Late Friday Night Ode To ... Hallow's Eve

Happy Halloween!

(I know I haven't opined in the last couple of days - yet another research grant application to write, folks - but now that I am done (for now at least), I'll be resuming my usual suspicious opining activities sometime tomorrow) ;-)

For tonight's Ode, we have a fun double play rising up to the occasion!

First, we have (who else?) but Ozzy Osbourne - Bark At The Moon:

And for the closer - a live rendition of Iron Maiden - Dance Of Death:

Impolitic? Pogge? Constant Vigilance?

Your move! ;-)

(And anyone else wants to join in Blogging Friday Nights Music Fun? Feel free - the more, the merrier!)

Keep on rockin'!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

US Faces International Condemnation In Wake Of Syria Strike

While the White House has declined comment and other US officials defended the strike on a Syrian border town yesterday which killed eight, international condemnation rained down on the strike from a number of sources. The Syrian government, which already summoned the US Charges d’Affaires to complain about a strike which they labeled as “serious aggression,” had further condemnations and a warning today. Foreign Minister Wallid al-Muallem condemned the strike as an act of “criminal and terrorist aggression” and warned that his government “would defend our territories” in the event of a future attack.

The Lebanese government, which has been on shaky terms with Syria, also harshly condemned the move. Prime Minister Fouad Seniora released a statement condemning the attack as “dangerous” and “unacceptable” and “constitutes a violation of Syrian sovereignty.” Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh likewise condemned the raid as a violation of international law.

Keep Reading ...

punditman says ... Even Punditman gets a little shell-shocked when he occassionally watches the TV news. It's amazing how far down the road to pimpdom they have gone.

Case in point: the world may condemn a US action, but don't for one second believe that this matters -- at least not within the elite corridors of Big Media. In fact, just tonight, Katie Couric told me on CBS News that the US attacked Syria in order to kill a “smuggler of foreign fighters into Iraq” which apparently they did do (trust them, right!). No mention of anything else. No dead construction workers or anyone else. No violation of sovereignty. No mention of a possible eight civilian deaths. No, it's simply the end of the story. Certainly no comment from Syria is allowed, despite this interesting tidbit over at antiwar.com:

The attack comes as particularly surprising considering the US was reported earlier this month to be mulling lifting sanctions against Syria in light of their indirect peace talks with Israel. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem had said there was “good progress” in a dialogue aimed at improving US-Syrian relations. Syria has reportedly summoned the US Charges d’Affaires to officially complain about what it calls an attack on its sovereignty.

So, consider this: if you were a news organization that actually cared about giving some context to international events in order to fulfill your mandate to educate, inform and act as government watchdog, or you were, perhaps, merely interested in the intrigue behind an event, you just might offer up some of the above as background.

Alas, we don't live in such a world, as I was so bluntly reminded earlier this evening. No, instead I am to infer from CBS that there is nothing else to this event other than what the US military told us and what the lame-ducked, lying war criminals in the White House who have no business even sitting in office anymore, refuse to talk about.

CBS: you suck!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Canada Needs A Liberal-NDP-Green Coalition

by John Ryan

Canada’s last two elections are proof positive that we have a flawed electoral system. Does it make any sense that it’s impossible to get a government that reflects the views of the majority of our population? How is it that a little more than a third of the electorate can determine who forms Canada’s government?

There is no question that Canada has a dysfunctional political system in which the views of the majority of Canadians cannot be represented by a single political party. Although almost two-thirds of Canada's voters in the last two elections opposed the platform, policies, and philosophy of the Conservative party, it is the Conservatives who have formed the government. The majority vote was split amongst four parties, thereby thwarting the predominant will of the people and making a mockery of democracy. And this may very well continue into the future. If the NDP and the Greens keep getting progressively stronger, it will guarantee a split vote, resulting in an unending series of Conservative governments. Moreover, if Gilles Duceppe should retire it would weaken the Bloc Quebecois and we would then get majority Conservative governments.

So what do we do? How do we get out of a system that seems to ensure an unending regime of Conservative governments – governments that do not have the support of the bulk of our population? In the best interests of Canada, it's up to progressive-minded citizens to urge the Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens to form a coalition. It will then be up to these parties to act responsibly, to set aside narrow partisan politics, and to establish a formal coalition. It's only then that the majority of Canadians would be in a position to vote for a political entity that would reflect their views, values, and interests.

Keep Reading ...

punditman says ... I couldn't agree more, although I don't what the chances of it happening are. Better still, why not Proportional Representation?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Food, And A Penny, For Your Thoughts?

That's right - yet more on the global economic and food crises, folks:

How the Food and Financial Crises are Interconnected
The Global Meltdown
By Eric Toussaint

In 2007-2008, the biggest international economic and financial crisis since 1929 broke out. Were it not for the massive and concerted intervention of public authorities in coming to the rescue of thieving bankers, the present crisis would already have reached more ample proportions. Here too, the interdependency is striking. Between 31st December 2007 and the 18th October 2008, all the world's stock exchanges fell dramatically, by 30 to 40%, sometimes more, for the stock exchanges of the industrialized countries, 45% for Turkey, Argentina, Brazil and India, 60% for Russia and China[2]. The colossal build-up of private debts, which is entirely created from fictitious capital, has finally exploded in the industrialized countries starting with the United States, the most heavily indebted economy of the planet. Indeed, in 2008, the sum of public and private debt in the United States amounted to 50 000 billion dollars i.e. 350% of GDP. This economic and financial crisis, which has already spread to the entire planet, will affect the developing countries more and more, even those which still believe themselves safe. Capitalist globalisation has not delinked or disconnected economies. On the contrary, countries like China, Brazil, India or Russia have not been able to protect themselves from this crisis, and this is only the beginning.

