Bush: Incompetence Personified

Why am I not surprised by this:

Bush Had No Plan to Catch Bin Laden after 9/11

New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals that the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block the retreat of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the first weeks after 9/11.

That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the theatre to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.

Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept them, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.

On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora Mountains close to the Pakistani border.

The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.

Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.

Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Centre for Strategic Studies at the National Defence University.

Franks apparently already realised that he would need Pakistani help in blocking the al Qaeda exit from Tora Bora. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks "wants the [Pakistanis] to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what's going in and out", according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War".

Bush responded that they would need to "press Musharraf to do that".

(Read more here)

Indeed.

No wonder the rest of the world overwhelmingly regards Bush's Global War on Terror(TM) as a dismal failure.

In this respect, everything Bush and his administration has touched upon, or had to deal with, has been an utter and complete failure - or has been near-permanently stained and broken.

From 9/11 warnings to Afghanistan to Iraq to Katrina to cronyism to politicizing the apparels of government to the U.S. Constitution to human rights to Kyoto to climate change to the economy - the litany of incompetence is as staggering as it is frightening.

Meanwhile, the McSame-Obama race remains statistically close ...

Go figure.


(Cross-posted at The Wild Wild Left)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

All Neocons Use The Same Talking Points, Mr. Rae

This is not surprising:

Rae accuses Harper of plagiarizing speech on Iraq

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae on Tuesday accused Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of plagiarizing a speech from Australian Prime Minister John Howard in a 2003 address in the House of Commons calling for Canadian troops to be deployed to Iraq.

At a campaign appearance in Toronto, Rae played video showing then prime minister Howard speaking to the Australian Parliament on March 18, 2003, alongside video of an address by Harper — at the time the leader of the Canadian Alliance — two days later in Ottawa.

The two speeches have lengthy duplicate passages.

Rae called the apparent duplication "shocking," saying it reveals the ideological approach of the Harper government in shaping Canada's foreign policy.

"How does a political leader in Canada's Parliament, on such a crucial issue, in fact an issue that in many ways defined our foreign policy for a generation, end up giving the exact same speech as another country's leader?" Rae said. "Let alone one who was the key leader of George W. Bush's 'coalition of the willing.' "

Howard was a stalwart ally of the Bush administration in the Iraq war and deployed Australian forces to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of the country in March 2003, which other world leaders, including then Canadian prime minister Jean Chrétien, opposed.

The actual point here is that Howard himself "borrowed" heavily on Bush-Cheney talking points to sell the Iraq war in Oz Land.

Harper only did the same to try to sell the Iraq war over here.

As he did to minimize global warming, dissmiss/demean/kill Kyoto and stall every further global warming international talks so far.

As he did to push further oil production from the Alberta tar sands.

As he did to make Canada the torch-bearer for the Afghanistan war.

As he did (and still does) to make us "strong" militarily.

As he does to deny our worsening economy.

As he does to push "trickle-down" economics down our throats.

Because Harper, and Howard, are conservative/republican/neocons adjuncts who not only follow lock-in-step the American G.O.P./neocon philosophy, but accordingly take their talking point lead from the standard bearers of the American G.O.P.

Case in point - Harper's own words back in June 1997, at a Montréal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing U.S. think tank:

Your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.

Hence, that is why nearly all conservative/republican/neocon adherents throughout the Western World use the same playbook for their campaigns, which inevitably are about character, fearmongering, toughness on crime, toughness on security, pro-military, pro-corporate, pro-oil production, anti-gun control and pro-Christian "social conservative" moral values.

What I call the same old song and dance.

And that is why I've wondered before whether Harper served the U.S., instead of us.

And that is why McCain sounds like Bush-Cheney.

And that is why Harper now sounds not only like Bush-Cheney, as before, but also as McCain.

Any questions?


(Cross-posted at NetRoots)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Reloaded: Media Reform Needed In Canada As An Issue?

As a follow up from back there, I offer the following article for your consideration:

Why Media Is a Big Election Issue
Canada is about to remake the way you get your information
By Steve Anderson

With online media taking an increasingly important role in the media ecology, Canada is on the brink of a major restructuring of its media and communications system. The government and MPs elected on Oct. 14th will play a decisive role in developing not only the kinds of media available, but also in how Canadians communicate with one another.

Those of us who care about the role of media in society should take a more active role in this election and inform citizens across Canada about exactly what kind of media system they are voting for. Three key areas where the stakes are huge:

1. Mega-media as corporations merge

In looking at parliamentary activity since the last election, issues concerning the wave of media acquisitions over the last year and a half were barely mentioned. Key acquisitions included: CTVglobemedia's purchase of CHUM (with Rogers taking the spoils), Quebecor's purchase of the Osprey Newspaper chain, and the Canwest Global and New York investment bank Goldman Sachs' purchase of Alliance Atlantis. This latest CanWest purchase makes Vancouver the city in North America where media ownership is most concentrated.

2. 'Throttling': Providers discriminating against some on the Net

The past year has also seen a rising concern over the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in "shaping" Internet use. The debate centers on the principle of net neutrality, which requires that Internet service providers move traffic in a non-discriminatory manner based on the desires of Internet users. The net neutrality debate exploded when it was revealed that Bell Canada's traffic "throttling" was limiting users' ability to view the CBC's hit show "Canada's Next Great Prime Minister." Some users claimed it took over a day to download the show. To make matters worse, in addition to manipulating its own customers use of the Internet, Bell also "shapes" traffic passing through its network from independent ISPs like TekSavvy Solutions, thereby also limiting one of it's few competitors from offering open access to the Internet.

In response to public outcry over this situation, Industry Minister Jim Prentice's position was to, "leave the matter between consumers on the one hand and Internet service providers on the other" -- effectively, no position at all.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

From The Horse's Mouth: Afghanistan Going Down ...

Read it and weep (emphasis added):

Afghanistan has seen 'spiral downwards': top US general

Parts of Afghanistan have seen a "spiral downwards" of violence, the incoming US regional commander (Gen. Petraeus) said Monday, adding the fight against Taliban forces would continue unabated through the winter.

General David Petraeus told reporters outside Downing Street after talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown that there had been "significant progress" in some areas of the country.

But he added: "There's no question but that the trends in terms of violence and so forth have been in the wrong direction.

"So in that case, you're either spiralling downward or upward and in certain areas in Afghanistan clearly there has been a spiral downward that all involved... want to arrest and then get going back up again".

Petraeus, who was in charge of US-led forces in Iraq until earlier this year, takes charge of US forces in southwest Asia and the Middle East next month.

He also said he expected to see NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan "through the winter, perhaps a bit more than we have seen in the past."

Petraeus added: "I think we are going to endeavour to continue a higher level of operational tempo throughout so that there's not a lull in the fighting season that we continue...to take the fight to the enemy."

Got that, McCain - you who keep on fawning about that whatever Petraeus says, is God's Law?

Got that, Harper?

Let me repeat this slowly this time around, so all you incompetents out there whom have kept on denying the grim reality of this ludicrous Afghan war: we must leave Afghanistan ... now.

Not in 2009. Not in 2011. Not in 100 years.

Now.

Besides - bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban have been hiding in Pakistan since 2002 ...

Enough wasting thousands of lives and billions of dollars yearly.


(Cross-posted at The Wild Wild Left, NetRoots)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Willfully Ignored: Gobal Starvation

The following article should provide for much food for thought (pun intended):

Global Starvation Ignored by American Policy Elites
By Peter Phillips

A new report (9/2/08) from The World Bank admits that in 2005 three billion one hundred and forty million people live on less that $2.50 a day and about 44% of these people survive on less than $1.25. Complete and total wretchedness can be the only description for the circumstances faced by so many, especially those in urban areas. Simple items like phone calls, nutritious food, vacations, television, dental care, and inoculations are beyond the possible for billions of people.

Starvation.net logs the increasing impacts of world hunger and starvation. Over 30,000 people a day (85% children under 5) die of malnutrition, curable diseases, and starvation. The numbers of unnecessary deaths has exceeded three hundred million people over the past forty years.

These are the people who David Rothkopf in his book Superclass calls the unlucky. “If you happen to be born in the wrong place, like sub-Saharan Africa, …that is bad luck,” Rothkopf writes. Rothkopf goes on to describe how the top 10% of the adults worldwide own 84% of the wealth and the bottom half owns barely 1%. Included in the top 10% of wealth holders are the one thousand global billionaires. But is such a contrast of wealth inequality really the result of luck, or are there policies, supported by political elites, that protect the few at the expense of the many?

Farmers around the world grow more than enough food to feed the entire world adequately. Global grain production yielded a record 2.3 billion tons in 2007, up 4% from the year before, yet, billions of people go hungry every day. Grain.org describes the core reasons for continuing hunger in a recent article “Making a Killing from Hunger.” It turns out that while farmers grow enough food to feed the world, commodity speculators and huge grain traders like Cargill control the global food prices and distribution. Starvation is profitable for corporations when demands for food push the prices up. Cargill announced that profits for commodity trading for the first quarter of 2008 were 86% above 2007. World food prices grew 22% from June 2007 to June 2008 and a significant portion of the increase was propelled by the $175 billion invested in commodity futures that speculate on price instead of seeking to feed the hungry. The result is wild food price spirals, both up and down, with food insecurity remaining widespread.


(Keep on reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Fundamentals Of Our Economy Are Strong ...

... indeed, as shown today in reaction to the U.S. bailout deal being defeated:

TSX down nearly 800 points amid bailout uncertainty

The Toronto stock market shed nearly 800 points Monday as the price of crude traded sharply lower and investors remained uncertain about a US$700-billion Wall Street bailout plan.

Toronto's S&P/TSX index was down 739.78 points to 11,386.22 in early afternoon trading Monday.

The TSX Venture Exchange dropped 80.2 points to 1,435.44 and the Canadian dollar was down 0.52 cent to 96.3 cents US.

Where is our Prime Douchebag on this?

Ah, yes:

Harper pledges tax credit for children's art activities

A re-elected Conservative government would create a tax credit for children's artistic activities, Stephen Harper pledged on Monday, saying the measure will "help families breathe a little."

Speaking in Ottawa, Harper said the Conservatives would extend the new credit worth an estimated $150 million a year to lower-income families, along with the existing children's fitness tax credit.

(...) During the funding announcement, Harper again stressed credits were part of the Conservatives' "clear, affordable, practical, and believable" proposals at a time of global economic uncertainty, while Stéphane Dion's Liberals are offering "untested, grandiose, theoretical" proposals.

And let's not forget about crime. We are too soft on crime while we are being overwhelmed by criminals and so we need to be tougher so that we may all feel safer, right?

Lucky for our Mini Leader that irony does not maim, eh?

Be that as it may - why has Harper so far remained (as of 2:30 PM Eastern time) silent on today's disastrous outcome in our trade markets? Isn't he supposed to be our "Strong Leader", showing "strong leadership" in addressing and tackling our worsening economy, making "strong leadership"-like decisions to correct this worsening crisis?

But I forgot - Harper emulates George W. Bush and, therefore, will let Rome burn while blaming the catastrophe on everyone else (especially the liberals) but him ... just like Bush has done.

Case in point: our Prime Douchebag of Canada was given fair warning (twice) that something like what happened today would happen - and nevertheless rejected said warnings just last week.

Our Strong Leader says: "At the moment there are problems in the Canadian economy, but we aren't in a recession."

Our Strong Leader says: "We don't have the same situation here with the mortgages as was the case in the U.S. with the subprime mortgages there. So, therefore, I think that our market is in a much stronger position."

One more time: "Don't worry, be happy".

Harper's minority government has been a near-failure in just a little over two years. I shudder to think of another four years of this, let alone of a majority Harper government ...


(Cross-posted at NetRoots)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

We Are Facing A "Truth Emergency" ...

... not only in the U.S., but in Canada as well - if not in all democracies of the world. As I've often said before. More on the matter at hand:

Truth Emergency US
By Peter Phillips and David Kubiak

Many economists now doubt that government measures can prevent a major recession given the severe slump in the housing market, the subprime mortgage crisis, growing unemployment, declining consumer spending, and record high oil prices. Even harder times for working people are undoubtedly at hand, yet mainstream corporate media continues to lavish more attention on the Super Bowl and celebrity misadventures than measures to protect Americans from grave personal economic harm. We are spun, mislead, propagandized and amused to death by our media conglomerates and as a result the US has become the best entertained and least informed society in the world.

There is a literal truth emergency in the United States, not only regarding distant wars, torture camps, and doctored intelligence, but also around issues that most intimately impact our lives at home. For example, few Americans know that there has been a thirty-five year decline in real wages for most workers in the country, while the top 10% now enjoy unparalleled wealth with strikingly low tax burdens.

George Seldes once said, “Journalism’s job is not impartial ‘balanced’ reporting. Journalism’s job is to tell the people what is really going on.” Michael Moore’s top-grossing movie Sicko is one example of telling the people what is really going on. Health care activists know that US health insurance is an extremely large and obscenely lucrative industry with the top nine companies “earning” $93 billion in profits in 2006 alone. The health-care industry represents the country’s third-largest economic sector, trailing only energy and retail among the 1,000 largest US firms.

Nevertheless, 16%of Americans still have no health insurance whatsoever and that number will not soon decline, as insurance costs continue to rise two to three times faster than inflation. The consequences are immediate and tragic. Unpaid medical bills are now the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the country, and the Institute of Medicine estimates that nearly eighteen thousand Americans die prematurely each year because they lack coverage and access to adequate care.

US private health care services differ markedly from other industrialized countries where single payer systems provide everyone with medical care as a basic human right. Unfortunately, objective media coverage and comparisons of single-payer public health care with our current profit-driven corporate system are almost non-existent at this time. To protect their bloated bottom lines, private insurance companies and HMOs invest heavily in lobbyists and corporate-friendly political candidates that promote their “indispensable” role in any future health care reforms. Besides their insider political influence, these firms deploy massive advertising budgets to discourage media investigations of the economic interests shaping our health policies today

Tens of thousands of American engaged in various social justice issues constantly witness how corporate media marginalize, denigrate or simply ignore their concerns. Activist groups working on issues like 9/11 truth, election fraud, impeachment, war propaganda, civil liberties/torture, and many corporate-caused environmental crises have been systematically excluded from mainstream news and the national conversation leading to a genuine truth emergency in the country as a whole.


(Keep on reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

APOV's Weekly Revue (09/28/2008)

Yes, ladies and gents - the Weekly Revue is back after a two week-or-so hiatus!

So without further ado - let's roll:

Oh, Canada!

As Harper and his Harpies are heading to re-election as a minority government again (at least), matttbastard @ bastard.logic offers us a sober assessment of Canada's disregard for social justice under the rule of our Mini Leader. To this effect, pogge @ POGG.E asks: "could you direct me to the nearest free speech zone?"

Meanwhile, Chet Scoville @ The Vanity Press explains why "stategic voting" is worth squat without appropriate identification and targeting of ridings where such strategy may actually work to defeat CPC candidates; in this respect, Pale @ ACR warns us of the consequences of continued in-fighting among progressives and a resulting Harper majority government, whereas Steve V. @ Far and Wide flatly - but rightly - concludes "we get what we deserve".

In between, Dr. Dawg @ Dawg's Blawg discusses the Canadian media's envy of us Canadian bloggers.

Oh, U.S.A.!

Between the economic chaos and the election campaign whereby polls still show a close race between McSame and Obama (even if McCain blinked in his political stunt to "suspend his campaign" as Kyle E. Moore @ Comments from Left Field explains, and despite Sarah Palin proving to be a complete disaster as Ken Anderson @ Shockfront illustrates), Alexa @ NION states "we stand for nothing", Constitutionalist @ Ideal Thoughts concludes "we reap what we have sown", and Omnipotent Poobah @ Bring It On! concurs by exclaiming "never underestimate the dipshittery of the American people". In turn, Arthur Silber @ Once Upon a Time writes about studies in conformity, in generating consensus, and why American voters are not adults, while aristeides @ TWWL feels trapped in a funhouse mirror.

In between, Enigma4ever @ The Peace Tree writes her "letter to Mr. Bush from a mom on Mainstreet", whereas JollyRoger @ Reconstitution declares "now, we are ALL Chimpy's Daddy". To this effect, Tom Harper @ Who Hijacked Our Country discusses George W. Bush's letter of resignation.

Oh, Global War on Terror(TM)!

Jeff Huber @ Pen and Sword keeps us appraised on things over there in ... Wackystan, while BJ @ Newshoggers tells us there may be yet hope as Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are apparently wearing out their welcome in Pakistan. On the other hand, Chris Floyd @ Empire Burlesque pens "coming attractions: war without end, amen".

Oh, Environment!

Boris @ The Galloping Beaver calls the current state of global warming a nightmare. On a related point, Steven D. @ Booman Tribune agrees that Al Gore is right after all with regards to protesting to shut down coal plants.

Thus on this note ends the Weekly Revue for this Sunday September 28, 2008.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Media Reform Needed in Canada?

I say yes, please. Bad enough the overall Canadian electorate is essentially as (badly or non) informed as the American electorate was in 2004 (IMHO), the current Canadian media is definitely not helping in better informing the citizens - in fact, it is contributing in the spreading cancer on the body democratic, thus facilitating the job of concervatives/republicans/neocons/Christian right/denialists in exploiting the situation for political purposes. We must not forget the painful reality that the majority of citizens do not get their news from independent sources on the internet - rather, they mostly do so via TV. Some further food for thought on the matter:

Why Media Reform Should Be A Democratic Priority
By Robert Hackett

On New Year’s Day, 2003, few crystal-ball gazers predicted that during that year an estimated three million Americans would contact politicians or sign petitions on — what? The Iraq war? Global warming?

