political system makes us willing political slaves that the rich and powerful elites exploit."

One could not be more wrong in so many ways - and here's why.


Is the current political system corrupt and broken? There are many indications that the answer to that is yes - not just in the U.S., but increasingly likewise in Canada and elsewhere. Hence, I am not disputing this premise on Mr. Hirschhorn's part.

What I am disputing is the blatant omission by Mr. Hirschhorn in actually considering - and taking into account - why the political system has devolved to such a sorry state of affairs.

And the why is indeed central not only to the whole question of "what to do about it?", but furthermore emphasises the glaring wrongheaded-reasoning behind Mr. Hirschhorn's "solution" of boycotting voting.

Let us first begin by examining Mr. Hirschhorn's "call" (emphasis mine):
Just leaving the major parties is not good enough and, besides, most Americans are not party members. We need a bolder strategy. We must humiliate the political elites in both major parties and the corporate interests that support both of them. We can send a shock wave throughout the political establishment by not voting in the 2008 presidential election.

Stop playing THEIR game. Take back control. Take back YOUR nation. Time to boycott voting. This strategy is consistent with the thinking of Gandhi and King: peaceful resistance to political tyranny that can bring the corrupt system to its knees. Ultimately, the most effective protest is through civil disobedience – to visibly and stubbornly refuse to respect what has become a corrupt, untrustworthy system. Before it can be fixed it must be deconstructed and then rebuilt. Taxation with MISrepresentation means we need a Second American Revolution; it must begin – not with violent action – but with massive withdrawal by citizens that have seen the light. We have a good head start with about half of eligible voters already so turned off that they don’t vote. Obviously that has not been sufficient to change the system.
Aside from Mr. Hirschhorn's disingenuous twisting of the meaning of civil disobedience and the actual requirement of active engagement (as in its use in diplomacy) this underlies, thus adulterating the works of Ghandi and MLK at the same time by such twisting on his part, the amazing thing here is that Mr. Hirschhorn actually reveals a large portion of the reason why the political system has become so corrupt and broken, and yet he remains incredibly blind to it.

In other words, what he has done here is akin to diagnosing a disease, and advocating a treatment, without taking into account the actual cause of the disease and how it progresses with its symptoms.

A good part of the reason why lies in three things mentioned in the excerpt above:
A) most citizens are not party members;
B) about half of eligible voters don’t vote;
C) voter apathy has not been sufficient to change the system.
The why then becomes obvious, doesn't it?

If we remove ourselves from actively participating as party members in the nomination of a party's candidates to Congress, Senate and/or the Presidency (using the U.S. as example here), opting instead for a "wait and see", or "let others decide", lazy approach before deciding who to vote for, then of course such nominations will always be the purview of a few, especially what is commonly called the "party apparatchiks" and the party's "power brokers". If you remove yourself from a process, then do not be surprised to find the results of said process increasingly to your dislike and disdain.

From there comes voter apathy - which can be perceived as a nation-wide extension of the lack of interest in "local" party politics and nominations. Regardless of whatever happened in 2000 and 2004 (again - the U.S. being used as example here), the bottom line is that too many people did not go out and vote, thus resulting in the last six years or so of "superb" governance. Once again - if you remove yourself from a process, do not expect it to yield results to your liking.

And when one considers the lack of involvement of citizens in party nominations, added to the crippling state of voter apathy, one should therefore not be surprised that the system not only never changed throughout the years but has actually worsened.

We The People - this is what it has, and always has been, about. In a democracy, it is the electorate who holds all the keys and guard all the doors - provided that the citizens actually live up to their responsibility.

Granted, Mr. Hirschhorn acknowledges citizenship responsibility but, as in the case of his reference to civil disobedience above, his reasoning remains superficial and twisted (emphasis mine):
"Many will think that taking such action violates our responsibility as citizens. But taking that responsibility seriously as engaged citizens in the Jeffersonian sense must reflect that there is still a valid contract between citizens and their government. When we vote we have the right to a political system that respects we the people and gives us an authentic representative democracy. We have a right to a constitutional republic operating under the rule of law. But we have elected representatives that no longer have the public interest as their primary commitment, nor truly honor and respect our Constitution.

They have been corrupted by corporate and other special interests that fund their campaigns to get the laws, loopholes and largesse they want. They have been corrupted by power and the perks of office. They are political cowards and mostly intellectual midgets.
"
Once again - we are the ones who have broken the "contract between citizens and their government" because, in essence, we thought somehow that our vigilance and implication were optional.