The food crisis.

In 2007-2008, the standard of living of more than half of the world population dropped dramatically when the price of food soared. There were massive demonstrations in at least fifteen countries in the first half of 2008. Tens of millions of people more than before faced hunger, and hundreds of millions had to reduce their food consumption (and consequently, their access to other essential goods and services[3]).

All of this was the result of decisions made by a handful of companies in the agro-industry and the financial sector (the institutional investors who contribute to doping the prices of agricultural products) with the backup of the US administration and the European Commission[4]. In fact, the percentage of exports in the world production of food remains small. Only a small part of the rice, wheat or corn produced in the world is exported, while by far the greater amount is consumed in the country of production. However, the price on the export market determines the price on the local market. The export market price is fixed in the United States, mainly in three stock exchanges (Chicago, Minneapolis and Kansas City). Consequently, the price of rice, wheat or corn in Timbuctu, Mexico, Nairobi, and Islamabad is directly affected by the evolution of the prices of these cereals on the United States stock markets.

In 2008, under pressure and to avoid being overthrown by the rioting at the four corners of the earth, the authorities in the developing countries had to take measures to guarantee their citizens access to staple foods.

This state of affairs resulted from several decades of governments gradually withdrawing their support from local cereal producers – who are mainly small producers – and following the neoliberal requirements imposed by institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF as part of the Structural Adjustment Programmes and programmes to reduce poverty. In the name of the "fight against poverty" the institutions have convinced governments to carry out policies which have reproduced or even reinforced poverty. Furthermore, during the last few years, many governments have signed bilateral treaties (especially free trade treaties) which made the situation worse. The WTO Doha round of trade negotiations also had dire consequences.

What Happened?


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

McGhosts And Ogoblins

On the eve of Hallow's Eve, one article to read with a smile ... and unsettlement:

By Rosemary and Walter Brasch

There are a lot of scary things in this world, but one of the scariest is that Halloween and the Presidential election are only five days apart. It’s hard to miss the parallel between tricks-and-treats and the promises-and-panderings of politicians masquerading as the most caring, most vital, most sincere candidate. While standing behind their lapel flag buttons, they are quick to dress their opponents in something less patriotic.

The Republican right wing wants to dress Barack Obama as a socialist terrorist, putting on him a large black beard, a kufi hat and abaya robe. Instead of handing out candy, these wing nuts have Obama handing out dollar bills, which he stole from hard-working conservative millionaires.

The Right Wing doesn’t say much about Joe Biden, knowing he’s sharper than any of the candidates about foreign affairs, but he does occasionally put a foot in his mouth. Maybe they can dress him as a podiatrist.

The Democrats want to glue John McCain to George W. Bush, and parade them door-to-door as conjoined twins. Assuming that isn’t acceptable to McCain—at least now—maybe the Democrats can dress McCain as a Mission: Impossible tape recorder, knowing at some point he’ll self-destruct.

It shouldn’t be too hard to find a costume for Sarah Palin. During the past two months, the Republicans spent $150,000 on clothes for her and her family, plus at least $23,000 for makeup. After figuring out that the nation is in a Recession, that most Americans don’t even earn $170,000 in three years—and that some outraged Americans found out about her shopping spree—Palin spun out and claimed that the clothes really aren’t hers and will be donated after the election, most probably to starving Republican day traders. For Halloween, and for a truly scary appearance, maybe Mooseburger could remove all the makeup and lipstick her handlers put on her to make salivating middle-aged men believe that outward beauty is an acceptable cover-up to inner vacuousness.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Human Rights Still Matter, Eh?

Indeed. The following insightful article speaks quite eloquently for itself on the matter:

Human rights still matter
Our politicians have a moral duty to do more than just strive to be elected on the easiest ticket possible.
by Monia Mazigh

I found it troubling to follow the recent federal campaign without hearing a firm and strong interest from any of the party leaders on the issue of human rights.

I understand that economic issues have affected the politics of the debate, but even though the collapse of the US financial markets is a clear concern to many citizens, the dwindling of the leadership role of Canada in human rights, both at home and abroad, is an ongoing worry for all of us.

During the debates, the question of the repatriation of Omar Khadr was left unasked, and Canada has still an ambiguous position with regard to the closing of Guantanamo Bay, despite the importance of the issue.

However, south of the border, both Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama have clearly stated that they are in favour of closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, which has become an international embarrassment for the Bush administration and for the American people.

Are our politicians afraid to focus on more than one complex issue at a time, despite the fact that we are faced with several? Our needs for human rights and security have not disappeared because of this financial crisis; they remain among the most important issues at stake for Canadians.

The fate of Mr Khadr, the last westerner to be left in Guantanamo, is not the only question that is left unanswered; there is also the problem of the treatment of Afghan prisoners; and what about the hundreds of missing aboriginal women who have disappeared from our streets, never to be heard from again?

These problems are important to Canadians, and certainly important enough to be raised during an election. Is the fact that these issues were left out of the debate a reflection of the disinterest of the population in human rights, or is it a symptom of our political leaders' unhealthy reliance on briefing notes, as evidenced by the carefully repeated and simplistic marketing messages that they regurgitate to us with monotonous precision?