Try again: media concentration. Fed up with drastic cutbacks to local programming following massive consolidation in the radio industry, as well as collusion between corporate media behemoths and the Bush Administration’s drive to war against Iraq, Americans across the political spectrum successfully intervened to prevent the pro-industry broadcasting regulator (the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC) from further liberalizing ownership rules. It was a stunning wake-up call for the secretive, elitist and arguably corrupt process of communications policy making in Washington, as grassroots organizations like Free Press mobilized popular protest.

There are strong signs of a parallel process in Canada (see Canadian Dimension, November/December, 2007). Media reform should be a top priority for progressive politics and democratic renewal in Canada. Why so?

Media are the institutional space that concentrates society’s symbolic power, a concentration that the Internet has only somewhat ameliorated. Yes, the Internet is an invaluable organizing tool for activism — but it’s also a foremost means of neoliberal globalization. Besides, as Steve Anderson discusses elsewhere in this issue, its most democratic aspects are under threat from the logic of enclosure, one backed by powerful corporate and commercial forces.
Why Do Media Matter?

Media both reflect power, but also exert power, in interaction with other social institutions. Media can influence the trajectories of social movements — their emergence, consolidation and success or failure. Writing of the relationship between the mass media and the student-based antiwar New Left of the 1960s, Todd Gitlin (in his classic The Whole World is Watching) argues that mass media generally have forced social movements to choose between adopting “moderate” and specific goals and tactics, or become demonized and marginalized by pursuing more broad-ranging and radical programs: co-optation or marginalization. Even if that dilemma is not as rigid as Gitlin suggests, social movements today have reason to be frustrated with their access to the institutionalized machinery of representation. Given the growing ties between huge media conglomerates, the state and global, neoliberal capitalism, the rise of right-wing hate radio in the U.S.; the decline of the public-service ethos and the spread of hyper-commercialism; and serious cutbacks to journalism — it’s arguably more difficult than it was in the 1960s to mobilize public support through sympathetic news coverage.

Beyond the fate of social movements, media can help massage public opinion. That is not to say that audiences are dupes — but we are likely not to contest media frames unless we have counterbalancing personal experience or ready access to oppositional discourses. Media help set political agendas — not by changing attitudes directly, but by providing maps of the world beyond our own direct experience, and thereby changing perceptions. Cumulatively, media cultivate the popular imagination. It is not hard to see the political usefulness of the typical Hollywood “action” film: a struggle between good and evil resolved by redemptive and legitimated violence. Views and interests excluded by the dominant media face a “spiral of silence”; the holders of views that are not reinforced by media repetition become reluctant to express them for fear of social isolation — and, over time, they cease to hold them.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Unspoken War

Shhhhhh ...

The Unspoken War
Pakistan, the Media and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons
By Anthony DiMaggio

"We're on the brink of war with Pakistan…the fact remains that American forces have and are violating Pakistani sovereignty…the Bush administration's decision to step up attacks in Pakistan is fatally reckless, because the cross-border operations' chances of capturing or killing al Qaeda's leadership are slim. American intelligence isn't good enough for precision raids like this, Pakistan's tribal regions are a black hole that even Pakistani operatives can't enter and come back alive. Overhead, surveillance and intercepts do little good in tracking down people in a backward, rural part of the world like this…our going into Pakistan, risking a full-fledged war with a nuclear power, isn't going to stop them…Finally, there is Pakistan itself, a country that truly is on the edge of civil war. Should we be adding to the force of chaos?"

- Robert Baer, September 17, 2008

As a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, Robert Baer has many important insights to add to American foreign policy deliberation. Too bad his warnings have been systematically ignored throughout the mainstream media. The comments above, cited from Time magazine, are the only commentary I've managed to find in all of the American press that warn about the dangerous game the U.S. is playing in destabilizing Pakistan.

The Pakistani political situation has heated up with the September 21st bombing of the Islamabad Hotel, which many suspect was undertaken by radical Islamists. The massive attack, detonating over one ton of explosives, killed at least 60 civilians, injured hundreds more, and may have been intended for Pakistan's Prime Minister, President, and military leaders (who had reportedly planned to meet for dinner at the Hotel).

This attack on Pakistan's government is merely one of many that have been attempted against major officials in recent months. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in a suspected Islamist attack in December of 2007, while former President Pervez Musharraf was also the target of attempted assassination. Pakistan's political leaders are caught between the terrorist attacks of Islamist forces on one side, and the increasingly cavalier bombings of the United States, which have further inflamed hostility toward Pakistani officials close to American political leaders.

In recent years, the U.S. military has increased its aggressive attacks against Pakistan. These attacks have typically led to civilian casualties, rather than to the neutralization of Al Qaeda- affiliated or Islamist terrorists. The basis for this extended, low-intensity conflict arose in January 2006, when the U.S. attempted to assassinate Al Qaeda's number two political leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri, in an attack on the village of Damadola on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan. The attack failed in killing Zawahiri, instead resulting in the deaths of 18 civilians. The policy of U.S. aggression was formalized in July of 2007, when the Bush administration issued a presidential order that authorized American attacks inside Pakistan without the approval of Pakistan's government.

The enunciation of the Bush administration's Pakistan position was followed by numerous attacks on alleged terrorist targets, with dire results. Various attacks in recent years using unmanned predator drones resulted in dozens of deaths, and led thousands of Pakistanis to protest the attacks as unwarranted, terrorist incursions into their sovereign territory. Recent U.S. attacks in September 2008 in the mountainous Waziristan region in Northwest Pakistan have left dozens of civilians dead, consistently failing to kill suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives.

The U.S. has long treated Pakistani leaders as if they were commanded by Washington. Following 9/11, the Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back into the Stone Age" if it did not cooperate with the war against Afghanistan. Pakistan's assistance was demanded, considering the Pakistani Secret Intelligence's (the ISI) lengthy history of working with the Taliban and radical Islamists in Afghanistan. The cooperation of Pakistani presidents Musharraf and Zardari resulted in intense skepticism on the part of the country's public, which views them as corrupt figureheads serving the United States. It's not difficult to see why considering the United State's long history of opposing democracy in Pakistan. As Time magazine aptly admits:

"For much of Pakistan's history, Washington has preferred doing business with military dictators, who don't answer to voters and, at least on the surface, seem more eager than their citizenry is to cooperate with Washington." Popular discontent has become even further entrenched in light of Islamist terrorist attacks, increased political instability, a sluggish economy, and the escalated assault from the United States.

Media reactions to U.S. attacks against Pakistan have varied tremendously depending upon the country reporting the developments. Pakistani and American media coverage differ night-and-day in their framing of the issues. Pakistan's Nation newspaper condemned a September 4th border raid by the U.S. military as an act of "tyranny" and "ruthless aggression and crude pressure" against its people. The paper condemned the U.S. for its unmanned predator drone attacks as a "violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity" – and as part of a larger "killing spree" that has been undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism.

American media coverage, conversely, is driven by a warmongering that's remarkably indifferent to the dangers involved in escalating the conflict. U.S. attacks on Pakistan inevitably carry the risk of further inciting Pakistani anger against the U.S. Such anger takes on a renewed urgency in light of widespread political and military instability, and the recent emboldening of anti-governmental Islamist forces. All of this, we should remember, is happening in a country that possesses nuclear weapons. The U.S. has attacked this nuclear power with no regard for the consequences of the possible use of Pakistan's weapons, should they fall into the hands of anti-American forces.

Don't expect to hear about many of these warnings in the U.S. press, however. If political leaders refuse to address the concerns over U.S. aggression (and they haven't), then for all practical purposes these concerns may as well not exist. Short of occasional media coverage in papers such as the New Yorker, most of the American press has been hesitant to criticize the U.S. too heavily for unwittingly evacuating Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders from Pakistan during "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan. These leaders secretly fled Afghanistan, along with Pakistani intelligence officers when they were evacuated by the U.S. in late 2001 in a plan approved by the Bush administration and promoted by former President Musharraf. Rather than focusing on this embarrassing incident, blame for Islamist forces' operations in Pakistan has been placed squarely at the feet of the Pakistani government, which is attacked for "turning a blind eye as the militants organize their insurgency" from within the country.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

'Because It Was Necessary' - Revisited

In this post here, I explored the damning significance and impact of the words uttered by Condoleeza Rice, "because it was necessary", as her excuse to justify torture. I also wrote on how the Bush administration performed legalese gymnastics, in an echo chamber as it were, in order to give themselves a self-serving deluded moral and legal "grounds" to conduct torture.

Meanwhile, most Americans approve ... as they keep on riding down the road to perdition.

The following article discusses additional, recent revelations concerning the brainstorming behind the legalese gynmastics to justify torture - at the same time constituting yet another instance of outright lying by the Bush administration on this issue:

Rice Admits She Led High-Level White House Talks About Torture
By Jason Leopold

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has admitted for the first time that she led high-level discussions beginning in 2002 with other senior Bush administration officials about subjecting suspected al-Qaeda terrorists detained at military prisons to the harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding, according to documents released late Wednesday by Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee.

Responding in writing to questions by Levin, who will convene a hearing today on the administration’s interrogation program, John B. Bellinger, Rice’s legal adviser at the State Department, said they recalled participating in meetings with Ashcroft and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in July 2002 about an Army and Air Force survival training program called Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) meant to prepare U.S. soldiers for abuse they might suffer if captured by an outlaw regime.

Bellinger, who also worked with Rice at the NSC, the then National Security Adviser “expressed concern that the proposed CIA interrogation techniques comply with applicable U.S. law, including our international obligations” and that Rice asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to "personally review the legal guidance" of specific interrogation techniques.

In April, President George W. Bush told an ABC News reporter during an interview that he approved of meetings of a National Security Council's Principals Committee, whose advisers included Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA Director George Tenet and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, where these officials discussed specific interrogation techniques the CIA could use against detainees.

Waterboarding—or simulated drowning--has been regarded as torture since the days of the Spanish Inquisition.

“I recall being told that U.S. military personnel were subjected in training to certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques and that these techniques had been deemed not to cause significant physical or psychological harm,” Rice wrote in response to a question about the SERE techniques.

But those techniques were meant to prepare U.S. soldiers for abuse they might suffer if captured by a brutal regime, not as methods for U.S. Interrogations, which is what Rice said the discussions at the White House centered on. Moreover, the SERE methods were first designed by the communist government of China to be used against U.S. soldiers.

The hearing Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee will focus on the genesis of the SERE techniques used during the interrogations of suspected terrorists.

Rice has denied that the U.S. tortured or abused prisoners. But in declaring the U.S. does not engage in torture, appears to be relying on a narrower U.S. definition of torture than that is accepted under international law, such as the 1984 Convention Against Torture that was signed by the Reagan administration in 1988 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994.

“The threshold for torture is lower under international law: acts that do not amount to torture under U.S. law may do so under international law,” wrote Philippe Sands, law professor at University College London, in a column published in the Dec. 9, 2005, edition of The Financial Times.

“Waterboarding – strapping a detainee to a board and dunking him under water so he believes that he might drown – plainly constitutes torture under international law, even if it may not do so under U.S. law. …

“When the U.S. joined the 1984 convention it entered an ‘understanding’ on the definition of torture, to the effect that the international definition was to be read as being consistent with the U.S. definition The administration relies on the ‘understanding.’

“So, when Ms. Rice says the U.S. does not do torture or render people to countries that practice torture, she does not rely on the international definition. That is wrong: the convention does not allow each country to adopt its own definition, otherwise the convention's obligations would become meaningless. That is why other governments believe the U.S. ‘understanding’ cannot affect U.S. obligations under the convention.”

(Keep on reading ...)

Then type rest of your post here.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

America's Elephant In The Room

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (or scratched CD or DVD): it's all about intellectual sloth and the cancer on the body democratic it keeps on festering. Same thing with regards to the perception of Barack Obama. Case in point - the following article:

America's Elephant In The Room
by David Michael Green

The second most astonishing thing about American politics is that John McCain and Sarah Palin have a respectable chance of winning the White House in 2008. (Or, for that matter, that any Republican could have a shot at any office for which the Democratic candidate hasn't suddenly died on the stump.)

Yeah, yeah, I know. Barack Obama has a funny name. He's relatively young and inexperienced. Oh, and - have you heard? - he's also black. But, just the same, I mean, c'mon. A Republican could win the presidency in 2008? You gotta be kidding, right?

All of this is deeply related, in multiple ways, to what is without a doubt absolutely the first most astonishing fact of American politics. And that is that conservatism (I prefer to call them ‘regressives') isn't the most repudiated ideology this side of cannibalism. And that regressive practitioners of this hateful disease masquerading as a political philosophy haven't been tarred-and-feathered, hung, drawn and quartered, then run out of town on an electrified rail. And that any red-blooded American wouldn't infinitely prefer in this day and age to be called a pedophile, a terrorist or a European - heck, or all of the above combined - rather than a conservative.

I mean, seriously, people. Now that Wall Street has imploded, potentially taking down with it the entire global economy in a fun reprise of the 1930s, what more could possibly be necessary to repudiate a set of ideas for which a good day is when thousands of people don't die (again) as a result of anyone, let alone the world's sole superpower, subscribing to something so astonishingly stupid? Really, is there anything that the regressive agenda has touched so far that hasn't completely turned into a pillar of salt? Not only do these nice pious Christians show every evidence of actually being the antichrist, they've also managed to be the anti-Midas as well.

The scope of the destruction is breathtaking to gaze upon. The rapidity with which American affluence and power and respect and responsibility were converted into their opposite numbers is mind-boggling. But the most astonishing thing of all is the absence of repudiation. Not from subscribers, of course. That army of clones was so existentially terrorized in their impressionable years by some toxic stew of religion, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-communism and/or some other forms of anti-otherism - along with a sinking economic status - that their cold, stiff fingers will never be pried from the politics of guns, gays and god. Especially now, when they can also add to their fears the blame for being so spectacularly wrong about everything imaginable these last decades. Who would want to own that?

But what about the rest of us? What, indeed. We still live in an America where almost nobody dares call themselves a liberal. But what's even more bizarre - and I mean like watching-a-Twilight-Zone-marathon-in-Wonderland-sitting-there-with-Alice-and-frying-on-acid-while-listening-to-In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida-("here-comes-the-drum-solo-man!")-backwards-and-at-half-speed kinda bizarre - is the degree to which conservatism has not become a dirty word and a rejected ideology. For my money, this is the single most absolutely anomalous political curiosity currently to be found in what is surely one of the most curiously anomalous polities that ever existed. Oh, and, for the record, it turns out that that bit about ‘my money' is quite literally true - a whole bunch of it has already been spent on the various insanities of this backwards ideology, and probably a lot of yours too.

But I digress. What is conservatism, and how should it be regarded? Like any ideology, it has lots of flavors and sub-cults, many of which don't necessarily get along with each other, and certainly don't agree on which conservative projects should be given priority at any given time. All the same, I think we can boil the ideology down to a few key concepts - indeed, ones that even our regressive friends would agree accurately represent the ideological program.

Traditionally, well... tradition has been key, as a matter of fact. One key tenet of conservatism is to avoid change. Reactionaries go even further, preferring the (typically heavily mythologized) world that grandpa inhabited. Economically, conservatism is all about low taxes, low government spending (except when it comes to cops and bombs), balanced budgets, low regulation of the private sector and privatization of any service which might otherwise be provided by the government.

This is why conservatives love to describe themselves as the ideology which maximizes freedom, but this turns out - shockingly, I know - to be a lie. Indeed, it first turns out to be a lie because in practice supposedly conservative governments break most of their own economic rules catalogued above. Saint Ronald The Reagan quadrupled the national debt by irresponsibly slashing tax revenue (especially for the rich) and massively increasing spending. Before he sold out the country for his own career aspirations, George H. W. Bush described that formula as "voodoo economics". He ought to know. His voodoo spawn was not to be outdone by any White House predecessor. Or even all of them. Lil' Bush has followed an irradiated version of the same formula as Uncle Ron and has now doubled all the national debt which was incurred by his 42 predecessors. Combined. Very ‘conservative', eh?

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

I Feel A Terrible Disturbance In The Blogosphere ...

... as if a great progressive political blog had suddenly, unexplicably been erased from existence.

Tomcat's Politics Plus was among my premier regular blog reads.

About six months ago, Tomcat's postings were reduced to about one a week, going online from his local library at that (my understanding was that his computer was broken or something to this effect - although I may have misunderstood this). However, he had not posted anything since around April-May.

Since then I would check in once a month or so to see if Tomcat had (at last) resumed his regular blogging activity. Today, I find that Politics Plus has been wiped out from the blogosphere.

I am proud to consider myself a friend of Tomcat and I find this development quite disturbing.

So, to all other Politics Plus regular readers: anyone know exactly what is going on here? Any news of Tomcat? His (blogger) email doesn't seem to be working ...

Feel free to email me on this - or post a comment to this effect - and thanks in advance.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

One Hour Later: The Obama-McCain Debate

After one hour, this is what the debate has been so far and will remain until its end:

Obama: (offering sober facts and clear plans/strategies)

McCain (mumbling like a stereotypical angry old man doing everything to control his anger): "I have a record. Obama doesn't understand. I understand. I know how to do this (insert: whatever) - but won't tell you now. I have plans - but I won't tell you now. I have strategies - but won't tell you now. But I know how to do things. Back in the 80's I had a record as a maverick (forget about me supporting Bush all the way since 2000). I have a record. I know people. I understand. Obama doesn't understand. Oh - did I say that I have a record?"

In short - Obama keeps a straight line on the discussions. On the other hand, McCain keeps going all over (high, low, left, right, front and behind) to dodge any fact (truth) thrown at him by Obama, in so doing rambling nonsensical through it all like a stereotypical old geezer.

Wanna bet McCain will come up smelling roses nonetheless?

(sigh)

Anyway - that's my call right now: Obama wins on facts and truth. It remains to be seen whether McCain managed nevertheless to confuse enough of the (uninformed) electorate to end up the winner - instead of the clear loser - in their mind's eye.