We have abrogated our responsibilities by virtue of A) that we do not get involved in party politics and nominations; B) that too many of us do not bother to vote; and C) that voter apathy not only perpetuates, but furthermore exacerbates, the problem. Yet, now, we are carping about our rights (like Mr. Hirschhorn does in the excerpt above) - all the while conveniently ignoring our responsibilities in the matter!

Intellectual sloth and the need for instant gratification are the primary cause of the current state of affairs in the political system - what I call the metastasizing cancer on the body democratic and society. As I wrote recently:
More than ever, we would rather be serviced an opinion, like being served fast-food, instead of making the effort to forge an informed one for ourselves. We prefer to wallow body and mind into reality-tv shows, infotainments, games and leisure, instead of putting the effort in exercising our duties as citizens in our democratically-based societies.

We must have our instant gratification with minimal effort.

This in turn is the root cause for our current tabloid news and politics - a society-wide dumbing down.

That is why the overwhelming majority of politicos are often either timid, "dumb and dumber", or "uber triangulators", all the while seeking to appear as the most toughest and decisive leader-like leader-to-be - no substance, but all appearance ... which is what matters in election years, because that is what we want.

Indeed - the politicos are only responding (or trying to respond) to We The People.

We have become so superficial ourselves that we make our democratic choices based largely on appearances, not on substance.

(...)

In the meantime, we - meaning those of us who actually bother to get off their tv couch and go out to vote - keep electing demagogues that "make us feel good, make us feel secure, make us feel at ease, tell us what we want to hear" while rejecting with disdain and mistrust genuine candidates that are actually knowledgeable and better qualified as leaders.

Yes indeed - we can easily blame the politicians, the media, the corporations, the lobbying groups, or anyone else, all we want ... but the painful and ever so tragic truth remains this: we have only ourselves to blame.
I reiterate: we only have ourselves to blame - because of our lack of involvement due to intellectual sloth, lack of taking responsibility as citizens and overall laziness on our part.

We gave the keys away to the foxes and let them guard the hen house without supervision, because we would not be bothered anymore with our "burdensome" responsibilities as citizens. Hence, we are only reaping what we have sown.

Therefore, Mr. Hirschhorn's bold call to "Take back control. Take back YOUR nation. Time to boycott voting" is akin to keeping all the doors and windows of your house wide open, while you contentedly spend an indefinite time away on vacation. And when you finally come back to find your house sacked, robbed, vandalized and/or burnt to the ground, you rant and condemn your neighbors for not having your "interest as their primary commitment" by having failed to watch over your house while you were gone.

Or, to continue with my "cancer" metaphor - it is like injecting live, metastasizing cancer cells in a patient afflicted with advanced cancer to begin with, "thinking" that this will save the patient. The result will be indeed a "deconstruction" of the patient ... however, you won't be able to "rebuild" him and certainly won't be able to "fix" him - because he will be dead.

In short: what Mr. Hirschhorn proposes is nothing less that the complete surrender of the country and its democratic process to the same "corrupt elite" he decries, thus further facilitating and accelerating a process of establishment of authoritarianism.

And that, folks, is what an example of intellectual sloth-driven, immature and reactionary adolescent-thinking is all about - as glaringly illustrated by Mr. Hirschhorn.

(Should you remain unconvinced of the immaturity of Mr. Hirschhorn's reasoning, then re-read his own words, such as "We must humiliate the political elites in both major parties and the corporate interests that support both of them" and "Stop playing THEIR game" in the above excerpt, as but two examples)

I will spare you the rest of Mr. Hirschhorn's feuille de chou, since all of his justifications place the blame not where it lies primarily, i.e. with the citizens, but with the corrupt and broken system.

A corrupt and broken system that we have allowed to be, by our very own negligence.

And now the solution would be to simply walk away, hoping that increasing our negligence and lack of concern will somehow bring about the necessary changes to fix this ailing system?

Might as well march out in the streets to demand authoritarianism today and now.

Either way, we will yield the exact, same result: democracy will be dead.

In conclusion, what Mr. Hirschhorn advocates is nothing short of the ultimate act of incompetence on our part as citizens of democratic societies.


(Cross-posted at DKos and at A Creative Revolution)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content