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Bush Doctrine = International Lawlessness

Following up on the previous post today, and still discussing the U.S. raid in Syria, it looks like I was not far off the grid indeed when I mentionned consequences falling down like dominoes due to the U.S. acting like a rogue nation - to whit:

The End of International Law?
by Robert Dreyfuss

A parallel new Bush doctrine is emerging, in the last days of the soon-to-be-ancien regime, and it needs to be strangled in its crib. Like the original Bush doctrine -- the one that Sarah Palin couldn't name, which called for preventive military action against emerging threats -- this one also casts international law aside by insisting that the United States has an inherent right to cross international borders in "hot pursuit" of anyone it doesn't like.

They're already applying it to Pakistan, and this week Syria was the target. Is Iran next?

Let's take Pakistan first. Though a nominal ally, Pakistan has been the subject of at least nineteen aerial attacks by CIA-controlled drone aircraft, killing scores of Pakistanis and some Afghans in tribal areas controlled by pro-Taliban forces. The New York Times listed, and mapped, all nineteen such attacks in a recent piece describing Predator attacks across the Afghan border, all since August. The Times notes that inside the government, the U.S.Special Operations command and other advocates are pushing for a more aggressive use of such units, including efforts to kidnap and interrogate suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. Though President Bush signed an order in July allowing U.S. commando teams to move into Pakistan itself, with or without Islamabad's permission, such raids have occurred only once, on September 3.

The U.S. raid into Syria on October 26 similarly trampled on Syria's sovereignty without so much as a fare-thee-well. Though the Pentagon initially denied that the raid involved helicopters and on-the-ground commando presence, that's exactly what happened. The attack reportedly killed Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih, an Iraqi facilitator who smuggled foreign fighters into Iraq through Syria. The Washington Post was ecstatic, writing in an editorial:

"If Sunday's raid, which targeted a senior al-Qaeda operative, serves only to put Mr. Assad on notice that the United States, too, is no longer prepared to respect the sovereignty of a criminal regime, it will have been worthwhile."

Is it really that easy? To say: We declare your regime criminal, and so we will attack you anytime we care to? In its news report of the attack into Syria, the Post suggests, in a report by Ann Scott Tyson and Ellen Knickmeyer, that the attack is raising cross-border hot pursuit to the level of a doctrine:

"The military's argument is that 'you can only claim sovereignty if you enforce it,' said Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'When you are dealing with states that do not maintain their sovereignty and become a de facto sanctuary, the only way you have to deal with them is this kind of operation,' he said."

The Times broadens the possible targets from Pakistan and Syria to Iran, writing (in a page one story by Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker):

"Administration officials declined to say whether the emerging application of self-defense could lead to strikes against camps inside Iran that have been used to train Shiite 'special groups' that have fought with the American military and Iraqi security forces."

That, of course, has been a live option, especially since the start of the surge in January, 2007, when President Bush promised to strike at Iranian supply lines in Iraq and other U.S. officials, including Vice President Cheney, pressed hard to attack sites within Iran, regardless of the consequences.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

That Global War On Terror(TM): Why U.S. Raid In Syria Exposes Its Utter Failures

Indeed:

Striking Out in Syria
The US air strike against insurgents in Syria illustrates exactly what is wrong with how states fight terrorism.
by: Lionel Beehner

The US military carried out an aerial attack on Sunday against foreign insurgents holed up in Syria along the Iraqi border, US officials confirmed today. Although details of the operation remain vague, the attack reportedly killed eight civilians and drew condemnation across the Muslim world, from Damascus to Tehran. Similar bombings by US special forces have also been stepped up in recent weeks against al-Qaida and Taliban strongholds in northwest Pakistan.

Are such cross-border strikes wise policy, and should the next US president continue with them? The answer is no. Not only do such strikes violate state sovereignty - which also requires that states control their inhabitants - and end up killing civilians, but they are unproven to work, do nothing to address the socioeconomic conditions that invite terrorism and too often just turn local public opinion against us.

By now it is conventional wisdom that counterinsurgencies are not won by military force but by political means. Yet the bulk of US defence spending continues to go toward military operations, not governance or reconstruction programmes. No wonder much of the Middle East hates us. Its locals must be given security and protection first if their - pardon the cliché - hearts and minds are to be won over, similar to what we achieved in Anbar Province and the Brits achieved in Malaya many years back.

The US strike against Syria is the latest in a series of cross-border attacks against non-state actors and provides an indication of what many wars in the future will resemble. Like Turkey's conflict with the PKK, Colombia's attack against the Farc in Ecuador or Israel's skirmish with Hizbullah, these kinds of conflicts will be fought primarily in the unruly frontiers of countries and entail cross-border incursions by special forces or surgical air strikes, not major ground operations against population centres. These wars will be more limited in scope yet more frequent in number. The circumstances under which they will be fought will be murkier and the casus belli less clear. There will be no victory parades after the cessation of hostilities because it will be difficult to determine the victors (after all, who won the war between Israel and Hizbullah?).

And here's another stubborn truth the next US president must grapple with: The deck is stacked in favour of the non-state actor, not the state. That is because this kind of warfare is not waged over territory or ideology or religion, but is fought over hearts and minds - a public relations battle that cannot be measured in body counts. As the underdog, the non-state actor only has to stand up to Goliath, as it were, and its victory in the mind of the public is virtually sealed. "How war is perceived has as much importance as how it actually is fought," historian Daniel Pipes noted in the New York Sun in 2006. "The Clausewitzian centre of gravity has moved from the battlefield to the op-eds and talking heads."

Hizbullah emerged from its July 2006 war with Israel arguably stronger and more popular among average Lebanese than before. Most Kurds have no love lost for the PKK, which has waged a violent, decades-long campaign for greater Kurdish autonomy against Turkey, but Ankara's heavy-handed response to the PKK has only endeared the PKK to local Kurds. They are now seen as freedom fighters, not terrorists.