(Addendum 10:35 PM: As I called it, McCain keeps on being about "I have a record" and how he is essentially the savior and progenitor of all that has been good so far (whatever). However, I am greatly disappointed by Obama on five points: A) he essentially repeated Al Gore's mistake of "agreeing" with his opponent too often (rememebr the first debates between Gore and Bush? in 2000?); B) he let fly McCain more or less scott free on supporting Iraq from the start when the US had no business there to begin with; C) he let fly McCain scott free on torture; D) he let fly McCain scott free on renditions, domestic spying, et al.; E) he himself evoked the spectre of "suitcase nukes".

This is not good - not one bit.)


(Addendum 11:00 PM: Ha! Keith Olbermann opened Countdown following the debate essentially the way I presented it above! Wow - am I finally getting the hang of this blogging thing?) ;-)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Late Friday Night Ode To ... Voter Attention Deficit Disorder

Voter apathy, voter disinterest, misinformed voters or even uniformed voters ... ah yes, indeed - intellectual sloth and democracy, culture and our future.

A cancer on the body democratic which keeps on spreading.

Not just in the U.S.A., but also in Canada as well as in all of today's democracies.

And that is why, in Canada, Harper and his Harpies are likely to win a minority (at least) government again, whereas in the U.S., the Obama-McCain race remains a close one (and McCain's mendacious "suspended campaign" stunt looks like it will greatly impact positively on the American electorate).

So first, a little snippet of information (simply replace "American" with "Canadian", and any American institution with a Canadian one, if you wish to):

And now, for the Ode proper - a double-shot of Stone Temple Pilots:

(Vasoline)

(Dead and bloated)

As I always say - keep on rockin'!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Palin And The Theocons: Reloaded

Awww - isn't she, well, quaint (h/t)?


(Why is it that most outspoken Christian Right/Conservative/Neocon women like so much to pose with guns in hands? Do they actually think that this makes them attractive? But I digress)

Following up on this, the article below discusses more of Sarah Palin and her fundamentalist Christian Right faith - looks like Palin is "Bush déjà vu all over again" in more ways than previously thought:

Sarah Palin and the Rapture
The Politics of Tribulation
By Raymond J. Lawrence

Is this country ready for a president who is excited about and eagerly looking forward to the Rapture?

The Rapture, as it is called, is the imaginary day when Jesus will come down from the sky and lift up into heaven all those who are saved, leaving behind all unbelievers to destruction and death?

Anyone who believes in the Rapture scenario will likely interpret a catastrophic nuclear exchange as the opening scene of the Rapture. Thus an American president who believes in the Rapture would arguably have at least some ambivalence toward a nuclear holocaust. A believer in the Rapture with his or her fingers on the nuclear trigger might even be tempted to bring on the Rapture. The Rapture, for those who believe in it, is hardly a negative event. Rather it is culmination of everything they hope for, deliverance into the heavenly arms of Jesus.

Presumably Sarah Palin believes in the Rapture. It is one of the doctrines of her religion, and she has nowhere disavowed it. Are Americans ready to sleep at night with a President who longs for the Rapture?

The doctrine of the Rapture is a very recent invention within some of the radical fringe churches of Christianity. The Rapture doctrine is first cousin to millennialism, the belief promoted by various groups who have predicted that “the end is near.” Millennialist groups have popped up and burnt out from time to time throughout Christian history.

The Rapture doctrine has no support in the historic Christianity of any of the main traditions - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. The doctrine of the Rapture is cobbled together from several obscure, unrelated comments drawn from the epistles of Paul the Apostle. No credible biblical scholar in two thousand years of Christian history has taken seriously the Rapture doctrine, millennialism, or anything similar to it.

The American people ought to be concerned about the religious beliefs of its political leaders as those beliefs may determine the life of the nation as a whole. It would be foolish of the American people not to be deeply concerned about the religious beliefs of Sara Palin, who may be elected Vice President for the oldest President ever inaugurated into the office.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Remember That 'War On Terror' Thingie?

Seven years later, Afghanistan turns out to be nothing short of a FUBAR for absolutely nothing - and remains as such, even after Harper made us carry the torch for this war while we wasted billions of dollars ($4.1 billions for 2001-2006, with the counting total so far, as well as that projected up to 2009, or 2011 rather, still remaining a "mystery" - however, estimates indicate that the war costs Canada about $1.3 millions a day) and not counting military and civilian lives galore. As predicted, Pakistan is rapidly destabilizing - and then some (which now include skirmishes between ISAF and Pakistani forces along the Afghan border). Meanwhile, whether the surge has been successful or not does not invalidate by one iota the fact that the U.S., the U.K., and assorted minor poodles coalition partners, simply had no business going in Iraq in the first place. Period.

The following article offers a cold, sober assessment of the never-ending Global War on Terror(TM), going on now for seven years and keeping on going, and going, and going ... and making things worse by the year.

The war on terror: seven years on (Part one)
By Paul Rogers

The United States responded to the attacks of 11 September 2001 by launching a global "war on terror". Two weeks after 9/11, Paul Rogers began to track that war in a weekly openDemocracy column. In the first of a two-part retrospective, the author reflects on these seven years: mistakes made, lessons learned and paths not taken.

When the first column in this series was published on 26 September 2001, the United States was about to start a military operation to terminate the Taliban regime and disperse the al-Qaida movement, killing or capturing Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and Mullah Omar. There was already a widespread view in Washington that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq had also to be terminated, with some sources even linking Iraq to the atrocities of 9/11.

Seven years and 370 columns later, the original Taliban regime has long since gone, as has Saddam Hussein, but the war on terror goes on. In Afghanistan, the Taliban movement has staged an extra ordinaryrevival and now threatens the security of much of the country; a devastating attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, the capital's most notable elite gathering-point, has been described as "Pakistan's 9/11". In the face of escalating violence the United States is determined to increase its forces in Afghanistan while it extends the war into the west of Pakistan. Military analysts foresee a conflict of at least a decade.

There has been some easing of security in Iraq - after five and a half years of a bitter war that has cost over 100,000 civilians their lives, seriously wounded at least double that number, led to over 100,000 people being detained without trial and 4 million people living as refugees. The moderately increased stability remains fragile, with persistent bombings and a dangerous environment in Mosul in particular. Indeed, the fear of United States military leaders of a new upsurge of violence in Iraq makes them deeply reluctant to withdraw anything more than a fraction of their forces, notwithstanding the urgent need to reinforce the troops in Afghanistan.

A traumatic moment

That first column of 26 September 2001 (which followed a number of shorter contributions to openDemocracy's immediate post-9/11 online discussions) argued -perhaps forlornly - that forceful military action to terminate the Taliban was the wrong approach. The 9/11 atrocities should have been seen as appalling acts of international criminality rather than the trigger of a war; every effort should have been made to bring bin Laden and the others responsible to justice in the international arena. Instead, to deploy United States military power and forces in Afghanistan was probably what they wanted - direct engagement with their "far enemy", evidence of the imperial hegemon's ungodly ambitions in Muslim lands, and opportunity to wear down another superpower in much the same way that their predecessors had humbled the Soviet Union two decades earlier.

For Washington's part, the problem from the start was that its proposed approach took too little account of the circumstances of 9/11. Many commentators at the time compared the attacks to the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbour in December 1941, but that was quite wrong (see John W Dower, "Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor/Hiroshima/9-11/Iraq", MIT World, 7 April 2008). Pearl Harbour was an attack on a distant military base by another state that was already perceived as hostile to the United States. Furthermore, it took place in the pre-television age.

By contrast, 9/11 was an bolt from the blue sky which struck at the heart of American economic and military power. The collapse of the twin towers, in particular, was deeply traumatic - seen live on television by tens of millions of Americans who witnessed the destruction of these huge symbols of commercial success and knew that thousands of people were dying inside. The effect was visceral, and its impact was not fully recognised abroad.

Moreover, the political context was crucial. If Al Gore had won (or been recognised as the winner) of the presidential election of 2000, there might well have been some kind of US action in Afghanistan but it is less likely that a more general "war on terror" embracing an "axis of evil" and regime-change in Iraq would have ensued. But George W Bush represented a very specific trend in US politics: the rise of neo-conservatism and assertive realism, and the conviction that a "new American century" was unfolding.

The first few months of his administration in 2001, after all, had already seen a raft of unilateral measures: among them withdrawal from the Kyoto climate-change protocols, the end of any chance of ratifying the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, and opposition to the International Criminal Court (see "United States unilateralism: alive and kicking?", 23 January 2002). Charles Krauthammer summarised the attitude admirably in a piece for the Weekly Standard written just three months before the attacks:

"Multipolarity, yes, when there is no alternative. But not when there is. Not when we have the unique imbalance of power that we enjoy today - and that has given the international system a stability and essential tranquillity that it has not known for at least a century.

The international environment is far more likely to enjoy peace under a single hegemon. Moreover, we are not just any hegemon. We run a uniquely benign imperium." (see Charles Krauthammer, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto and the New American Unilateralism”, Weekly Standard, 4 June 2001).

A force under pressure

In looking back over the past seven years, many aspects offer some understanding of what has transpired and why the war on terror has had such unexpected and counterproductive results. Three such aspects stand out: none perhaps the most obvious but each throwing fresh light on the course of events in these years.

The first relates to the behaviour of United States troops in Iraq in the first couple of years of the war - behaviour thatis both fully understandable in the circumstances and does much to explain the level of opposition that the US came to experience across the middle east and southwest Asia.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Whereby I Get To Say 'I Told You So' ...

... although I won't really - especially since I am far from happy at being proven right.

Nevertheless, some Canadian progressive bloggers (like Steve V., seemingly a first, or Pale, who has also previously touched on this issue) are acknowledging what I have been writing/ranting/decrying/warning about all along at APOV concerning the underlying dangers of our times in all democracies, including our very (Canadian) own, with regards to the majority of citizens (most of whom, by the way, do not use the Intertubes to get their news) and their "dedication" at getting fully informed for, if not actual interest in, elections. A few examples:

Democracy and intellectual sloth;

Intellectual sloth and culture;

A cancer on the body democratic;

The real problem with terrorism;

The shape of things to come;

Primitive minds;

Step back, take a deep breath and look hard in the mirror;

The limits of ignorance;

False leaders versus genuine ones;

Behold the wisdom of the sheep;

True patriot versus false patriot;

A definite recipe for the death of democracy;

Welcome to our Semi-Dark Ages;

The cure for our Semi-Dark Ages;

A generation in waiting or sulking?

Democracies in trouble;

Democracy and deference;

Mea culpa, mea culpa vox populi;

No one is safe: the real low down;

You see, it's all about intellectual sloth-driven search for instant gratification;

Losing ourselves beyond redemption;

As polls come and go ...

Conservatives/Republicans/Neocons have mastered the exploitation of general disinformation, misinformation and/or outright ignorance among the electorate.

And that is why they win or manage to make elections close - despite their atrocious track records, their lies and their incompetence.

That is why Harper and his Harpies will end up being a minority government again (if not actually becoming a majority one), and that is why the race for the White House remains overall a close one.

What we need in Canada is what progressives have been doing in the U.S. - full onslaught of organizing, of voting-drives and of information-drives, from the grassroot levels.

And that would be just a start.

Then again - who pays any attention to little old moi?


(Addendum 09/26/2005: Saskboy adds more ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Harper: 'Don't Worry, Be Happy' - Part Deux

Following up on this post from yesterday whereby Harper proclaimed to not accept the conclusions of a report issued Wednesday by Merrill Lynch Canada economists David Wolf and Carolyn Kwan, which warned that it's only a matter of time before the "tipping point" is reached and the housing and credit markets crack in Canada.

Well, Harper is beginning to look alone, bewildered and lost in the desert as he keeps on singing "Don't worry, be happy" to the gathering vultures:

Canada won't be immune from aftershocks

Canada's top central banker says the world's economies would be at serious risk without the US$700-billion bailout of the U.S. financial sector that's being put together by the American government.

(...) Carney said Thursday that other countries may need to follow the Americans' lead with similar government rescue packages to help out their domestic financial institutions.

He also said Canada is in better shape than most to weather the storm, but will not be immune from the aftershocks.

(...) Carney predicted the coming months will bring more losses and significant consolidation in the U.S. financial industry and that the repercussions will be felt beyond the American borders.

Carney suggested that the turmoil and the seizing up of credit will have the impact of slowing global growth, and particularly the U.S., beyond what the bank had forecast in July.

"Any slowdown in the U.S. economy would have consequences for Canada, but the current situation poses particular problems," he said.

(...) Carney said there's no credit crisis in Canada but that the economy has already felt the effects of a slowdown in the U.S. economy, pointing to a drop-off in exports of Canadian-made vehicles.

The Bank of Canada also thinks economic growth globally, and particularly in the United States, will be even slower than it forecast in July.

So, to put all of this in perspective:

Bush in Nov. 2007: "The U.S. economy has some strains but its underpinnings remain strong and resilient."

Bush in Feb. 2008: "I don't think we're headed to recession. But no question, we're in a slowdown."

Bush in Sept. 2008 (last night): "Ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession."

Harper in April 2008: "Canada's economic fundamentals and the oversight of its financial system remain strong."

Harper in July 2008: "Canada's economic fundamentals remain strong."

Harper in Sept. 2008: "At the moment there are problems in the Canadian economy, but we aren't in a recession."

Anyone notice a pattern here?

That's because this is what incompetents do - deny, deny, deny reality ... until all Hell breaks loose and utter catastrophe looms just around the corner, if it has not already descended upon our sorry heads.

But hey - don't worry, be happy, eh?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

While No One Was Paying Attention ...

... the Security State has greatly expanded its search parameters at U.S. borders.

We all remember this from last summer, right?

U.S. defends laptop searches at the border
Courts have upheld routine checks of Americans’ hard drives at the border. Critics say they’re anything but routine

Is a laptop searchable in the same way as a piece of luggage? The Department of Homeland Security believes it is.

For the past 18 months, immigration officials at border entries have been searching and seizing some citizens’ laptops, cellphones, and BlackBerry devices when they return from international trips.

In some cases, the officers go through the files while the traveler is standing there. In others, they take the device for several hours and download the hard drive’s content. After that, it’s unclear what happens to the data.

The Department of Homeland Security contends these searches and seizures of electronic files are vital to detecting terrorists and child pornographers. It also says it has the constitutional authority to do them without a warrant or probable cause.

Well guess what? Laptops and electronic devices are not just what the DHS considers "open game" for searches without probable cause:

New Border Search Policy Far Broader, New Documents Reveal

The old policy (.pdf) -- largely established in 1986 -- included a heading in bold reading: Customs Officers Should Not Read Personal Correspondence.

The U.S. Customs Service must guard the rights of individuals being inspected to ensure their personal privacy is protected. Therefore, as a general rule, Customs officers should not read personal correspondence […]

The new policy? It doesn't even mention personal letters as a special category.

Instead in the 2008 policy (.pdf), private letters, text message and emails are treated the same as any other information carried on a traveler's person or in his cell phone or in his laptop.

In the course of a border search, and absent individualized suspicion, officers can review and analyze the information transported by any individual attempting to enter, reenter, depart, pass through, or reside in the United States.

Compare that to how the 1986 policy -- as modified in 2000 -- instructs officers how to deal with printed material brought in by a traveler:

The U.S. Customs Service must guard the rights of individuals being inspected to ensure their personal privacy is protected. Therefore, as a general rule, Customs officers should not read personal correspondence […]

As opposed to reading content, Customs officers may glance at documents and papers to see if they appear to be merchandise. […] If, after glance at the documents or papers, the officer reasonably suspects that they relate to any of the categories in section 6.4.1 of this directive (books for sale, sedition, embargo violations, etc.), the officer may read the documents.

By contrast, the new policy allows agents to copy documents or laptops without having to show any probable cause.

That disturbs Shirin Sinnar, an attorney for the Asian Law Caucus, which was prompted to sue for the documents after what they say were dozens of complaints from Muslims and South Asians about intense questioning and searches at the border.

"For more than 20 years, the government implicitly recognized that reading and copying the letters, diaries, and personal papers of travelers without reason would chill Americans' rights to free speech and free expression," said Sinnar. "But now customs officials can probe into the thoughts and lives of ordinary travelers without any suspicion at all."

But DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa says it should come as no surprise that the policy changed after 9/11 and that the government decided to use every legal means to prevent another attack.

"The decision to change standards reflects the realities of the post 9/11 environment," Kudwa noting that even under the old policy, officers could glance at material without having individualized suspicion.

The courts have generally sided with the government. Most recently the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the border agents didn't need to be say why it wanted to look into a laptop -- dismissing arguments that laptops are more analogous to a person's mind than to a suitcase.

That ruling expanded the so-called border exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows the government to search a person entering or leaving the country without having to have any cause to do so.

Aah, the ever-convenient rationale of the Security State ...

I. Told. You. So.

What's next - opening/reading your letters before they are properly delivered without probable cause?

Shhhhhhhh ....

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

"It's The Economy, Stupid" Indeed

Nice to know my suggestion of yesterday, namely that the LPC and NDP should consider the economy as the first and foremost issue, was not that far off the grid:

Economy to be leaders' focus

Federal party leaders are expected to speak about Canada's economy and the planned financial bailout plan in the U.S. as they campaign on Thursday for the Oct. 14 election.

(Read the rest here)

No need for accolades, folks - I'm just doing my small part in trying to help us get rid of Harper and his Harpies - if only because of this ...

... and this (emphasis added):

Harper: Don’t worry, be prosperous

The Conservatives are moving to reassure nervous voters just as cracks appear in the foundations of the Canadian economy and the election campaign reaches a critical juncture.

With less than three weeks to the vote, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday that there’s no chance Canada will tumble into the same kind of financial and housing black hole as the U.S.

"Of course we have seen that this market has somewhat weakened in the last 12 months, but we will not see such a situation here as in the U.S.