Does this kind of strategy limit war to the extent that states can accomplish their military objectives - wiping out terrorism - without losing the war of perception? History, unfortunately, shows it does not. The trouble is these raids are not forceful enough to dislodge the terrorist threat but just heavy-handed enough to turn local sympathies against the state. The outcome is a worst-of-both-worlds scenario: a prolonged conflict with local public opinion decidedly against the aggressor.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Economic Woes In Canada: Wealth Divide Growing Wider?

Yet another interesting article on the impacts of our current economic woes, especially on the middle class:

Will Crash Pry Canada's Wealth Divide Even Wider?
As rich got richer here, middle class bet big on their houses.
By Crawford Kilian

Are you better off now than you were in 1988? Chances are you're not, according to a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The report, titled "Growing Unequal?," says that the income gap has widened in most OECD countries, despite two decades of apparent prosperity.

Canada is one of the most affected countries, along with Germany, Norway and the United States. Related data suggest that B.C. has become one of the most unequal regions in the country.

"The income of the richest 10 per cent of people is, on the average across OECD countries, nearly nine times that of the poorest," the report asserts. The richest Mexicans, however, earn 25 times the income of the poorest Mexicans.

Turkey's top 10 per cent make 17 times the income of the bottom 10 per cent, and the U.S. is close behind with about a 16:1 ratio between the incomes of richest and poorest.

Canada comes in at the OECD average, 8.9:1, between Spain and the UK. Most equal are Sweden and Denmark, with an income ratio of less than 5:1.

You're poor if...

The OECD says you're living in poverty if your income is 50 per cent or less of your country's median income. For Mexico, that means a fifth of all Mexicans -- 22 million -- are poor. Only one Dane in 20 is poor. The U.S. has a poverty rate of 17 per cent, or 51 million. Canada's 11 per cent poverty rate means over 3 million of us are poor.

The report's "Country Note" for Canada is illuminating. Evidently we were becoming richer and more equal from the mid-1970s until the mid-1990s. Then, just about the time that Paul Martin started the age of tight budgets, we started to get poorer and less equal.

"The rich in Canada are particularly rich compared to their counterparts in other countries," the OECD says. "The average income of the richest 10 per cent is US$71,000... which is one third above the OECD average of US$54,000."

Meanwhile poverty has increased for all Canadian age groups for an overall rate of 12 per cent. But only 6 per cent of our seniors are poor, while 15 per cent of our children are.

Don't be a single mother

Inequality of household earnings has risen fast in the last decade, and our increase in single-parent households seems to have been a major factor.

According to York University's Dennis Raphael, B.C. is especially unequal. He cites a 2006 StatsCan survey that showed a fifth of all British Columbians were living in poverty in 2004. Over 23 per cent of our children were poor, and 62 per cent of persons living in female lone-parent families were poor. That makes us Canada's poverty leader.

We may be proud of Canadian social programs, but they're actually below average: "Canada spends less on cash benefits such as unemployment benefits and family benefits than most OECD countries. Partly as a result, taxes and transfers do not reduce inequality by as much as in many other countries. Furthermore," the report adds, "their effect on inequality has been declining over time."

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

A Torturer's Tale

The following article speaks for itself, clearly showing how ordering servicemen and women to torture not only criminalizes them, but also dehumanizes their victims and themselves in their own minds. In addition, the following testimony exposes the "it was necessary" rationale used to justify torture as the hypocritical, mendacious and deluded self-righteous fallacy that it truly is in order to excuse savagery and barbarism:

The Torturer's Tale
Tony Lagouranis was trained by the US Army to torture Iraqis. This is why he stopped
By Jolyon Jenkins

Tony Lagouranis never expected to become a torturer. He didn't even really want to be a soldier. But at 30, he was bored and broke. He had a facility with languages, fancied learning Arabic, and figured the US army would teach him for free and help him clear his student debts. When he started his training, the Twin Towers were still intact and no one expected the US to go to war in Iraq.

Even when Lagouranis chose to specialise as an interrogator, his army instructors implied that the Iraqis he questioned would be friendly and co-operative. "The last experience we had had with interrogation in the military was in the first Gulf war, when most of the prisoners were completely willing. They said: ask them a question and they'll tell you what you wanted to know."

But by the time he arrived in Iraq, the army knew better. Vast numbers of suspects were being rounded up, and they weren't talking. His superiors at the detention facility where he worked in Mosul gave him a list of authorised interrogation tactics - some might say, torture tactics.

‘It said explicitly that the interrogator needed the freedom to be creative... So basically there were no limits’

"It listed things like the use of dogs, dietary manipulation, using sleep deprivation, stress positions and 'environmental manipulation'," said Lagouranis. "We took that to mean that we could induce hypothermia, we could keep them in a hot shipping container, in the sun, for days at a time, we can use loud music and strobe lights and things like that. And it was also an open-ended document. It said explicitly that the interrogator needed the freedom to be creative. It said these are only suggestions of what you can do. So basically there were no limits."

Lagouranis saw people crippled through prolonged use of the stress positions he forced them to adopt, and driven to the verge of insanity through weeks of sleep deprivation and psychological disorientation. But maybe it was worth it if it produced valuable intelligence in the fight against the insurgency? No, he says. As a method of getting intelligence it was useless. And besides, the aim of interrogations shifted subtly. "A lot of what we ended up doing was trying to gather confessions, not intelligence. I think that the commanders wanted to show that they were doing a good job and were picking up guilty people. But in fact we were just rounding up whoever was on the street. They just wanted us to force people to confess so that they could brief their commanders and say that they had captured all the terrorists."