"We are taking steps to show Canadians and show international investors that this is a strong place to do business, and a well-run country with strong balance sheets of governments, households and financial institutions."

(...) Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has stepped up his media outreach with the same message, stressing that despite the global troubles, Canada’s economy is fundamentally sound.

(Am I the only one here tired of hearing Harper and his Harpies droning on and on the same insipid talking points as those from BushCo. and McSame?)

Yup - don't worry, be happy ...

Maybe if they repeat if often enough, it will become true?

(Oops - that did not work so well for Bush and McCain, now has it?)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Deregulation: A Lesson To Be Heeded?

The following article gives lots to think about concerning deregulations:

The Bitter Fruits of Deregulation
Mortgaging the Nation
By Paul Craig Roberts

Remember the good old days when the economic threat was mere recession? The Federal Reserve would encourage the economy with low interest rates until the economy overheated. Prices would rise, and unions would strike for higher benefits. Then the Fed would put on the brakes by raising interest rates. Money supply growth would fall. Inventories would grow, and layoffs would result. When the economy cooled down, the cycle would start over.

The nice thing about 20th century recessions was that the jobs returned when the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates and consumer demand increased. In the 21st century, the jobs that have been moved offshore do not come back. More than three million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost while Bush was in the White House. Those jobs represent consumer income and career opportunities that America will never see again.

In the 21st century the US economy has produced net new jobs only in low paid domestic services, such as waitresses, bartenders, hospital orderlies, and retail clerks. The kind of jobs that provided ladders of upward mobility into the middle class are being exported abroad or filled by foreigners brought in on work visas. Today when you purchase an American name brand, you are supporting economic growth and consumer incomes in China and Indonesia, not in Detroit and Cincinnati.

In the 20th century, economic growth resulted from improved technologies, new investment, and increases in labor productivity, which raised consumers’ incomes and purchasing power. In contrast, in the 21st century, economic growth has resulted from debt expansion.

Most Americans have experienced little, if any, income growth in the 21st century. Instead, consumers have kept the economy going by maxing out their credit cards and refinancing their mortgages in order to consume the equity in their homes.

The income gains of the 21st century have gone to corporate chief executives, shareholders of offshoring corporations, and financial corporations.

By replacing $20 an hour U.S. labor with $1 an hour Chinese labor, the profits of U.S. offshoring corporations have boomed, thus driving up share prices and “performance” bonuses for corporate CEOs. With Bush/Cheney, the Republicans have resurrected their policy of favoring the rich over the poor. John McCain captured today’s high income class with his quip that you are middle class if you have an annual income less than $5 million.

Financial companies have made enormous profits by securitizing income flows from unknown risks and selling asset backed securities to pension funds and investors at home and abroad.

Today recession is only a small part of the threat that we face. Financial deregulation, Alan Greenspan’s low interest rates, and the belief that the market was the best regulator of risks, have created a highly leveraged pyramid of risk without adequate capital or collateral to back the risk. Consequently, a wide variety of financial institutions are threatened with insolvency, threatening a collapse comparable to the bank failures that shrank the supply of money and credit and produced the Great Depression.

Washington has been slow to recognize the current problem. A millstone around the neck of every financial institution is the mark-to-market rule, an ill-advised “reform” from a previous crisis that was blamed on fraudulent accounting that over-valued assets on the books. As a result, today institutions have to value their assets at current market value.

In the current crisis the rule has turned out to be a curse. Asset backed securities, such as collateralized mortgage obligations, faced their first market pricing in panicked circumstances. The owner of a bond backed by 1,000 mortgages doesn’t know how many of the mortgages are good and how many are bad. The uncertainty erodes the value of the bond.

If significant amounts of such untested securities are on the balance sheet, insolvency rears its ugly head. The bonds get dumped in order to realize some part of their value. Merrill Lynch sold its asset backed securities for twenty cents on the dollar, although it is unlikely that 80 percent of the instruments were worthless.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

McSame's 'Suspended' Campaign: Da Call

(Updated below)

So, McSame today suspended his campaign:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is announcing that he would like to suspend his campaign and delay Friday’s foreign policy debate to focus on the financial crisis. According to MSNBC, McCain would like to come back to Washington and help work out a bailout package on Thursday.

(...)

This interest in the bailout is new for McCain. As recently as yesterday, when a reporter asked him about his position on the Bush administration’s financial proposals, McCain said, “I have not had a chance to see it in writing. I have to examine it.” As the stock market tanked and the federal government bailed out financial institutions over the past week, McCain has been campaigning around the country. Originally, McCain McCain planned to skip the vote on the bailout and continue campaigning.

The last time McCain voted in the Senate was on April 8.

(...)

McCain senior adviser Mark Salter said that McCain “will suspend airing all ads and all campaign events pending an agreement with Obama, though Salter did not know whether John McCain will suspend fundraising activities. He added that McCain would take part in the debate as scheduled if Congress reached agreement on the measure by Friday morning.”

Let's hear it in McCain's own words:

In his statement, McCain said it had become clear that “no consensus has developed to support the administration’s proposal.” He called on Bush to convene a leadership meeting in Washington that would include him and Obama.

McCain said that if Congress did not pass legislation to address the crisis, credit would dry up, people would no longer be able to buy homes, life savings would be at stake and businesses would not have enough money

“If we do not act, every corner of our country will be impacted,” McCain said. “We cannot allow this to happen.”

Or, as he put it in other words:

"I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time."

The question is, of course, why does McCain deem his presence in the bailout package negotiations so indispensable? Because:

Salter also said McCain called President Bush and talked to colleagues in Washington and learned that passage of the bailout plan was next to impossible.

Impossible? Really?

What say you, Mr. U.S. Secretary of Treasury?

"I believe we're going to get a bill that works and a clean bill," he told TIME. "It certainly won't be exactly what we asked for, it never is, but it's got to be sufficient to let us do the job." And Paulson thinks he'll get it soon. "We're right in the period where the sausage is being made," he says, but "I clearly believe we're going to get it done this week. We need to get it done this week."

Okay. What about you, Mr. chairman of the House Financial Services Committee?

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (...) said in an interview on MSNBC that negotiators were close to reaching a tentative agreement on the bailout and said Obama’s and McCain’s help was not needed.

Indeed:

The debate over a proposed $700 billion government bailout of the nation's financial system raced forward on Wednesday as the Bush administration and congressional Democrats moved closer to a deal.

Ooopsie, eh Mr. McSame?

Oh - and what was that your campaign said about the need to keep "politics" out of these negotiations and all? Ah, yes:

Aides denied that the proposal was a political move. They said McCain hoped to create a “political free zone” until a deal to rescue the the financial industry could be reached.

Political free zone, you say, eh?

Let's see:

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, welcomed MCCain’s offer (to suspend his campaign and come to Washington to help in the negotiations). “This is the John McCain I know,” Hatch said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “He is willing to risk [the] election to do what’s right for the country.”

Or this:

Immediately after McCain's announcement, White House press secretary Dana Perino released this statement: "We welcome Sen. McCain's announcement. We are making progress in negotiations on the financial markets rescue legislation, but we have not finished it yet. Bipartisan support from Sens. McCain and Obama would be helpful in driving to a conclusion."

And this:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a McCain ally, said that having the candidates join in negotiations over the bailout would be "enormously helpful."

"We need a solution on this financial crisis more than we need a foreign policy debate," said Graham, R-South Carolina. "The next seven days could determine the financial well-being of this country. We can postpone the debate for a week."

And Rep. Roy Blunt, the Republicans' House whip, said McCain's decision to return to Washington "is a testament to the fact that [he] is a guy who would rather be part of the solution than run away from the fight."

Or this:

U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced that he is suspending his campaign, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Louisville) called the tactic "an outstanding idea."

Or this:

And this:

Fox reporter Carl Cameron lauded the “very, very big move” by McCain. Fox host Martha MacCallum hailed it as “a bold move, a very strong move.” Cameron added that McCain is making “some political sacrifice” by volunteering to leave the campaign trail.

Or this:

"John McCain's leadership and experience credentials outrank Barack Obama's," said Sarah Simmons, a McCain campaign strategist, this morning. "[We are] walking through a crisis and people are looking to see how it is going to be handled."

Or how about this crass exploit (yet again) of 9/11:

McCain went on to compare the current crisis in the financial markets with the attacks of Sept. 11 and called on politicians to draw on the bipartisan spirit created during those times in order to solve the economic problems of the country today.

"Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis," McCain said. "We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country."

No injecting politics into bailout negotiations ... ri-ight.

Nevermind also that all the proper talking points were primed and ready before McCain announced his "campaign suspension".

It must be sheer, incredible coincidence then that in terms of the timing of this move, the only thing that's changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling - no? Indeed:

Obama has opened a nine-point lead in the race for president amid voter concerns over the U.S. financial crisis, according to a poll published Wednesday.

The Washington Post-ABC news poll suggests Obama has backing from 52 per cent of voters, compared with McCain, who has support from 43 per cent of voters.

According to the poll, respondents gave Obama a double-digit edge in his ability to handle a troubled economy over McCain, while just nine per cent of those questioned rated the economy as being in good or excellent shape, reported the Washington Post.

Conclusion: McCain's so-called suspension of his campaign is nothing more than a facile, cynical political ploy in order to win sympathy among the American public and come across as Da Self-Sacrificing Decider - all the while dodging the bullet on this Friday's debate-to-come and, at the same time, trying to help Palin also dodge the bullet in the upcoming VP debate (not counting throwing pixie dust in everyone in order to distract from his utter incompetence in dealing with the economy and the overwhelming presence of lobbyists tied to the current crisis).

More than ever, the McCain campaign is nothing but a long series of cheap political stunts (9/11 memorial video, Palin choice as VP, calling for firing U.S. Secretary of Treasury, etc.).

Da call: McCain and campaign - 2 minutes for delaying the game, 5 minutes for unsportsman-like conduct, and automatic loss for abandoning the game.

As Obama puts it:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) just gave a press conference responding to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) suggestion that they both suspend their campaigns, postpone Friday’s debate in Mississippi, and return to Washington to deal with the financial crisis. Obama said that he would like to the debate to go forward as planned because “it is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once”:

With respect to the debates, it’s my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess. And I think that it is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once. I think there’s no reason why we can’t be constructive in helping to solve this problem and also tell the American people what we believe and where we stand and where we want to take the country.

Or, in other words:

"It's the longest Hail Mary pass in the history of either football or Marys."

Hear, hear!

Meanwhile, Bush is about to speak to the American People, to say a bunch of platitudes, that all of this crisis is not his fault and that the bailout plan he proposes must be without oversight - so that all those poor CEOs can be saved "as it oughta be" ...


Update 9:30 PM: wow - did I call it or what? And now Bush is saying that the U.S. is looking at "a long and painful recession"? Ooops - here's that reality thing finally biting him in the ass again, eh? Did someone say - incompetence? That's about right.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Our Prime Douchebag Pulling A 'Bush' Yet Again

That's right:

Harper disagrees with pessimistic report on Canadian housing market

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says he disagrees with a report by brokerage firm Merrill Lynch that warns Canada could be headed for a housing and mortgage meltdown similar to the one that has devastated the United States economy.

The report, issued Wednesday by Merrill Lynch Canada economists David Wolf and Carolyn Kwan, said many Canadian households are more financially overextended than their counterparts in the U.S. or Britain.

They said it's only a matter of time before the "tipping point" is reached and the housing and credit markets crack in Canada.

"I don't accept that conclusion, not at all," Harper told reporters on tour in British Columbia.

"We have seen the housing market and the construction market much stronger in Canada than in the U.S.," he said.

Harper said Canadian financial institutions have also taken a different approach to lending than their American counterparts.

"We don't have the same situation here with the mortgages as was the case in the U.S. with the subprime mortgages there," he said. "So, therefore, I think that our market is in a much stronger position."

The report acknowledges that the analysis is more pessimistic than the prevailing view.

Many economists have been saying that Canada's housing and banking sectors are much more stable than their American counterparts, and will likely slow down but not crash.

But Merrill Lynch Canada — whose U.S. parent is one of the biggest victims of a crisis in financial markets arising from the American housing and mortgage meltdown — said Canadians should be wary.

Household net borrowing in Canada amounted to 6.3 per cent of disposable income in 2007, which is more than households in the U.K. and not far off the peak reached by U.S. households in 2005.

The report also said housing prices are now falling and inventories of unsold homes are rising sharply in Canada, suggesting that this market turnaround will not be a transitory phenomenon.

To this new "I don't accept that conclusion" line, let us add these other famous last words:

"The fundamentals of our economy are strong." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 08/21/2007;

"The U.S. economy has some strains but its underpinnings remain strong and resilient." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 11/13/2007;

"I don't think we're headed to recession. But no question, we're in a slowdown." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 02/28/2008;

"I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 08/20/2008;

"There has been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street. People are frightened by these events. Our economy I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 09/15/2008;

"Canada's economic fundamentals and the oversight of its financial system remain strong." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 04/08/2008;

"Canada's economic fundamentals remain strong." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 07/30/2008;

"The Canadian economy's fundamentals are solid." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 09/15/2008;

"At the moment there are problems in the Canadian economy, but we aren't in a recession." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 09/15/2008.

How about a few telling headlines to boot?

Bush Dismisses Global Warming Report;

Bush rejects Canadian Iraq proposal;

Bush Rejects Special Counsel On Spying;

Bush won't accept Democrats' efforts to set Iraq war timetable;

McCain does not accept setting timetable for Iraq withdrawal;

Bush rejects regulating greenhouse gases;

McCain camp rejects reality as irrelevant;

McCain rejects calls for universal health coverage;

McCain Rejects Broad U.S. Aid on Mortgages;

Harper rejects warning from academics;

Harper dismisses talks of climate change;

Harper rejects RCMP probe of Bernier affair;

Harper rejects key Gomery proposals;

Harper rejects calls for tougher gun laws;

Harper dismisses Kyoto compliance law.

... and global warming is not man-made and Kyoto would have been the ruin of our economy and God created the Universe, the World and Humanity in six days some 8000 years ago.

See a pattern, here?

Harper and the CPC: because denying reality is all they can do to cover-up their primitive mind-driven incompetence.

Any questions?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

More Wars, Please

Of course - why am I not surprised:

US generals planning for resource wars

ANALYSIS: The US military sees the next 30 to 40 years as involving a state of continuous war against ideologically-motivated terrorists and competing with Russia and China for natural resources and markets, writes Tom Clonan.

AS GENERAL Ray Odierno takes command of US forces in Baghdad from troop surge architect Gen David Petraeus, America has begun planning in earnest for its phased withdrawal.

The extra brigade combat teams - or battlegroups - deployed to Iraq by Petraeus have already withdrawn and a further 8,000 troops have been diverted to Afghanistan.

In January, the next president of the United States will conclude America's timetable for withdrawal in final negotiations with the Iraqi government.

Further evidence of America's future military intentions is contained in recently published strategy documents issued by the US military.

Under the auspices of the US department of defence and department of the army, the US military have just published a document entitled 2008 Army Modernization Strategy which makes for interesting reading against the current backdrop of deteriorating international fiscal, environmental, energy resource and security crises.

The 2008 modernisation strategy, written by Lieut Gen Stephen Speakes, deputy chief of staff of the US army, contains the first explicit and official acknowledgement that the US military is dangerously overstretched internationally. It states simply: "The army is engaged in the third-longest war in our nation's history and . . . the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has caused the army to become out of balance with the demand for forces exceeding the sustainable supply."

Against this backdrop, the 90 page document sets out the future of international conflict for the next 30 to 40 years - as the US military sees it - and outlines the manner in which the military will sustain its current operations and prepare and "transform" itself for future "persistent" warfare.

The document reveals a number of profoundly significant - and worrying - strategic positions that have been adopted as official doctrine by the US military. In its preamble, it predicts a post cold war future of "perpetual warfare".

According to its authors: "We have entered an era of persistent conflict . . . a security environment much more ambiguous and unpredictable than that faced during the cold war."

It then goes on to describe the key features of this dawning era of continuous warfare. Some of the characteristics are familiar enough to a world audience accustomed to the rhetoric of the global war on terror.

"A key current threat is a radical, ideology-based, long-term terrorist threat bent on using any means available - to include weapons of mass destruction - to achieve its political and ideological ends."

Relatively new, "emerging" features are also included in the document's rationale for future threats.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Palin And The Theocons

Where Have I Seen Sarah Palin Before?
by Arash Kamangeer

I grew up in Iran and immigrated to US to avoid living in a theocracy. Lately though, the trajectory of US politics is something to worry about, not only to me, but also to many others in my predicament.

Wednesday night at the Republican convention was an especially poignant moment. I was watching Sarah Palin deliver her acceptance speech. As I was watching her, her family, and her adoring fans in the Republican convention, I could not overcome a feeling that I have seen this scene before...

Right after the Revolution in Iran and the establishment of the Islamic Republic, the Iran-Iraq war was started. To be fair, Iraq started that war, but the new revolutionary leaders of Iran saw the war as a godsend. They milked it for all it was worth. They labeled anyone against the war as a traitor or unpatriotic. Anyone who suggested that there may be a negotiated settlement was ridiculed and purged from power. Even Ayatollah Khomeini once said that this war is a blessing from God himself. You may see the parallels here already, but keep reading.

Keep Reading ...

punditman says ...

The article points out that Ayatollah Khomeini once said that the Iran-Iraq war is a blessing from God. Sarah Palin once said that the (current) Iraq war is a "task that is from God."

Recall that the United States is supposedly all about the separation of Church and State. Recall also a time when religious activism meant standing alongside the poor and the beaten down, challenging the money changers and marching alongside the Peacemakers in the tradition of Jesus, Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Then, starting around forty years ago, the American right-wing began a rather successful campaign to appropriate Christian political activism. The result is that they now have much more in common with the mullahs in Iran than with any true lover of freedom. The lethal combination of militarism and religion adds up to theocracy, not democracy.

The author sees this clearly, having looked at two sides of this ugly mirror.

(Mentarch here, to add: Age of the President-Pontificate of the U.S.A., anyone?)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

'It's The Economy, Stupid' - Even In Canada

Just a friendly suggestion to the LPC and NDP, to remember that these elections should be first and foremost about the budget deficit of Harper and his Harpies (in lieu of surplusses from previous "liberal" governments), their far right/neocon fiscal vision (which includes full integration with the U.S. or even the E.U.) and, simply put, about "It's the economy, stupid!". Case in point, the following article as food for thought:

US Meltdown Puts Heat on Canada
Decades of fusing the two economies exposes us to grave risk
By Marc Lee

Watching the turmoil in financial markets this past week, the question is no longer whether there will be a meltdown, but how much melting is left to go. So what's next, and what does this mean for Canada?

It's worth reflecting on just how far up we climbed. The back-story is now familiar: the lowest interest rates since the 1960s that prevailed in the aftermath of 9-11 reduced the cost of holding a mortgage, and led many people to buy into the real estate market. As prices went up, others wanted to get in on the action "or get priced out forever."

Before long, bullish sentiment overwhelmed rational thinking: real estate prices went through the roof, with doubling and in some cases tripling of resale prices between 2001 and 2007 in Vancouver.

On the way up, increasing asset prices created a "wealth effect" -- those lucky enough to see the value of their home go up so much were more inclined the spend money, thereby stimulating the real economy. Moreover, rising home prices led to spectacular new residential construction, providing more jobs and more income to keep the party going.

This particular party was a real bender, and now it's hangover time. Our southern neighbours went even wilder -- everyone was invited -- and they are now feeling a world of hurt. But even though our Canadian party did not rock as hard, there was plenty of liquid refreshment, and it went well into the wee hours.

The jaw dropping events in the U.S. are the gears thrown into reverse: a vicious cycle of falling home prices, with homeowners sitting on mortgage debt that is worth more than the market value of their home. New residential construction is at half of 2005 levels, undercutting employment, and home prices are down about 25 per cent.

Integration changed equation

In Canada, we have been lagging developments in the U.S. But new investment in residential construction fell in the first half of 2008, and average home resale prices in August fell by five per cent compared to a year earlier.

Because the U.S. is so much bigger than we are, and our economies so interconnected after two decades of increasing integration, their downturn will hurt Canada, too. Their drop in residential construction, in particular, hurts wood product sales from our forestry sector, and their overall slowdown undercuts our exports across the economy.

The unwinding is complicated by actions in the U.S. financial sector, which repackaged dubious mortgages, and made out like bandits. Once the value of homes started to come back down, it exposed a lot of bad wood underneath the veneer. What is becoming clearer by the day is that this can only be solved by major write-downs of those "toxic mortgages" that are clogging up the balance sheets of big financial corporations.

Big government steps in

An irony of the current situation is to see a right-wing U.S. government engaged in massive government intervention in order to prevent a meltdown -- except they are bailing out the people who caused the problem in the first place. Brokers and dealers made millions -- worth decades of real work by real people -- en route to the current financial crisis. The next step appears to be having the U.S. government take much of this bad debt off the hands of the banking sector. Privatize gains and socialize losses is the rule.

If only governments these days were as committed to protecting the security of regular working folks. It would be far better for the government to step in and take over mortgages from families, so that they could stay in their homes with greater certainty through this period of turmoil.

In Canada, how far down is the bottom is anyone's guess. What's troubling is a federal government whose answer to every problem is a tax cut. An economic downturn has already begun in Canada, with economic growth stalling in the first half of 2008. Canada's economic fundamentals are anything but sound, despite mantras to the contrary.

That downturn is pushing the federal budget towards deficit, but having rejected deficits outright, the Harper government will have to cut spending to balance its budget, thereby making economic problems worse. This is precisely the type of thinking that turns recessions into depressions.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

More 'Lie And Cry' From The 'Straight-Talk Express'

Ah, the hypocrisy of those Republican/neocon "moral values" ... two pieces of news to this effect for your consideration.

First one:

Deeper ties between Team McCain, Freddie Mac

A day after aides to Republican presidential candidate John McCain lashed out at the press for reporting on connections between prominent campaign advisers and embattled mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Bloomberg News provides a new wrinkle to the story.

The lobbying firm of the man Republicans say John McCain has chosen to begin planning a presidential transition earned more than a quarter of a million dollars this year representing Freddie Mac, one of the companies McCain blames for the nation's financial crisis.

Timmons & Co., whose founder and chairman emeritus is William Timmons Sr., was registered to lobby for Freddie Mac from 2000 through this month, when the federal government took over both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The McCain campaign wouldn't talk to the financial news wire, but other Republicans told reporters Jonathan D. Salant and Timothy J. Burger that Timmons would be leading McCain's transition team if he were elected in November.

The disclosure seems to further undercut McCain's efforts to demonize the two lending giants and his attempts to tie their failure to Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Second one:

McCain campaign manager’s lobbying firm paid by Freddie Mac through last month

The New York Times reports tonight that, until last month, Freddie Mac paid $15,000 a month to the lobbying firm owned by Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager:

[Freddie Mac] paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager , according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement. […]

They said they did not recall Mr. Davis doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than speak to a political action committee composed of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the coming midterm congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis’s firm, Davis & Manafort, was kept on the payroll because of Mr. Davis’s close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who was widely expected by 2006 to run again for the White House.

Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafort for the duration of the campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to share in its profits.

On Sunday, when asked about Davis’s lobbying activities, McCain claimed, “My campaign manager has stopped that, has had nothing to do with it since and I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.”

To get the Big Picture, here are again the Second and Fourth Principles of Incompetence:

Second Principle: Incompetence is ethics-impaired - Consider the characteristics bestowed upon incompetents by their intellectual sloth, as outlined in the Zeroth Principle, along with what I have written before: "(...) it is a fact that those individuals who are 'corrupted' by power are inevitably revealed at their core to be selfish, greedy, covetous, paranoid or fearful. Consequently, these use power expediently as a tool for the wasteful satisfaction of their every whim, want and need, or as a weapon to aim recklessly at their outwardly-projected inner demons. In short: only incompetents abuse power". Incompetents cheat, lie, misuse, "backstab" and abuse anything and everything in order to get their way - and they always make perfectly quaint rationalizations, as well as giving themselves a deluded moral highground (or authority), to justify their wrongdoings. In other words, incompetents are morally hypocritical and ethically impaired, because of their intellectual sloth-driven reasoning/emotional immaturity, egocentricity, intellectual vanity/intolerance, and slavery to expediency.

Fourth Principle: Incompetence does or says anything to defend itself- Because of the previous four principles, incompetents never take responsibility for their wrongdoings, or those of other incompetents within their "circle". This is what I wrote before: "Incompetents will do and say anything to defend themselves and other incompetents, including disassembling, obfuscating, lying and blaming others". Here's something else that I also wrote previously: "They lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end." For incompetents, everything is about spin and truthiness - never about facts and truth. Even when they are blatantly caught, incompetents continue to react and reason with their intellectual sloth-driven infantile/adolescent immaturity - they will deny that they did anything wrong or that they have lied, then they will blame/attack (read: character assassinate) their "accusers". I call this: "Lie and Cry".

Lie and cry.

That is what they do.

That is all they do.

Any questions?


(Cross-posted at The Wild Wild Left)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

As If There Were No More Important Issues Enough (Part Deux)

Ooh yeah - can ya feel da toughness and manlymaness of our Prime Douchebag?

Cuz there he goes again.

Dig it:

Tories would end house arrest sentences for serious crimes

Stephen Harper on Tuesday continued his party's focus on anti-crime proposals, saying a re-elected Conservative government would amend the Criminal Code to ensure serious indictable crimes are not eligible for conditional house arrest sentences.

The announcement comes a day after the Conservative leader's pledge that young people 14 and over found guilty of crimes such as manslaughter, murder or aggravated assault would face tougher sentences, and no longer have their identities protected.

Yes indeed - because crime is THE issue of the times in Canada, right?

Right?

Ummm ... let's see:

Crimes by type of offence

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
	rate per 100,000 population
All incidents	8,900.6	8,949.0	8,532.0	8,298.7	7,778.2
Criminal Code offences (excluding traffic offences)	8,142.3	8,160.5	7,769.4	7,542.7	6,983.6
Crimes of violence	965.0	944.4	949.1	953.8	929.6
Homicide	1.7	2.0	2.1	1.9	1.8
Attempted murder	2.2	2.1	2.5	2.6	2.4
Assaults (level 1 to 3)1	747.6	732.2	732.5	737.0	718.5
Sexual assault	74.2	72.0	72.8	68.1	65.0
Other sexual offences	8.1	8.2	8.6	8.5	8.4
Robbery	89.8	85.9	89.1	94.2	89.8
Other crimes of violence2	41.3	42.0	41.6	41.6	43.7
Property crimes	4,120.6	3,969.3	3,735.8	3,596.0	3,319.7
Breaking and entering	899.5	862.2	808.9	769.9	700.3
Motor vehicle theft	550.0	531.3	495.2	485.9	443.2
Theft over $5,000	61.3	53.0	53.2	52.4	52.7
Theft $5,000 and under	2,211.8	2,106.6	1,976.6	1,892.3	1,756.5
Possession of stolen goods	104.7	111.7	106.7	110.2	99.4
Frauds	293.4	304.6	295.2	285.4	267.7
Other Criminal Code offences	3,056.8	3,246.8	3,084.5	2,992.9	2,734.2
Criminal Code offences (traffic offences)	369.7	377.1	376.3	374.3	400.1
Impaired driving	245.1	251.1	242.5	233.2	241.1
Other traffic offences3	124.6	126.0	133.8	141.2	159.0
Federal statutes	388.5	411.5	386.3	381.8	394.6
Drugs	274.0	305.1	289.9	294.6	305.3
Other federal statutes	114.5	106.3	96.5	87.2	89.3
1. "Assault level 1" is the first level of assault. It constitutes the intentional application of force without consent, the attempt or threat to apply force to another person, or openly wearing a weapon (or an imitation) while accosting or impeding another person. 2. Includes unlawfully causing bodily harm, discharging firearms with intent, abductions, assaults against police officers, assaults against other peace or public officers and other assaults. 3. Includes dangerous operation of motor vehicle, boat, vessel or aircraft, dangerous operation of motor vehicle, boat, vessel or aircraft causing bodily harm or death, driving motor vehicle while prohibited and failure to stop or remain. Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table (for fee) 252-0013. Last Modified: 2008-07-17.

Find information related to this table (CANSIM table(s); Definitions, data sources and methods; The Daily; publications; and related Canadian Statistics tables).

Ooops - looks like the rates per 100,000 population of pretty much every type of crime catalogued have been going down since 2003.

So what to do then? Pretend nevertheless that crime in our streets is a (shriek!) plague (shriek!), that we are "too soft" on those menacing (shriek!) and scary (shriek!) criminals, and of course blame the previous "liberal" governments, as well as the current LPC and NDP opposition, for these desparing times for all of us helpless law-abiding citizens - right?

Ri-ight:

Speaking in Saskatchewan, Harper said his government's past attempts to end house arrest were thwarted by the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc Québécois during the last session in Parliament.

"Unlike the opposition parties, we don’t believe that house arrest is a suitable punishment for those who commit these kinds of crimes, and Canadians don’t believe it either," Harper said during an appearance in Saskatoon while campaigning for the Oct. 14 federal election.

The Conservatives say more than 11,150 criminals were serving conditional sentences in 2006, including 2,791 convicted of violent crimes.

And there you have it: when truly important issues like the economy, Afghanistan, freedom of choice for women and shameless U.S. G.O.P./Bush/Cheney/neocon emulation run the risk of sinking your chances at being re-elected, borrow (always) from the typical U.S. G.O.P./Bush/Cheney/neocon playbook and use fearmongering to push instead the "vital" (non-)issue of fighting crime, of being tough on criminals and of being tough on crime punishment (that is, if 9/11 and the fear of terrorists do not float as well as expected).

Q.E.D. yet again.

This works especially when most Canadians are not paying that much close of attention to these current elections.

This also works when the LPC and NDP are now back to their unfocused, ill-planned and ill-prepared campagning ways (examples here, here, here and here) - instead of hammering home the messages that are supposed to be so simple and direct.

So there you have it - Harper and the CPC: when throwing pixie dust in your eyes and scaring the beejeesus out of you matters more than dealing with reality and their failings as government, as a neocon/far right/Christian right party, as an ideology.

But hey - if they make you feel safe and secure and blahblahblah ...

Right?

(I think I'm beginning to suffer from stomach ulcers ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Canada: What About Energy Independence As An Issue?

Darn good question. Two articles for your consideration.

********************

First article:

Arctic oil and gas rush alarms scientists
Rather than alleviate global warming, nations rush to exploit region
by Stephen Leahy

As greenhouse gas pollution destroys Arctic ecosystems, countries like Canada are spending millions not to halt the destruction but to exploit it.

Late last August, Canada announced a 93.7-million-dollar prospecting programme to map the energy and mineral resources of the region. There are "countless other precious resources buried under the sea ice and tundra," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said during the announcement. The government's mapping effort is expected to trigger 469 million dollars in private sector resource exploration and development.

"It is estimated that a quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas lies under the Arctic," Harper said.

This scramble to exploit some of the most environmentally delicate regions of Earth has alarmed international experts who are meeting this week in Iceland to make recommendations to the United Nations and world governments on how to protect the polar regions.

"Many experts believe this new rush to the polar regions is not manageable within existing international law," says A H Zakri, director of the United Nations University's Yokohama-based Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), co-organisers of the conference with Iceland's University of Akureyri.

"Pressure on Earth's unique and highly vulnerable polar areas is mounting quickly and an internationally-agreed set of rules built on new realities appears needed to many observers," Zakri said in a statement.

In Iceland, leading scholars will detail fast-emerging issues in international law and policy in the polar regions caused by such developments as the opening up of the Northwest Passage. They will identify priorities for law-making and research and offer their best advice to governments about what they should be doing now and in the future, said conference chair David Leary of UNU-IAS.

"Climate change is the number one issue for the polar regions. Iceland experienced its hottest day in history this summer," Leary told IPS from Akureyri in northern Iceland. "I expect some strong recommendations on climate change to come from this meeting."

As climate change opens the Arctic Ocean to shipping, fishing, and other resource exploitation, pollution will pose another major threat to the region, he said.

"Arctic sea routes are among the world's most hazardous due to lack of natural light, extreme cold, moving ice floes, high wind and low visibility," said Tatiana Saksina of the World Wildlife Fund's International Arctic Programme.

The Arctic marine environment is particularly susceptible to the effects of pollution and cleaning up oil spills would be extremely difficult if not impossible. "Yet there are no internationally binding rules to regulate operational pollution from offshore installations," Saksina said in a statement. "Strict standards for the transportation of Arctic oil are also urgently needed."

Keep reading ...

********************

And now, to the second article - which drives at the question posed in the title of the current post:

Energy independence should be an election issue
Canada still dependent on foreign oil, because USA has first dibs on Canadian oil
by Ricardo Acuña

One of the ways in which the current US presidential election differs from the current Canadian federal election is that oil prices, energy independence and energy security are all critical campaign issues for the US.

Americans are upset about high prices at the pump, and they are clearly concerned about being so dependent on "volatile" countries in the Middle East and Venezuela for more than a quarter of their petroleum needs.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have responded by making energy security and independence key planks in their respective platforms, and Senators Obama and McCain have gone out of their way to ensure they are addressing these issues in every speech.

The key issue they are addressing is the fact that the US currently imports more than 12 million barrels of oil per day, which represents almost 60 percent of its annual consumption of oil. With a full-out war being waged in Iraq, another one possibly on the way in Iran and an unabashedly unfriendly government in Venezuela, Americans are rightly concerned about the security of their supply. Add to that the reality that terrorist attacks against oil company facilities throughout the Middle East and Africa have been on the rise, and you can gain an appreciation for their level of concern.

It is to that end that John McCain is promising that "in a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025." Not to be outdone, Barack Obama is promising to "eliminate" the US's need for Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil "within 10 years."

Combined, the Persian Gulf and Venezuela account for just over 26 percent of US oil imports. Both candidates are vowing to eliminate the need for these imports through some combination of conservation measures and the promotion of "alternative fuels." Obama includes a windfall profits tax in his plan, and McCain wants to end the current moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.

Although their specific plans differ substantively, there can be no doubt that it is incredibly smart and strategic for them to be addressing these questions in such a high-profile way during this election.

These same issues, however, will receive no airtime or profile whatsoever during Canada's current federal election. Why would they?

Contrary to popular belief, Canada imports substantial amounts of oil every year — about 40 percent of all the oil we consume in Canada is imported. Breaking those numbers down regionally shows that Eastern Canada is dependent on imports for 90 percent of its oil needs.

Of the almost 850,000 barrels that Canada imports each day, almost half comes from OPEC countries, including Algeria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In other words, we are almost twice as dependent on volatile countries for our imports as the United States. Despite that fact, not one of Canada's federal parties even mentions energy security on their websites or in their platforms.

If we as Canadians can understand why the US would want to eliminate the need for the 26 percent of their imports that come from the Middle East and Venezuela, why are we sitting back and doing nothing about the fact that more than 45 percent of our imports come from similarly volatile countries?

Is it because of Alberta's tar sands, which are estimated to hold the world's second largest reserve of oil after Saudi Arabia?

Keep reading ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

U.S. Economy Bailouts: Another (Neo)Con Job In The Works

First, take this:

Bush Backs Unlimited Compensation For Disgraced CEOs

Today, the White House released a statement criticizing Congress’s potential plan to limit CEO compensation at the companies the federal government is bailing out, firmly standing against any “punitive measures”:

We certainly understand and are sympathetic to the sentiment regarding the pay of CEOs and senior management of these firms, but we have to focus on the problem, and the problem is that we need these firms to participate in the program and sell us this debt. Having punitive measures would provide a disincentive for firms to participate, and that would make the program much less likely to succeed.