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Obama Conspiracies - Right Wingnut Style

Go read Jon Swift's Great Moments In Election-year Blogging (h/t), which is a round-up of the coverage of the most "significant" and "impressive" (wingnut) conservative Barack Obama smears and conspiracies brought forth during these current U.S. elections. Not surprisingly, such (insane) "citizen reporting" has been published/propagated through popular/high traffic right-wing blogs and magazines.

Once you are done laughing your asses off, as I have, be warned of an immediately induced cold, sobering reminder that yes - there are a lot of people like this out there.

Scary what intellectual sloth-driven incompetence can do, no?

George Packer offers an interesting angle (emphasis added):

Wading for a few minutes through the sewage of these Web sites reminds me uncannily of the time I’ve spent having political discussions in certain living rooms and coffee shops in Baghdad. The mental atmosphere is exactly the same—the wild fantasies presented as obvious truth, the patterns seen by those few with the courage and wisdom to see, the amused pity for anyone weak-minded enough to be skeptical, the logic that turns counter-evidence into evidence and every random piece of information into a worldwide conspiracy. Above all, the seething resentment, the mix of arrogance and impotent rage that burns at the heart of the paranoid style in politics.

The problem isn’t lack of education—it’s that of a self-isolating political subculture gone rancid. I heard an Iraqi engineer claim that American soldiers allowed Kuwaitis to steal hundreds of Iraqi cars as revenge for the first Gulf War. I heard a Shiite cleric argue that the Kerry campaign was behind suicide bombings. Bloggers like Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who peddled the Ayers theory, and Ann Althouse, a law professor who pushed the plastic-device story, hold diametrically opposed views to those of Islamists and Arab nationalists. But their habits of mind are just the same.

It will only get worse if Obama wins.

Glenn Greenwald adds a very à propos caveat to Packer's observations (emphasis added):

The New Yorker's George Packer reviewed the above-linked Jon Swift piece on the deranged, year-long election ramblings of leading right-wing blogs, including National Review -- what Packer calls "the sewage of these Web sites" -- and compares it to the most paranoid and reality-detached fever swamps of radical Islam. The difference, though, is that the mentality of the former has been guiding the world's sole superpower for the last eight years, while the mentality of the latter has not.

Speaking of that mentality, here is Sarah Palin yesterday -- in the very same speech where she urged more federal spending for research into the causes of autism -- railing against earmarks for supposedly frivolous, wasteful projects such as "fruit fly research in Paris, France," an example, she claimed, of "political pet projects" which "have little or nothing to do with the public good".

Which, in turn, brings me back to this previous post of mine about primitive-mind thinking ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

...And The U.S. Arrogance And Incompetence Are Now Nauseating

Incredible (empasis added):

U.S. troops in helicopters flew four miles into Syrian territory over the weekend to target the leader of a network that channels foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq, killing or wounding him and shooting dead several armed men, U.S. officials said Monday.

(...) But officials said the raid Sunday, apparently the first acknowledged instance of U.S. ground forces operating in Syria, was intended to send a warning to the Syrian government. "You have to clean up the global threat that is in your back yard, and if you won't do that, we are left with no choice but to take these matters into our hands," said a senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the cross-border strike.

I've always thought that "warnings" were meant to be verbal or written notices given beforehand - i.e. "cease and desist or consequences will ensue".

Let's verify, then:

Main Entry: warn·ing
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr-niŋ\
Function: noun

1: the act of warning : the state of being warned
2: something that warns or serves to warn ; especially : a notice or bulletin that alerts the public to an imminent hazard (as a tornado, thunderstorm, or flood)

Or

Function: adjective
Date:1511

: serving as an alarm, signal, summons, or admonition (a warning bell) (a warning shot)

And:

Main Entry: warn
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯrn\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English warnian; akin to Old High German warnōn to take heed, Old English wær careful, aware — more at wary
Date: before 12th century

transitive verb
a: to give notice to beforehand especially of danger or evil
b: to give admonishing advice to : counsel
c: to call to one's attention : inform: to order to go or stay away —often used with offintransitive verb: to give a warning

Looks like the Bush administration is so incompetent, it doesn't even have a firm grasp of the English language ...

I reiterate: rogue nation, anyone?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Cellucci The Clown Strikes Back

Bushie former U.S. ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci, a republican and McCain supporter from the get-go, has opened his mouth in order to swiftly insert his foot in it - once again:

Obama win a 'danger' to Canada, Cellucci says

A Barack Obama presidency would present a "danger" to Canada because he could renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, imperiling the future economic integration of the continent, former U.S. ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci said yesterday.

Mr. Cellucci, a Republican, engaged in an overt piece of partisan politicking on Canadian soil eight days before the U.S. presidential election, telling an audience in Ottawa that the Democratic senator would face "pressure" to renegotiate NAFTA after indicating a willingness to do so during the hotly contested Ohio primary.

"The reason I say it's a little bit of a danger for Canada is because if the polls are right -- and I hope that they're not -- but if they're right, we could have Barack Obama as president of the United States with over, maybe 60 United States senators in the Democratic column and a pretty strong majority in the House of Representatives."

"You're going to have basically one-party government in the United States," Mr. Cellucci said in the keynote address to the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute annual meeting.

(shades of NAFTA-gate, anyone?)

So, the republicans are now directly exporting their fearmongering to Canada - most likely attempting to whip up a frenzy among those of "the right" in our country.

Funny thing is - why should Canadians take any stock in what this clown says to us?

I mean - remember this?

Canada's decision not to support the U.S.-led war in Iraq has left plenty of Americans "upset and disappointed." That was the message the U.S. ambassador to Canada delivered today in a speech to business leaders.

"So many people in the United States are so disappointed that Canada is not fully supporting us now," said Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada. "And that is why so many people in the United States are so disappointed that Canada is not fully supporting us now."

He said if the roles were reversed, the U.S. would back Canada without question.

"There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," Cellucci told a breakfast meeting at the Toronto Economic Club.

(...) Cellucci had added that Canada's close ties to the U.S. have been called into question recently due to the war. For economic reasons, "it's important we keep working together."

When asked whether the U.S. would punish Canada through trade agreements, Cellucci replied: "It's not in our economic interests to do that," but added, "we'll have to wait and see if there are any ramifications."

He voiced such criticisms more than once at that (another instance here).

Do you also remember this other bit of fearmongering?

Canadian cities face terrorist threat: Cellucci

Montreal, Toronto or Windsor could be the target of terrorist attacks, U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci warned.

The train bombs in Madrid that killed 201 people are a reminder that "no one is immune from these attacks and everyone should be vigilant and stand on guard," Cellucci said in a speech to the University of Western Ontario on Wednesday.

Cellucci said attacks against American cities could have fatal consequences on Canadian cities near the border.

Cellucci said the U.S needs a strong Canadian military to help defend North America.

"We are doing everything in our power to prevent the next attack. We cannot defend ourselves without Canada's help."

Or this other instance?

Canada's decision not to join Washington's ballistic missile defence program hasn't produced diplomatic shockwaves, but has set off ripples of irritation and disbelief south of the border.

U.S. ambassador to Canada said he's perplexed by the decision, which he says allows the U.S. to decide what happens if a missile is heading toward Canada.

"I personally don't think it's in Canada's sovereign interest to be outside of the room when a decision is made about a missile that might be incoming towards Canada," said Paul Cellucci.

Of course, Cellucci has had lots of "suggestions" for us Canadians - such as this one:

Canada short on troops, transportation ability: U.S. ambassador

Canada's role in future international military operations could be at risk unless Ottawa increases defence spending, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

Speaking at a business conference in Banff on Thursday, Paul Cellucci praised Canada's military record. The United States respects Canadian troops, he said.

But he says there could be negative consequences unless more money is spent on the armed forces.

"Despite the huge military capability of the United States, we cannot do it alone. That's the point we're making. We need allies and we need our allies to put the resources in as well," said Cellucci.

He says countries need sufficient troops and the ability to transport them and their equipment to military zones.

Canada is short on both troops and transportation abilities, said Cellucci.

Suggestion which was dutifully followed by Harper and his Harpies.

I can't help but think that Cellucci is now mouthing off about Obama in Canada so that Harper and his Harpies do not have to get their hands dirty this time around ...

Regardless, I say to Mr. Cellucci: bugger off, eh?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Sarah Stillson Palin And Her War On Science

I opined about this previously - but the following article about Sarah Stillson Palin is of interest, if only because of the author (yes - that one) of said article (link to author info added):

Sarah Palin's War on Science
The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for knowledge and learning.
By Christopher Hitchens

In an election that has been fought on an astoundingly low cultural and intellectual level, with both candidates pretending that tax cuts can go like peaches and cream with the staggering new levels of federal deficit, and paltry charges being traded in petty ways, and with Joe the Plumber becoming the emblematic stupidity of the campaign, it didn't seem possible that things could go any lower or get any dumber. But they did last Friday, when, at a speech in Pittsburgh, Gov. Sarah Palin denounced wasteful expenditure on fruit-fly research, adding for good xenophobic and anti-elitist measure that some of this research took place "in Paris, France" and winding up with a folksy "I kid you not."

It was in 1933 that Thomas Hunt Morgan won a Nobel Prize for showing that genes are passed on by way of chromosomes. The experimental creature that he employed in the making of this great discovery was the Drosophila melanogaster, or fruit fly. Scientists of various sorts continue to find it a very useful resource, since it can be easily and plentifully "cultured" in a laboratory, has a very short generation time, and displays a great variety of mutation. This makes it useful in studying disease, and since Gov. Palin was in Pittsburgh to talk about her signature "issue" of disability and special needs, she might even have had some researcher tell her that there is a Drosophila-based center for research into autism at the University of North Carolina. The fruit fly can also be a menace to American agriculture, so any financing of research into its habits and mutations is money well-spent. It's especially ridiculous and unfortunate that the governor chose to make such a fool of herself in Pittsburgh, a great city that remade itself after the decline of coal and steel into a center of high-tech medical research.

In this case, it could be argued, Palin was not just being a fool in her own right but was following a demagogic lead set by the man who appointed her as his running mate. Sen. John McCain has made repeated use of an anti-waste and anti-pork ad (several times repeated and elaborated in his increasingly witless speeches) in which the expenditure of $3 million to study the DNA of grizzly bears in Montana was derided as "unbelievable." As an excellent article in the Feb. 8, 2008, Scientific American pointed out, there is no way to enforce the Endangered Species Act without getting some sort of estimate of numbers, and the best way of tracking and tracing the elusive grizzly is by setting up barbed-wire hair-snagging stations that painlessly take samples from the bears as they lumber by and then running the DNA samples through a laboratory. The cost is almost trivial compared with the importance of understanding this species, and I dare say the project will yield results in the measurement of other animal populations as well, but all McCain could do was be flippant and say that he wondered whether it was a "paternity" or "criminal" issue that the Fish and Wildlife Service was investigating. (Perhaps those really are the only things that he associates in his mind with DNA.)

With Palin, however, the contempt for science may be something a little more sinister than the bluff, empty-headed plain-man's philistinism of McCain.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Canada: The Shape Of Things To Come?