CEO compensation and corporate governance in public companies are very important issues — especially when receiving taxpayer support — but we need to be focused on fixing this problem in our markets right now. We can and should return to those issues once we get this legislation passed.

President Bush also released another statement earlier today warning Congress against inserting any “unrelated provisions” — such as help for struggling homeowners — in the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

(Read more here)

Then take this:

Lawmakers React To Bailout

Man, I wish I knew which Democratic lawmaker said this:

We may strip out all the gives to industry in the predatory mortgage lending bill that the House passed last November, which hasn’t budged in the Senate, and include that in the bill. There are other ideas on the table but they are going to be tough to work out before next week.

I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.

I’m open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of them.

Unfortunately, that kind of anger and cojones are few and far between in DC, and another lawmaker outlines how he sees it going:

Here’s the industry’s play: progressives will approach Nancy with ideas for reform, and she’ll agree to push for their proposals, and she’ll really mean it. Then industry lobbyists will go to Dennis Moore, Melissa Bean and a few other Democrats, and tell them how dire the consequences of the proposals would be, and that the members who understand how the economy works need to step up to stop Nancy and the crazy liberals from doing something rash. Then those Democrats will go to Steny and tell him how terrible Nancy’s crazy ideas would be, and how we can’t rush into something like that without much, much more thought. [..] The only way, our leadership will conclude, to get anything at all passed is to include nothing more than the inconsequential proposals that the lobbyists agreed to. Then we’ll all go along because it would be wildly irresponsible not to act when we’re staring over the brink of a complete collapse of world financial markets.

I’d diagram it for you if I had a chalkboard. I’ve seen the play again and again, and it always goes for long yardage.

The only defense for the play is for a significant group of Democrats to say they won’t vote for any proposal that isn’t unpalatable to industry, and mean it. It’s a pretty high stakes game of chicken, but otherwise we come out of this with nothing but a $700 billion giveaway to a crooked industry.

(Read more here)

Now read this:

Paulson to the US - Grab Your Ankles

There's a plan afoot to screw the US taxpayer. It was proposed by the Treasury Secretary. He will attempt to ram it through Congress this week using scare tactics. The bottom line is this is the worst piece of legislation to come down the pike in a very long time. It should not be passed in present form.

Let me start with a point made by fellow econ blogger Mish:

It was only a month ago Paulson was reiterating to anyone who would listen how sound our banking system is. The fact of the matter is that neither Paulson nor Bernanke saw this coming, yet now Congress is supposed to trust they now "know" the solution.

Damn good point. In fact, everyone who is surprised by what happened over the last few weeks (which is damn well near everybody) should sit down and not even get involved in solving the current problem.

Here is a post that is currently up on my blog:

This is one of the worst bills to ever be proposed. Let's look at the primary problem:

If the Bush administration has its way, anyone harmed by the Treasury Department's handling of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout might have no remedy.

Draft legislation proposes sweeping powers for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to buy and sell mortgage-related securities however he sees fit. Aside from requiring periodic reports to Congress, the bill provides no oversight of the bailout's management -- and specifically bars any court or agency from reviewing it.

There is no mention of any accountability in this bill. Much like the problem that got us in this mess -- no oversight -- the exact same problem continues throughout the bailout.

Let's look at some other glaring problems:

Treasury will have authority to issue up to $700 billion of Treasury securities to finance the purchase of troubled assets. The purchases are intended to be residential and commercial mortgage-related assets, which may include mortgage-backed securities and whole loans. The Secretary will have the discretion, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to purchase other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets

Like -- what other kinds of assets? How about a car owned by the president of the IMF? That's an asset, isn't it? This is way too broad an authority to anybody.

Reporting. Within three months of the first asset purchases under the program, and semi-annually thereafter, Treasury will provide the appropriate Congressional committees with regular updates on the program.

So -- twice a year we get to hear how out tax dollars are spent. That will probably mean it will be accompanied by some report. But that's it. That's just not enough.

To qualify for the program, assets must have been originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008. Participating financial institutions must have significant operations in the U.S., unless the Secretary makes a determination, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that broader eligibility is necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.

Basically, the Treasury Secretary has the ability to determine anybody is eligible if be sees fit. It's hard to see Bernanke disagreeing on anything Paulson says.

The bottom line is this bill is replete with statements of "The Treasury Secretary's discretion". That's just not going to work when somebody wants $700 billion. That smacks of dictatorship and it should be avoided at all costs. Lack of oversight is what got us into this mess.

(Read more here)

And lastly, read this:

For The Love Of Money

Those of us who seek to intervene in policy debates in favor of economic justice and environmentally sustainability are regularly assured by the world's power brokers that they are fully committed to these goals so long as economic growth and the expansion of free trade are not compromised by governmental restraints on the market. So sacred have growth and free trade become in our modern culture that only rarely do we find the courage to ask why they should be given precedence over the needs of people and nature. Indeed, why should we consider accelerating growth and trade to be of any importance at all except to the extent that they serve people and nature?

When the proponents of growth, market deregulation, and free trade tout their benefits, it is well to bear in mind what some of the most outspoken of these proponents really have in mind. Take this account from a recent issue of Forbes magazine.

As disillusion with socialism and other forms of statist economics spreads, private, personal initiative is being released to seek its destiny. Wealth, naturally, follows. The two big openings for free enterprise in this decade have come in Latin America and the Far East. Not surprisingly, the biggest clusters of new billionaires on our list have risen from the ferment of these two regions. Eleven new Mexican billionaires in two years, seven more ethnic Chinese.

Taking a slightly more populist view, Business Week presented its own special report titled "A Millionaire a Minute," providing this breathless account of what the free market has accomplished in Asia.

Wealth.. . . Now East Asia is generating its own wealth on a speed and scale that probably is without historical precedent. The number of non-Japanese Asian multimillionaires is expected to double to 800,000 by 1996. . . . East Asia will surpass Japan in purchasing power within a decade. . . . There are new markets for everything from Mercedes Benz cars to Motorola mobile phones to Fidelity mutual funds. . . . To find the nearest precedent, you need to rewind U.S. history 100 years to the days before strong unions, securities watchdogs and antitrust laws.

Neither article made more than passing reference to the 675 million Asians who continue to live in absolute deprivation. So there we have it. In the eyes of two leading business journals, economic success is about creating millionaires and billionaires by denying workers the right to organize independent unions and giving free reign to securities fraud and the extraction of monopoly profits.

Most everyone is aware that we live in an unequal world. Few realize, however, just how extreme the inequality has become or how fast the gap between the poor and the super rich is growing. Forbes tells us the world now has 358 billionaires. Their combined net worth exceeds the combined net worth of the world's poorest 2½ billion people. This is but one manifestation of the extreme economic and social distortions created by the globalized free market economy idealized by business publications such as Forbes and Business Week.

Evidence is mounting that economic growth and free trade are not leading us toward economic justice and environmental sustainability. To the contrary, they are taking us in the direction of increasing economic injustice and environmental unsustainability. The debates over jobs versus the environment miss a basic point. Assuring everyone the means to meet their basic needs and achieving a sustainable balance with the environment are mutually supportive goals. Indeed, there are powerful theoretical arguments why, in a resource scarce world, neither is possible without the other. There is, however, an irreconcilable conflict between the goal of creating economically just and environmentally sustainable societies and embracing sustained economic growth, unregulated markets, and free trade as the organizing principles of public policy. The resulting policies are well suited to producing more millionaires and billionaires. They are ill suited to achieving justice and sustainability.

THE MONEY GAME

The world's most powerful instrument of governance is not a government. Nor is it a global corporation. Rather it is a global financial system that is running dangerously out of control.

Each day half a million to a million people--primarily Western Europeans, North Americans, and Japanese--arise as dawn reaches their part of the world, turn on their computers, and leave the real world of people, things, and nature to immerse themselves in playing the world's most lucrative computer game: the money game. As their computers come on line, they enter a world of cyberspace constructed of numbers that represent money and complex rules by which those numbers can be converted into a seemingly infinite variety of financial instruments, each with its own distinctive risks and reproductive qualities. Through their interactions, the players engage in competitive transactions aimed at acquiring for their own accounts the money that other players hold.

Players can also pyramid the amount of money in play by borrowing from one another and bidding up prices. Indeed, the money game players have been so successful in creating play money that for every $1 now circulating in the productive world economy of real goods and services, it is estimated that there is $20 to $50 circulating in the world of pure finance--"investment" funds completely delinked from the creation of real value. In the international currency markets alone, some $800 billion to $1 trillion changes hands each day--unrelated to productive investment or trade in actual goods and services.

Not only is the money game challenging and fun, the play money it generates can be exchanged for real money to buy things from people who work in the real world--lots of things. Unfortunately for the rest of us, though it is played like a game and the transactions involve nothing more than moving numbers from one electronic account to another through a global web of computers, the money game has enormous real consequences.

(Read more here)

Now put it all together while reading this:

The New New Deal
Footing the bill and holding the bag

Funny how gambling terms routinely pop us in discussions of globalized economics. Here I’m not just talking about desperate absurdities like state-sponsored lotteries to finance public education of all things. It’s about the “casino economy” itself, where international “players,” “stakeholders,” and “high rollers” “win” and “lose” fortunes by betting on the market’s ups and downs. And then there are periodic reshufflings and “new deals” like the famous one following the Great Crash of the 1930s. All of those are gambling terms.

Presently (following the Great Crash of 2008), we’re in the midst of yet another reshuffling and redistribution of cards – another New Deal. But whereas 30s version shifted money from the haves to the have-nots, the re-run promises an income redistribution from the disappearing middle class to the super-rich. They’re the gambling addicts who got us here in the first place.

And what will we get in return? Nothing, nada, zip.

The gamblers’ codependent enablers are making sure of that. Samuelson and Bernanke, along with corporation heads, their lawyers, professional economists, and the government representatives who share their beds are intent on pushing through a one-sided deal. They think we’re all too stupid to understand what they’re doing. So with a wink and a nod, they slip aces from the bottom of the deck into the hands of the card sharks that have been cheating all along.

Watch closely. Samuelson and Co. want to cancel their cronies’ losses, reshuffle the cards, and allow their pals some kind of do-over. All of this flies in the face of what we’ve been told are the rules of the game. Adam Smith’s version of Hoyle says losers should pay their gambling debts and suffer the consequences.

Of course they tell us that the consequences would be too much for the rest of us to bear. It would be the end of civilization as we know it, they warn. I’m still not sure about that. That rationale sounds a lot like the trickle-down thinking everyone’s running away from as fast as they can. It pretends that we’ve all been somehow benefitting from the market’s unreasonable exuberance over the last few years. I don’t think so. The ones cashing out at the casino bank are drawing those seven figure salaries we read about. Even Bear Stearns and Lehman execs are not suffering. Feeling no pain at all, they’re comfortably drifting to earth under golden parachutes.

(Read more here)

Conclusion: read the title of the current post.

Any questions?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The LPC And NDP Starting To Make A Liar Out Of Me ...

... and I, for one, don't mind one bit.

I wrote the following in a previous post concerning the LPC and the NDP (emphasis added):

(...) the LPC and its leader Stéphane Dion have been (and are still) too busy triangulating, seeking to run on their proposed "Green shift carbon tax plan" and making lavish billon dollars promises (see here, here and here, as examples) without any clear plan on how to pay for it all, while missing out on efficiently pushing issues that could sink Harper and the CPC (e.g. women rights/issues, the Afghanistan mission - which Harper is dodging by flip-flopping/backtracking and now giving it an end-date of 2011, the "In-and-Out" scandal, the Bush emulation, et al.), in addition to Dion seemingly behaving like a Dukakis/Kerry hybrid (of the 1988 and 2004 U.S. elections, respectively). Conversely, although the NDP and its leader Jack Layton have apparently learned the lessons of previous elections by challenging Harper only (and not the LPC at the same time), they keep underselling their own electoral platform (which still needs a little bit tilting towards the center) in favor of making no-plan billion dollars promises as well (examples here, here and here) while playing the "character" game above all (although Layton has apparently learned to play the character game this time around - one example here - but it will not be enough to put him over Harper and the CPC). In addition, many ridings lack actual NDP candidates (in mine, I see Jack Layton/NDP signs, but no candidate names). In between, Harper has the field wide open to criticize both Layton and Dion for their big spending promises.

Now, I was not that far of the grid when I wrote the preceding - case in point:

Liberals urge Dion to take focus off himself, Green Shift, and 'hammer' Tories

Although many Liberals are feeling more confident and energized following the latest Tory gaffe, the national Liberal campaign is on its way to becoming "the worst Liberal campaign ever," and senior Liberals are now urging the Liberal leader to focus his campaign on Tory "broken promises," gaffes, "mismanagement" of the economy, and to stop talking about the Green Shift plan describing it as "too complicated" to understand.

"Get back to the basics, and that's economic management. We're heading towards a deficit, and that's why they [Conservatives] called the election. They're mismanaging the economy, they're taking Canada into deficit when one of the worst economic crises is happening. You have to hammer home the economy. Talk about Flaherty picking a fight with McGuinty. Talk about broken promises—income trusts, the [fixed] election date [law]," said one senior Liberal, who spoke to The Hill Times on condition of anonymity.

"Whether you agree with those issues or don't agree with those issues, it's irrelevant. Those are the examples of broken promises. That's where I think the Liberals should focus and hammer. Forget all the other stuff.... Have some policy roll outs, have some of your team members talk about those policies, but then hammer, hammer, hammer. Get those negatives, drive up those negatives. That's what Liberals need to focus on and it should be clear and really pointed."

(Read more here)

Why, even yesterday I further chastised thusly:

Hence, my conclusion remains the same: the blame for a return of Harper and the CPC (whether as a minority - or even worse, as a majority - government) will be first and foremost our own to bear as Canadians ("mea culpa, mea culpa vox populi", as I often say). However, part of the blame will lie at the feet of the LPC and NDP whom have been running unfocused, if not actually ill-planned, ill-prepared, campaigns.

Bis repetita: I am definitely not happy ...

Well 'lo and behold:

A) Dion unveils Liberal platform, vows balanced budget (emphasis added):

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion trumpeted his party's track record of sound fiscal management Monday as he officially unveiled the Grits' platform.

"A Liberal government will never put Canada into deficit. Period," Dion told reporters in Ottawa, adding his party will earmark a contingency fund totalling $3 billion a year in case of an economic downturn.

"Fiscal discipline is now part of the Liberal DNA," he said.

"We were the party that turned a huge deficit into eight years of surpluses, and we will continue to put fiscal responsibility first."

(...) Along with the promise of balanced budgets, the platform also outlined the Liberal Green Shift plan, which has been met with confusion through much of the campaign so far.

"This progressive and fiscally responsible approach to the way Canada's tax system works enables us to cut taxes on those things we all want more of," said Dion.

According to Dion, the plan would result in lost revenue of only $90 million over four years, but would result in new funding sources worth $40 billion thanks to carbon taxes.

Dion stressed that every cent of the $40 billion would be returned to Canadians in the form of tax breaks.

Other highlights include a 10 per cent income tax reduction and a $10,000 refundable tax benefit for families who want to make their homes more energy efficient.

The platform also pledges to drop corporate taxes to 14 per cent over the next five years and to slash the current 31.5 per cent tax rate on income trusts. Instead, the Liberals would bring in a refundable, 10 per cent tax on income trusts.

The platform targets urban voters with promises to improve transit, roads and bridges, and aims to shore up political support in Ontario with a plan to create a $1-billion fund dedicated to aiding Canada's struggling manufacturing sector.

Dion also attacked the Conservatives for having a "right-wing agenda" and promised to "boost" funding for students and to restore cuts made to arts and culture funding.

At other points in his speech, Dion likened the policies of Stephen Harper's Conservatives to those of U.S. President George Bush.

"To me, the Americans are an ally, not a model," he said.

(...) "What I can tell you is that the numbers in the platform are taken directly from the last budget," said (Liberal Finance Critic) McCallum.

He added that the Liberals, with the $3 billion contingency fund, have a "much better" insurance policy than the Conservatives in the event of a slowdown in the Canadian economy.

Granted, much remains to be parsed out of this platform, which may have come too little too late, especially considering the previous billion dollars promises mentioned in the excerpt of my older post above (read this also). Nevetherless, it is a start and we have at last a plan from the LPC to sink our teeth into, a plan that must be exposed to the public again and again, including the main reminders concerning Harper and his Harpies that must be hammered on day in and day out (like this), until election day.

In so doing, Dion may (and I stress the word "may" here) also manage to shed his "Dukakis/Kerry hybrid" image in the process ...

Then we have B) Layton open to NDP coalition with Liberals (emphasis added):

The New Democratic Party is open to forming a coalition with the Liberals if it would help implement the party's policies, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Monday.

Layton, speaking to CTV's Canada AM, hinted he would work with the Liberals if the two parties combined won more seats in Parliament than the Tories on Oct. 14.

(...) "I think what I'll do is, hopefully, sit down in the Prime Minister's Office and pull together the leadership of my party and say, 'How can we best serve the country? How can we best get that child-care program that we committed to?"' he said.

"`How can we best get those doctors and nurses trained to deal with these wait times that are really concerning families?' And let's make it happen."

(...) Layton attacked the Tories, saying the party was taking Canada down the "wrong path" with policies that mirror those of U.S. President George Bush.

The NDP leader also repeated his promise to immediately withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan if his party wins the election.

(...) Later Monday, during a campaign stop in Hamilton, Ont., Layton said the only real priority of the Harper government was a $50 billion corporate tax cut.