According to the title of the following article, I would hope not:

Recession and a Conservative dynasty loom
Fragmented future of Canadian politics and the real-world crises ordinary Canadians will face call for new thinking.
by Ish Theilheimer

The corner of the world I call home offers a telling snapshot of how a global economic crisis works. The complicated calamity is really fairly easy to understand. Businesses and consumers around the world inflated the prices of real estate, energy and all commodities by throwing around money that wasn't theirs.

Now the house of cards has fallen down. And the pain is starting.

The biggest industry in my home riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, which voted 60 percent Conservative on October 14, is the military. The second biggest — and by far the oldest — is forestry. Because the big timber of the past is long gone, all local sawmills depend on the sales of wood residue such as sawdust and chips to survive. Even in good times, they can't make a living on the lumber they produce.

Last week, all the local pulp mills and fibre board processors — the end users of sawdust and chips from local sawmills — shut down indefinitely due to market uncertainty. No one is going to build a house anywhere when the market is flooded with foreclosures and properties on sale for half what desperate, panicking families paid for them.

The huge processors of chips and sawdust are all owned by American-based corporations, which, in turn, could be owned by investors from anywhere. Until a couple of decades ago, many of these operations would all have been locally-owned or, at least, Canadian-based. Now it's different.

One of these huge plants, built with an estimated $50 million in government grants, was purchased by a multinational corporation, stripped of its key machinery, and shut down. The company, it is said by local business people, had an excess of inventory and did not want competition with its American plants.

The upshot of all this is that many sawmills across Renfrew County, already teetering on the edge of viability, will soon be shutting down. Hundreds of people will be thrown out of work. They won't pay taxes or buy very much locally, which will put a pinch on government revenues, the local market economy and the bigger economy, which depends so badly on consumers who feel free to flex their plastic.

The upshot of all Wall Street's maneuvering, asset-flipping and speculation will be widespread misery, here in the Ottawa Valley and far beyond.

Of course the local situation is hardly unique. The cancer has been spreading through Canada's resource and industrial communities for years. Now, with world oil prices almost half what they were two months ago, the pain may well spread to the oil-based boom economies of western Canada.

South of the border, US President George W Bush has become a laughing stock or, as our contributing artist Jim Kempkes suggests in this week's editorial cartoon, potentially a kitsch lawn ornament. On this side of the border, it took the province of Quebec and its "separatist" regional party, the Bloc Québécois, to save Canada from a majority government run by W's last remaining fan, Stephen Harper.

Linda McQuaig tells us Americans are turning against the greed and the obscene excesses of an economy that rewards speculators, asset-flippers and con-artists, but doesn't give a rat's ass about ordinary people and their communities. Perhaps Canadians will too, once enough of their homes and jobs vanish, but our quirky politics have just installed one of laissez-faire capitalism's last true believers.

The complexion of our politics is sobering.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

U.S. Shameful Attack In Syria: Video Report

A US official has confirmed that Special Forces carried out a raid inside Syrian territory on Sunday, presumably targeting fighters staging attacks in Iraq.

Syria (who is understandably not amused) said the soldiers attacked a house in a farming area near the town of Abu Kamal, about 8km inside the border with Iraq.

Two men are presumed to have been captured by U.S. Special Forces and brought back to Iraq (care to guess what awaits them?)

Al Jazeera's Tom Ackerman reports:

(h/t)

On a related note:

Suspected U.S. strike kills up to 20 in Pakistan

A suspected U.S. missile strike killed up to 20 people in northwestern Pakistan on Monday, officials said, the latest salvo in an intensifying assault on militant hideouts near the Afghan border.

The reported strike occurred in the South Waziristan region, part of Pakistan's wild border zone that is considered a possible hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri.

Allow me to reiterate:

(...) this arrogant and dangerous Bush Doctrine to attack any time, anywhere in any soverign country (Pakistan being another recent example) in the name of the ludicrous Global War on Terror(TM) has to be relegated to the hash heap of incompetence and history.

This is criminal (check the U.N. charter, if you will) and must be disavowed by the American people once and for all.

I wonder how the U.S. would feel if other countries would do the same to them?

(...) This is the convenient reasoning of rogue nations (emphasis added):

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military's reach.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

Indeed - the same kind of reasoning by any incompetent, by every criminal - "take what you want when you want, who cares what others think?"

That is the Bush Doctrine for you.

Did I say "rogue nation"?

Yeah - I thought I did ...

'Nuff said.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Behold The Results Of Canada's War

Afghanistan - Canada's war, a veritable FUBAR, all for absolutely nothing. Here's definite proof:

Taliban rule returning to Kandahar province

They mete out justice in their own courts, ban schools and even organize large religious gatherings, like one that drew thousands of people just outside Kandahar city recently.

As Canadian Forces continue to fight and die throughout Kandahar province, the Taliban have quietly set up parallel governments only kilo-metres away from the provincial capital, local residents say.

Large swaths of the province for which Canada is responsible have fallen under the control of the insurgents, they said, and out of the grasp of a national government villagers consider corrupt and weak.

No wonder defections are a major problem in Afghan forces.

No wonder that violence in Afghanistan is worse than ever.

Just ask these guys and these ones.

No wonder the Afghan war is not only unwinnable, but has already been lost - whether there is a "surge" or not.

Everything so far has been falling short.

And the Afghanis apparently approve.

Hence, it was no surprise at all when Kabul Mayor Afghan President Karzai reiterated recently his (desperate) offer to the Taliban of playing a significant role in the Afghan government.

Conclusion: I told you so.