Layton keeps on surprisingly coming through with leadership qualities that were not that apparent previously, while at the same time now hammering on the rightwing flaws of Harper and his Harpies. Just keep at it, Layton and NDP. However, we still need a clearly defined platform/plan to sink our teeth into and to be pushed again and again - especially in light of the previous billion dollars promises mentioned in the excerpt of my older post above. That, and the fact that I would like to compare the NDP plan and that of the LPC before making a final decision on which of these two parties to vote for.

Nonetheless, there is now some progress in the focus and conduct of the LPC and NDP campaigns.

We need more of this - if only to grab the attention of the majority of Canadians and make them pay close attention to these elections.

Hell, Canada definitely needs more of this if we are to be rid of Harper and his neocon Harpies.

So keep on making a liar out of me, guys - please.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Disaster In Afghanistan

Disaster in Afghanistan
by John W. Warnock

It is difficult to find out what is really going on in Afghanistan. The focus of the mass media is almost entirely on the military activities of the Canadian and NATO forces. There is absolutely no coverage of political developments. The news on the economy is limited to the state of the poppy industry. This is no accident. The North American media, including the CBC, has strongly supported the U.S./NATO strategy and the administration of President Hamid Karzai. Contrary to the mainstream message, things are not going well.

Rise in civilian casualties

Over the past few weeks NATO forces have killed civilians in a number of incidents, and popular opposition to the western military effort is increasing. On August 22 the United States bombed the village of Azizabad in Herat province; the result was the death of 91 civilians, including over 60 children. Rockets and missiles were also used. Many homes were destroyed. Local citizens stoned the Afghan army when they tried to distribute supplies. NATO forces in Paktika province launched an artillery attack on a village on September 1 as part of a general sweep-and-destroy mission against Taliban forces. Three children were killed and seven injured. That same day U.S. and Afghan forces carried out an overnight raid in Hud Kheil, east of Kabul. A family of four, including two children, were killed when hand grenades were thrown into their house. In Kabul hundreds blocked the main road out of town protesting the military practices of the international forces.

Afghan government and NATO attacks

In response to the steady increase of civilian deaths this year, the Afghan parliament passed a resolution in August calling on the Karzai administration to negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement with NATO and United States, making it consistent with Afghan and international law. President Karzai’s cabinet demanded “an end to air attacks in civilian areas, illegal detentions and unilateral house searches.” There is growing opposition to the presence of the occupying forces. The Senlis Council reported in June 2008 that in their most recent recent public opinion survey “more than six out of ten of those interviewed ... said that foreign troops should leave.” This is the position taken by many of the democratic parties in Afghanistan. Malalai Joya, the outspoken critic of the Karzai government, has called for all foreign troops to leave the country. She argues that Afghans can settle this dispute better on their own.

The approaching famine

However, the most important current issue in Afghanistan is the drought, the crop failure, and the prospect of famine. This story has received no coverage in the North American media.

Full article ...

punditman says ...

I am having a Vietnam flashback (which doesn't make much sense because I was just a kid playing softball and humming Three Dog Night songs in my head in the summer of '69).

Anyway, the flashback has to do with Western powers fighting stupid counter insurgency campaigns, with the predictable media compliance on the home front. A lot of folks fall for it. I suspect that those who dutifully queue up each morning in Tim Hortons drive-throughs with "Support the Troops" ribbons on their cars are part of the 41 per cent who approve of Canada's military action in Afghanistan -- but that they have not done a lot of independent research on the subject. And most probably never will.

It is amazing that in this age of easily accessbile information, so many people have bought into the notion that we are helping Afghans build their democracy. It is true there have been some success stories in the area of development aid, but these are hard to achieve and maintain in the context of the US-led search and destroy campaign. And aid alone does not equal democracy.

As the article points out, not only is NATO killing Afghan civilians at an alarming rate, losing the so-called "hearts and minds" campaign and even pissing off the puppet regime of Hamid Karzai, the US is actually blocking Afghan democratic aspirations. That's right. Blocking it. Read the whole freakin' article from the smart professor if you don't believe me. After all, I'm having a flashback.

(Mentarch here, to add: as if we never saw, let alone predicted, this very outcome, eh? Then again, who ever listens to reasoning, rational folks like us?)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Prime Douchebag Of Canada - Part Deux

Oh, this is rich (emphasis added):

Harper hands off UN speech duty to envoy

George W. Bush will be among world leaders who begin their addresses at the United Nations annual summit tomorrow, but officials say Prime Minister Stephen Harper will skip the week-long event amid election campaigning.

While Bush appears for the last time as U.S. president before the other 191 member states in the General Assembly, Canada is dispatching bureaucrats -- albeit one or two high-level ones among them -- ahead of Canada's scheduled turn at the podium Thursday.

John McNee, the Canadian ambassador to the UN, is expected to deliver Canada's address, which would mark the first time in years a prime minister or foreign affairs minister has not attended the annual gathering of global chiefs.

Officials close to Mr. Harper say it would be "inappropriate" for the prime minister to travel to the UN during the campaign.

Ri-ight.

There they go again.

How about simply doing your job for which you are still holding title, you Mr. Prime Douchebag you?

And the same thing goes for your equally absurd Mr. Useless of a Foreign Minister.

How about striking this point home again and again, LPC and NDP?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Palin Proves Lying's A Hard Habit To Break

Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska
By Anne E. Kornblut

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.

"America can never go back to that false sense of security that came before September 11, 2001," she said at the deployment ceremony, which drew hundreds of military families who walked from their homes on the sprawling post to the airstrip where the service was held.


Keep Reading (if you can stomach her)...

punditman says ... She's possibly the most dangerous political creature to ever run for high public office. If you think that's me hyperbolizing, just think of the stakes: she could be a heartbeat away from ordering war with Russia and/or Iran (she has hinted at both possibilities). Either could easily go nuclear. It's too bad she's considered a hottie; because if she wasn't, then the shallow and tepid American media would be giving her far less play -- and leeway.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

As If There Were No More Important Issues Enough ...

... this is what truly matters to Harper and his Harpies:

Harper vows to allow naming of 14-and-over youth guilty of serious crimes

Stephen Harper vowed Monday that a re-elected Conservative government would reduce protections under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for young people convicted of serious crimes.

Under the Conservative leader's proposal, young people 14 and over found guilty of crimes such as manslaughter, murder or aggravated assault would face tougher sentences, and no longer have their identities protected.

The act currently forbids the release of young offenders' identities, unless the accused are found guilty and handed adult sentences.

Judges would also be allowed to decide whether a young offender who is convicted again for a less serious crime should be identified.

(...) Harper said the tougher sentences would act as a deterrent for would-be criminals.

“In this new legislation, the main purpose will be not only to rehabilitate young offenders, but also to protect society, and the primary goal of sentencing will be to deter others from violating the law,” Harper said at an event.

Ah yes - nothing else matters more than getting tough on crime - especially on (shriek!) youth gangs (shriek!) and all those 14 year olds out there who are up to no good.

They.Must.Be.Exposed.

Say - why not make them wear a scarlet letter while your at it, Harpies?

So there they go again - fearmongering and posturing all tough on crime to distract folks who do not know better, therefore leaving them oblivious to the actual issues at hand.

Sounds familiar, eh?

What's next - flag burning? A return to the same-sex marriage question yet again?

Now, such petty and pathetic tactics on the part of neocons like Harper and his Harpies is something that is fully expected. What actually grinds my stones is that only a tiny minority of folks out there are apparently wise to this - while the media is snoring along (as usual) and the LPC and NDP are ... out there, missing out on rebuking Harper's fearmongering efficiently.

Say hello to a Harper minority government (at best) one more time, folks.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Bush In Pakistan = Nixon In Cambodia?

The New 'Invasion of Cambodia'
by William Pfaff

The United States has just invaded Cambodia. The name of Cambodia this time is Pakistan, but otherwise it’s the same story as in Indochina in 1970.

An American army, deeply frustrated by its inability to defeat an anti-American insurgent movement despite years of struggle, decides that the key to victory lies in a neighboring country. In 1970 the problem was the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia. Today it is Taliban and al Qaeda bases inside Pakistan, which the United States has been attacking from the air for some time, with controversial “collatoral damages.”

George W. Bush has now authorized independent ground assaults on Taliban and al Qaeda targets in Pakistan’s Tribal Territories, without consultation with Pakistan authorities. These already have begun.

This follows a period of tension, with some armed clashes, between American and Pakistani military units, the latter defending “Pakistan’s national sovereignty.” Pakistan public opinion seems largely against “America’s war” being fought inside Pakistan.

Washington’s decision was made known just in time for the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that opened the first phase of the “war on terror,” after which “nothing could ever be the same.” We no doubt have now begun phase two.

Read more ...


punditman says ...

And now this: Pakistani Troops Fired on US Helicopters Trying to Cross Border. Using Pakistan as a gambit in the ever-expanding, endless war on terror is not going to work any more than invading Cambodia worked to help win another unwinnable war a generation ago. "Bold moves" such as these only serve to show up the US for the bumbling giant that it is, while making scores of new enemies for every civilian maimed or killed.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Yet Another "Miracle Man" Got Busted

Ah, the hypocrisy of those so-called "Christian moral values":

FBI agents and state police raided an evangelist's headquarters Saturday as part of a child pornography investigation and said they planned to remove several children from the complex, run by a man previously accused of child abuse.

The raid at the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries south of Texarkana started an hour before sunset. Armed guards regularly patrol the ministry headquarters, but there was apparently no resistance as agents moved in.

(...) Alamo's church is in a single-story building that looks like a strip mall. A white cross stands atop the structure, with a small steeple to the right side.

Alamo was once accused in California of directing the beating of a church member's 11-year-old son. In 1994, he was sentenced to six years in prison on tax evasion charges filed in Memphis, Tennessee.

The judge in the tax case ordered him held pending sentencing after prosecutors argued that the evangelist was a flight risk and a polygamist who preyed on married women and girls in his congregation. U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla said he was concerned over "the very great control Mr. Alamo has over a number of people.

Which, incidentally, reminds me of this little song:

(Ozzy Osbourne - Miracle Man)

And so it goes ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

What's The Matter With Us Canadians?

Following up on yesterday's post and this earlier one today, I found this interesting article:

What's the Matter With Canada?
How the world's nicest country turned mean
By Christopher Flavelle

Last Sunday, news came that Canada—sensible, quiet, some would even say boring Canada—will hold an election on Oct. 14, its third in four years. Those outside the country may wonder what the problem is; in Canada, after all, health care is free, the dollar is strong, same-sex marriage is legal, and the government had the good sense to stay out of Iraq. You might think of Canada as the un-America, where the only debate ought to be whether to spend the country's growing oil wealth on faster snowmobiles, bigger hockey rinks, or Anne Murray box sets.

But beneath the calm exterior, Canada's political system is in turmoil. Since 2004, a succession of unstable minority governments has led to a constant campaign frenzy, brutalizing Canada's once-broad political consensus and producing a series of policies at odds with the country's socially liberal, fiscally conservative identity. Canada is quietly becoming a political basket case, and this latest election may make things even worse.

Just scan the headlines. In June, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned that Canada—for years the only G8 country to post regular budget surpluses—was likely to fall into deficit this year, thanks to a reckless cut to the national sales tax. In February, the government proposed denying funding to films and TV shows whose content it deemed "not in the public interest," sparking cries of censorship from a sector that has historically received public support. In 2007, a member of the governing Conservative Party proposed a bill that would reopen the debate over abortion, a topic that governments both liberal and conservative have avoided for decades.

The country is projecting its uncharacteristic behavior abroad as well. After decades of encouraging countries to increase their foreign-aid spending, Canada cut its own, from 0.34 percent of GDP in 2005 to just 0.2 percent last year. Long a beacon of human rights, Ottawa announced last fall that it would stop advocating on behalf of Canadians sentenced to death in other countries. And Canada is now the only Western country that still has one of its citizens held in Guantanamo, but Ottawa has refused to press for his release.

But nowhere is the rift between the old and new Canada more apparent than with regards to the environment. Canada was an early and enthusiastic supporter of the fight against climate change, and as recently as 2005 it was the Canadian environment minister who helped broker an agreement to extend the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012. Then last December, at a U.N. conference in Bali to negotiate a successor to Kyoto, Canada executed a neat 180-degree turn, trying to block an agreement that set a target for future cuts to greenhouse-gas emissions. Of the 190 countries at the conference, only Russia supported Canada's position.

Left-leaning Canadians blame the country's predicament on the current Conservative government, which was first elected two years ago. They're right, to a point. The Conservative Party, formed five years ago in a merger of the country's two right-wing parties, is Canada's first experience with an anti-government, socially conservative party in the mold of Reagan-Bush Republicans. Its leader, Stephen Harper, who is now the prime minister, once called Canada "a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term."

But the Conservative Party wouldn't be in power, let alone willing to risk such divisive policies, were it not for the collapse of the country's most formidable political institution, the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberals have been Canada's left-wing standard-bearers since the country's independence in 1867. And just as Canada's right-wing parties were coming together, the Liberal Party was coming apart.


Keep reading ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

As Polls Come And Go ...

... it is now beginning to look like we may even end up with an actual Harper majority government?

Indeed, a Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll released today shows the CPC at 39%, the LPC at 23% and the NDP at 17%, notwithstanding that Layton is now the best perceived in terms of "leader ranking" while Dion is dead last.

To this effect, why am I not surprised to learn that only two in ten Canadians are actually paying closer attention to these elections, as it should be, while the majority (65%) do not pay more attention than the previous ones?

That is the cancer on the body democratic which I've been talking about, folks.

That is what intellectual sloth and the search for instant gratification does to democracy.

This. Is. Not. Good.

Once again:

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 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.

Then this reminder:

We are living in a dangerous period of the history of our democraties. You can blame the politicians, the media, the corporations, the lobbying groups, or anyone else, yet the painful and ever so tragic truth remains this: we have only ourselves to blame.

Point of fact to this: it is we (at least, those of us who actually bother to get off the tv couch and go out to vote) who elect demagogues that "make us feel good, make us feel secure, make us feel at ease" while rejecting with disdain and mistrust the genuine candidates that are actually knowledgeable and better qualified as leaders.

So, let it be known ad nauseam: 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)?

And this other little verity:

It is high time to remember that it is indeed we who guard all the doors and hold all the keys of our democratic values and institutions.

It is, in the end, up to us to act as the Guardians and Caretakers of our constitutions, our civil rights and our civil liberties.

It has always been up to us.

Hence, my conclusion remains the same: the blame for a return of Harper and the CPC (whether as a minority - or even worse, as a majority - government will be first and foremost our own to bear as Canadians ("mea culpa, mea culpa vox populi", as I often say). However, part of the blame will lie at the feet of the LPC and NDP whom have been running unfocused, if not actually ill-planned, ill-prepared, campaigns.

Bis repetita: I am definitely not happy ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The U.S. As An Impoverished Nation?

Impacts of the Financial Crisis: The U.S. Is Becoming an Impoverished Nation
by Richard C. Cook

Everything the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department are trying to do to stem the tide of the self-destructing U.S. financial system is a stopgap. They are locking the barn door after the horse—many horses—have already escaped, and they know it.

They also know the cause of the crisis is not subprime mortgage lending—that was just the trigger. Cries to re-regulate the failed financial industry are coming from Congress, the media, and investors around the world. But lax regulation is not the cause of the problem either.

For now, all the Federal Reserve can do is loan more “liquidity” into the system that must eventually be collateralized by Treasury debt—that is, debt incurred by taxpayers—to cover bad loans made previously with credit which the banking system created out of thin air.

The Federal Reserve and Treasury are trying to forestall and cover up the bankruptcy of the entire U.S. economy, which already is looming. But the injection of liquidity into the system only means more loans and more interest. With more foreclosures and bankruptcies, it also means that more assets pass into the bankers’ hands.

No doubt the decision makers hope to prevent a cataclysmic meltdown, at least until after the November presidential election. President George W. Bush is being deeply discredited, because it happened on his watch. Republican presidential candidate John McCain looks more out-of-touch and clueless with each passing day.

But even though all the attention has been focused on “Wall Street”; i.e., financial institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Washington Mutual, and AIG—with more to come—none of these would have gotten into so much trouble without the nation’s banks having acted to leverage speculative investments with money they themselves generated as electronic ledger entries.

And it’s the banks—or at least some of them—that may be the next to go.

Read more ...

punditman says ...

This article sums up what has been happening to the US economy and lays the blame squarely where it belongs: on the "geniuses" who run the country. It is they who created a "debt-based monetary system, with a debt pyramid in the tens of trillions of dollars...made even more dysfunctional with our loss of societal purchasing power due to the outsourcing of jobs to cheaper labor markets."

It's all connected. Expecting war as diversionary tactic more than ever.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Elections: A Tale Of Two Sides Of The 49th Parallel

At last, I am back from a final crunch with regards to science writing stuff (grant applications, papers). Oh sure - more is on the way, but things will then be less, ah, "crunching" to this effect.

So, what to blog about on this day of my return? Why, elections of course - in Canada and the U.S.

And why opine on both at the same time, you ask?

The reason is simple: the stakes are pretty much the same in both countries.

Or rather, the fundamental question underlying the general elections in Canada and the U.S. is essentially the same: will the people wise up and rid themselves of the same brand of far right republicans/conservatives?

(Fair warning: this post is a rather lenghty one!)

As many Canadian progressives have pointed out in the last couple of years (yours truly included, bien sûr), today's brand of Canadian conservatism as displayed and promulgated by the CPC is pretty much the same as that of the U.S. Republican party (RNC or "G.O.P.", as it likes to call itself) - including neoconservatism, Christian Right "moral" values, self-proclaimed "toughness on crime", self-proclaimed "toughness on security", boastful (false) patriotism, et al.

And of course, the same talking points are used:

On the so-called self-serving, fearmongering motive behind the "threat" from "Islamofascists/terrorists"? (emphasis added)

"They hate what we see right here in this chamber - a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 09/20/2001;

"The terrorists hate our country, they hate our freedom, they hate everything we stand for in the world." - (G.O.P.) U.S. Vice-President R. ("Dick") B. Cheney, 03/26/2004;

"I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 06/10/2008;

"And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms. Those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted." - (G.O.P. candidate for Vice-President of the U.S.) Governor Sarah Palin, 09/11/2008;

"They hate open, diverse and democratic societies like ours because they want the exact opposite, a society that is closed, homogeneous and dogmatic." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 06/19/2006.

On "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here"? (emphasis adeed)

"We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 10/25/2004;

"We will confront and defeat the terrorists at the heart and center of their power so we do not have to face them on the streets of our own cities." - (G.O.P.) U.S. Vice-President R. ("Dick") B. Cheney, 03/26/2004;

"Failure in Afghanistan risks a reversion to its pre-9/11 role as a sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorists with global reach." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 02/10/2007;

"Defeating radical Islamist extremists is the national security challenge of our time. Iraq is this war's central front, according to our commander there, General David Petraeus, and according to our enemies, including al Qaeda's leadership." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, Nov./Dec./2007;

"In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target. I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table." - (G.O.P. candidate for Vice-President of the U.S.) Governor Sarah Palin, 09/11/2008;

"I don't have to tell you ... the risk that terrorism will come home if we don't confront it here (in Afghanistan)." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 06/19/2006.

On "staying the course"? (emphasis added)

"So we've got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 04/05/2004;

"But ultimately what they (the terrorists)'re betting on is that we don't have the stomach for the fight, and we cannot afford to validate that strategy. We can win (in Iraq). We are winning, but we've got to stay at it." - (G.O.P.) U.S. Vice-President R. ("Dick") B. Cheney, 06/22/2006;

"We've got to stay the course (in Iraq)." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 10/24/2004;

"I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq." - (G.O.P. candidate for Vice-President of the U.S.) Governor Sarah Palin, 09/11/2008;

"We honor those who take risks and make the ultimate sacrifice (in Afghanistan) by making a commitment to staying the course." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 05/17/2006.

On "cutting and running"? (emphasis added)

"We're not going to cut and run (from Iraq) if I'm in the Oval Office." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 04/21/2004;

"We're in this (Iraq) fight to win. These colors don't run." - (G.O.P.) U.S. Vice-President R. ("Dick") B. Cheney, 12/18/2005;

"I was heartened to hear the president say that we cannot cut and run in Iraq." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 11/05/2003;

"We can't cut and run." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 09/22/2005;

"Cutting and running (from Afghanistan) is not your way. It's not my way." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 03/13/2006.

On the "valididty" of the Iraq war, WMDs, regime change, et al.? (emphasis added)

"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions - its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror (...) (The Iraqi regime) has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons. It is rebuilding the facilities used to make those weapons (...) Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program (...) (Saddam) is seeking nuclear weapons (...) he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 10/07/2002;

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 (...) The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 05/01/2003;

"I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, c.a. 07/2005;

"It is a certainty that the al Qaeda network is pursuing such (weapons of mass destruction), and has succeeded in acquiring at least a crude capability to use them. We found evidence of their efforts in the ruins of al Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan (...) containment is not possible when dictators obtain weapons of mass destruction, and are prepared to share them with terrorists who intend to inflict catastrophic casualties on the United States (...) Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator (Saddam Hussein), or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined." - (G.O.P.) U.S. Vice-President R. ("Dick") B. Cheney, 08/26/2002;

"(Saddam's) had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - (G.O.P.) U.S. Vice-President R. ("Dick") B. Cheney, 03/16/2003;

"Terrorist training camps exist on Iraqi soil, and Iraqi officials are known to have had a number of contacts with al-Qaida. These were probably not courtesy calls. Americans have internalized the mantra that Afghanistan represents only the first front in our global war on terror. The next front is apparent, and we should not shrink from acknowledging it. A terrorist resides in Baghdad, with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of defying the international community's demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 02/02/2002;

"Look, we need a regime change in Iraq (...) I think we also ought to prepare the American public in — in — by way of informing them that Saddam Hussein has these weapons, continues to attempt to improve the — their capability and would not be reluctant to export them to other countries. So we need to keep telling the American people that as well, as well as basically — if I may be so blunt — frightening them — frightening and scaring them every day." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 07/16/2002;

"Sept. 11, 2001 showed that al-Qaida is a grave threat. Saddam Hussein has the ability to make a far worse day of infamy by turning Iraq into a weapons assembly line for al-Qaida's network." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 02/14/2003;

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right (in Iraq). Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending (troops) out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." - (G.O.P. candidate for Vice-President of the U.S.) Governor Sarah Palin, 09/03/2008;

"(...) there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein operates programs to produce weapons of mass destruction. Experience confirms this. British, Canadian and American intelligence leaves no doubt on the matter. Canada should stand with its allies to remove the Hussein regime. Failure to do so is not fitting with the greatness of our history or with our standing as a nation." - (then opposition leader) S.J. Harper, Jan/03;

"Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations. This is a serious mistake (...) Modern Canada was forged in large part by war - not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century - against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism - Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." - (then opposition leader and foreign affairs critic) S.J. Harper and S. Day, 03/28/03;

"On the justification for the (Iraq) war, it wasn’t related to finding any particular weapons of mass destruction. In our judgement, it was much more fundamental. It was the removing of a regime that was hostile, that clearly had the intention of constructing weapons systems." - (then opposition leader) S.J. Harper, 08/25//03.

On the "righteousness" of the Afghanistan war, regime change, its progress/success, etc.? (emphasis added)

"In Afghanistan, we saw how terrorists and extremists can use those safe havens, safe havens in a failed state, to bring death and destruction to our people here at home (...) And one of the lessons of that September the 11th day is that we cannot allow terrorists to gain sanctuary anywhere, and we must not allow them to reestablish the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan. Our goal in Afghanistan is to help the people of that country to defeat the terrorists and establish a stable, moderate, and democratic state that respects the rights of its citizens, governs its territory effectively, and is a reliable ally in this war against extremists and terrorists (...) we have made remarkable progress (in Afghanistan)." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 02/15/2007;

"We also began to understand, particularly from the evidence that we uncovered in Afghanistan, that our enemies are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. And we have every reason to believe that if they succeed, they will use them, launching attacks far more deadly than anything we've ever experienced (...) So in addition to going after the terrorists, we are also taking on states that sponsor terror. In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime harbored al-Qaeda and brutalized an entire population. That regime is no more." - (G.O.P.) U.S. Vice-President R. ("Dick") B. Cheney, 09/17/2003;

"(...) I wanted to come and let you know how impressed we've been with the tremendous progress (made in Afghanistan) (...) By fighting enemies, by standing with our friends, we honor both the ideals and protect the security interests of the United States. The victory of freedom in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq, will be an inspiration to democratic reformers in other lands." - (G.O.P.) U.S. Vice-President R. ("Dick") B. Cheney, 12/19/2005;

"I believe that we will succeed. We will endure in Afghanistan. We will take out bin Laden, and we will take out the Taliban. And then we've got a major challenge of a stable government (...) But I think the real crunch is going to come after Afghanistan is settled and then we have to address the other countries, including Iraq." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 10/21/2001;

"(...) I think that so far the NATO engagement in Afghanistan has been largely successful (...) I think Afghanistan is dicey. I think that there are certain areas of the country, particularly along the Pakistani border, that are clearly not under the control of either Pakistan or the Afghan government (...) There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that - in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan. So I'm guardedly optimistic (...)" - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 11/05/2003;

"So far, it's a remarkable success." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 03/02/2005;

"Afghanistan, we don’t read about anymore, because it’s succeeded. And by the way, there’s several reasons, including NATO participation and other reasons, why Afghanistan is doing as well as it is." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 10/31/2005;

"Very quickly after assuming office, looking at all of Canada's interests abroad, we determined that the single most important thing we're doing in terms of our commitments, in terms of the risks were taking, in terms of the leadership we're showing, the most important thing is what we're doing in Afghanistan." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 03/12/2006;

"You (the soldiers) have put yourselves on the line to defend our national interests; protect Canada and the world from terror (...) it is in our national interest to see Afghanistan become a free, democratic and peaceful country." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 03/13/2006;

"(...) the Government stands firmly behind the vital role being played by our troops in Afghanistan today. The dedicated Canadians in Afghanistan deserve all of our support as they risk their lives to defend our national interests, combat global terrorism and help the Afghan people make a new start as a free, democratic and peaceful country." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 04/04/2006;

"(...) we have made real progress here (in Afghanistan)." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 03/12/2006;

"Progress is being made (in Afghanistan) (...)." - (then) (CPC) Public Safety Minister of Canada S. Day, 04/24/07;

"Canada and Afghanistan have together made significant progress in the last 14 months, progress that was unthinkable only a few years ago." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 05/22/2007;

"I don't have to tell you the story, the link between Afghanistan and the attacks of 9/11, the oppression and brutality endured under the Taliban and the risk that terrorism will come home if we don't confront it here. You also know the progress we have made since the beginning of the mission over five years ago." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 05/23/2007;

"Let's not forget that on 9/11, terrorism came to our shores (from Afghanistan). So we have to be vigilant and very responsible in continuing to play a role in Afghanistan (...) When the Afghanistan government can take care of its own interests, then we can come home (...) Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan has enhanced its international reputation as a defender of freeedom and democracy. It's a volatile world and we have a very important role to play, as we have in previous conflicts." - (CPC) National Defense Minister of Canada P.G. MacKay, 09/10/2007.

And on the economy? (emphasis added)

"The fundamentals of our economy are strong." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 08/21/2007;

"The U.S. economy has some strains but its underpinnings remain strong and resilient." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 11/13/2007;

"I don't think we're headed to recession. But no question, we're in a slowdown." - (G.O.P.) U.S. President G.W. Bush, 02/28/2008;

"I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 08/20/2008;

"There has been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street. People are frightened by these events. Our economy I think, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times." - (G.O.P. candidate for President of the U.S.) Senator John McCain, 09/15/2008;

"Canada's economic fundamentals and the oversight of its financial system remain strong." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 04/08/2008;

"Canada's economic fundamentals remain strong." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 07/30/2008;

"The Canadian economy's fundamentals are solid." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 09/15/2008;

"At the moment there are problems in the Canadian economy, but we aren't in a recession." - (CPC) Prime Minister of Canada S.J. Harper, 09/15/2008.

Notice how they also tend to contradict themselves while hanging on desperately to the same talking points as time goes by and as they keep being proven wrong - whether with regards to justifications for going to war, to the Taliban ressurgence in Afghanistan, to the success of the surge in Iraq, to any tangible, significant and sustained progress in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, and even with regards to the economy.

This last week of the McCain-Palin campaign constitutes a paragon of such dynamic - one driven by the 2nd, 4th and 5th Principles of Incompetence. Lying and obfuscating are second nature to them to such degrees, thus ever compelled to distort and exaggerate facts and the truth, that they just can't keep up with reality anymore as events keep on unravelling their lies and fabrications.

Hell, the McCain-Palin has been lying so much about everything and anything (from crowd attendance at rallies or fishes loving oil rigs, to Alaska contributing a whopping 20% to the whole of the U.S. energy needs, via selling state corporate jets on eBay or promising to put the federal checkbook online when this is already implemented), including tap dancing, flip-flopping and side-stepping so as to finding themselves twisted into impossible knots, that this campaign has crossed the threshold of the ridiculous into the great beyond of the absurd.

And this is not counting the outright, shameful lies and fabrications concerning their opponents - including of course accusing them of being guilty for what they have done/are doing (examples here, here, here and here).

Which in turn reminds me of this:

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

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

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

Harper and his Harpies are no exception to this (numerous examples can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, among many) - not counting their staunch support/defense of Bush/Cheney doctrine, policies and vision, stance on Kyoto and obfuscation/disinformation on global warming, seeking backdoor/underhanded ways to render abortion illegal, stance against same-sex marriage, et al..

In fact, we get the exact same playbook:

A) Blame everything on the previous "liberal" government;
B) Rewrite recent history;
C) Politicize the apparels of Government;
D) Pander to/adopt Christian Right fundamentalist values;
E) Be a warhawk/chickenhawk;
F) Use faux patriotism (and fearmongering).

All things considered, including the utterly disastrous eight years of the Bush-Cheney regime, one would be tempted to conclude that the republicans/conservatives are facing a definite booting out of government in both Canada and the U.S., once these elections are over and done with - right?

Not so fast - sadly enough.

On the one hand, the nation-wide lead of the Democratic Party Obama-Biden ticket over that of the insanely absurd McCain-Palin (or should that be Palin-McCain?) G.O.P. ticket is on average slim, in contrast to what one would expect. Since the McCain-Palin campaign keeps on doing their best to make the elections about character instead of issues (like Bush-Cheney did in 2000 and 2004), banking on the general state of misinformation and/or non-information in the electorate, it looks like indeed too many among the American People are either falling for this same old song and dance, or are being confused by it just enough so far - which may tip the balance in favor of the McCain-Palin ticket in the end. Consequently, we may be facing a situation whereby the Democratic ticket has a slim majority of the total suffrages (say, 51% to 49%) and yet loosing out on the electoral college votes attributed per state (a somewhat facsimile of 2000). Nonetheless, there is hope here that the Obama-Biden may win the day clearly and definitely - although, again, not by the landslide that would be logically expected under the circumstances.

On the other hand, hope is slim in Canada that Harper and his Harpies will lose the elections. Whereas the current McCain-Palin ticket acts like a bad parody of themselves, Harper and the CPC act more like the Bush-Cheney ticket and G.O.P. of 2004. Consequently, these elections are being driven first and foremost (of course) about character, instead of issues. And this is working largely because this is playing on the general state of misinformation and/or non-information in the electorate (as in the U.S.) and because of Harper apparently having no "strong enough" opponent to truly challenge him and his party. Indeed, the LPC and its leader Stéphane Dion have been (and are still) too busy triangulating, seeking to run on their proposed "Green shift carbon tax plan" and making lavish billon dollars promises (see here, here and here, as examples) without any clear plan on how to pay for it all, while missing out on efficiently pushing issues that could sink Harper and the CPC (e.g. women rights/issues, the Afghanistan mission - which Harper is dodging by flip-flopping/backtracking and now giving it an end-date of 2011, the "In-and-Out" scandal, the Bush emulation, et al.), in addition to Dion seemingly behaving like a Dukakis/Kerry hybrid (of the 1988 and 2004 U.S. elections, respectively). Conversely, although the NDP and its leader Jack Layton have apparently learned the lessons of previous elections by challenging Harper only (and not the LPC at the same time), they keep underselling their own electoral platform (which still needs a little bit tilting towards the center) in favor of making no-plan billion dollars promises as well (examples here, here and here) while playing the "character" game above all (although Layton has apparently learned to play the character game this time around - one example here - but it will not be enough to put him over Harper and the CPC). In addition, many ridings lack actual NDP candidates (in mine, I see Jack Layton/NDP signs, but no candidate names). In between, Harper has the field wide open to criticize both Layton and Dion for their big spending promises. This whole situation is further compounded by the media's apparent amnesia (or timid mentionning) of Harper/CPC scandals, gaffes and woes (examples here, here and here; and see another list here) - again, in a similar situation as that of the 2004 elections in the U.S. and in sharp contrast to the current 2008 U.S. elections.

Taking these considerations altogether, we get the following result: a recent Canwest News Service/Global National poll indicates that Canadians' pick as would-be best Prime Minister stand at 49.9% for Harper, 30.5% for Jack Layton, and 19.6% for Stéphane Dion. Granted, such polls are inherently biased towards incumbent Prime Ministers; nevertheless, a recent Canadian Press/Harris-Decima poll indicates the voting intentions of Canadians as follows: 36% for the CPC, 27% for the LPC, and 16% for the NDP. Hence, it looks like we are heading right back were we started in 2006, ending up with a Harper minority government again (at best) - which will mean at least two more years (if not four) of Harper governing as if he heads a majority government, being enabled to do so as in the last two years by the two other opposition parties which will be again too busy with their re-evaluations and triangulations (if not having to choose a new leader yet again, in the case of the LPC).

Although it is a given that I will not vote for Harper and the CPC, I find myself being frustrated by the fact that I just can't decide yet on whether to vote LPC or NDP - in large part due to overall unfocused campaigning on their part.

Need I say that I am not happy at all by the way things are apparently playing themselves out - in both the U.S. and, especially, in Canada?


(Cross-posted at NetRoots, The Wild Wild Left, The Peace Tree and DKos)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

McCain's *True* Character

So, McCain, Palin and the Republicans are doing everything they can to make this U.S. elections about character, instead of issues, reasoning that they will confuse voters enough to make them trust McCain's character much more than Obama's. Well, how about taking a close look at McCain's vaunted character? Read the following article and enjoy:

Judging John McCain's character
Candidate's boyish charm hides his dreary record of ethics and behaviour
by John Chuckman

McCain does a good job with the appearance of a boyishly honest man.

He puts on his quiet voice and uses his boyish (albeit now partially fossilized) expressions and, reminding me of Richard Nixon during something like his Checkers speech, sometimes glances down at his well-shined shoes, as though wordlessly to say, see what a good boy I am.

McCain's actual record of ethics and behavior is rather dreary, and it is a subject which mysteriously eludes treatment in mainline media which seem always ready to treat trivia like flag pins. There are many parallels of insensitivity, anger, aggression, limited capacities and grotesque humor with George Bush.

McCain was, quite simply, a nasty brat as a young man. There are many stories of the way he bullied others, including teachers, stories perhaps easy to make light of fifty years later, but not funny if you were his victim and, more importantly, all too similar to stories of his adult behavior.

A poor student, he always took advantage of being the son and grandson of admirals to get away with his sometimes vicious antics and failures.

Despite his favorite public act as boyish fighter pilot, he apparently remains an often nasty man in private. Many fellow politicians, including Republicans, tes