Any questions?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Sarah Stillson Palin The Demagogue - In Action

Here's Sarah Stillson Palin in full, deliberate and calculated demagogue mode:

Palin hit the trail in Iowa last week and took her criticism of Barack Obama's tax policy to a whole new level. While the standard criticism thus far of Obama's plan is that it's a "job-killer" or even vaguely "socialist", Palin made abundantly clear on the stump that she thinks it's much, much worse than that. As Palin describes it, Obama's plan is downright communist (everything you own would "collectively belong to everybody") and would lead to what HuffPo's Sam Stein calls a "nightmare communist state."

"See, under a big government, more tax agenda, what you thought was yours would really start belonging to somebody else, to everybody else. If you thought your income, your property, your inventory, your investments were, were yours, they would really collectively belong to everybody. Obama, Barack Obama has an ideological commitment to higher taxes, and I say this based on his record... Higher taxes, more government, misusing the power to tax leads to government moving into the role of some believing that government then has to take care of us. And government kind of moving into the role as the other half of our family, making decisions for us. Now, they do this in other countries where the people are not free. Let us fight for what is right. John McCain and I, we will put our trust in you."

I think I need not comment further ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

... And Here We Go Again!

Canadian federal elections over and done with?

I guess now's a good a time as any to have a Québec provincial election, non?

Personally, I see no reason for this now. This could have easily waited until February or March - instead of the rumored December 8 date.

Perhaps Prime Minister Charest is all-too-eager to capitalize on the recent defections of two ADQ MNA's to the LPQ side? And/or the recent loss of face of the CPC in Québec, thus signifying less seats for the more to-the-right ADQ overall?

In the meantime:

Quebec opposition parties push sovereignty issue

Under the cloud of an economic crisis and likely fall election, politics in Quebec has turned once again to the question of sovereignty.

Both provincial opposition parties — the Action Démocratique du Québec and Parti Québécois — held separate conferences over the weekend in which sovereignty figured prominently.

ADQ Leader Mario Dumont was on the defensive, with his party slumping in the polls and rival parties openly fishing for disgruntled ADQ legislative members.

Dumont is still dealing with the stunning defection of two ADQ assembly members last week — André Riedl and Pierre Michel Auger — who crossed the floor to join the Liberals.

In the midst of uncertainty about his leadership, Dumont reaffirmed the ADQ's autonomist demands for Quebec, and called for new constitutional talks with Ottawa, including official recognition of the Quebec nation within the Canadian Constitution, contingent on provincial and territorial support. He also stressed the ADQ's desire to see Quebec gain its own constitution.

"We spring forward with a united team and a solid platform," he told supporters on Sunday.

PQ Leader Pauline Marois launched a "sovereignty manifesto" on the weekend that spells out the party's long-standing commitment to and justification for Quebec's independence.

The two-page manifesto — essentially an overview of the PQ's political philosophy since its inception 40 years ago — will serve as a dialectical tool for herself and party members, Marois said. She is planning a provincewide tour to sell the idea of sovereignty to Quebecers, starting with young people in colleges and universities.

"We will accomplish the project we've been building for 40 years — that of making Quebec a sovereign nation," she said.

The PQ launched the new platform on Quebec sovereignty on Saturday, reaffirming the importance of protecting Quebec's language and culture and of increasing the province's economic autonomy and international profile.

Oh, swell.

What a great idea.

Obviously, the PQ (and even the ADQ) are counting on the BQ's recent performance in the Federal election to act as some sort of pro-sovereignist wave of interest among Québecois.

I suspect they are flatly wrong on this - the BQ's successes were owed more to a loss of face of the CPC and a failure of the LPC to convince us that they were worth our votes.

In any case - here we go again ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

U.S.A.: How Things Are And What The Future May Hold

The following is a very interesting take on the current elections in the U.S. - of course, I thought I'd pass it along to you good folks:

Who will write the United States' next great poem?
by Bernadette L. Wagner

I watched a couple of YouTube videos the other night. One featured angry Palin supporters on their way into a Palin rally. The other was an interview with McCarthyesque Michelle Bachmann, a Republican senator calling for "liberals" to be investigated for anti-Americanism. Ugly. I quickly clicked on to a photo of the 100,000 supporters at an Obama rally in Missouri.

And then I cried. The juxtaposition was too much.

Some say Obama's followers are cult-like, cheerleaders for a good sales pitch. I don't think so. One hundred thousand people do not show up to a political rally for a sales pitch or cheerleading duty. Obama touches something deeper within than any salesperson could ever hope to reach. He reflects to the American people a sense of their own power and they respond with a willingness to write a new narrative, a new poem, for their country.

In declaring his support for Obama, Republican Colin Powell called him "transformative." Obama is definitely transforming the face of American politics, the poem for which much of America has dug deeply into its psyche to uncover. Sadly, Hillary Clinton would not have accomplished this. Misogyny lies still deeper within.

Racism is bubbling up, however. Many fear for Obama's life. Will there be a fair election in the U.S.?

Republicans believe they're doing a fine job. On their own terms, they are. But those terms are based on moving the country further to the right. That they have done. It is as far right as it can be without becoming a closed society. And, on paper, they are ready to make the move. American feminist Naomi Wolf, said, "The coup has already taken place.” It just needs to be activated.

Suggestions that the Republicans are throwing this election seem unfounded. Losing might be a default plan, but they're not throwing anything away. Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Greg Palast document how the right is trying to steal this election in the latest issue of Rolling Stone.

The influential neo-con William Kristol discovered Palin and introduced her to the Republican inner circle, apparently selling her as a "blank page." An employee of the neo-conservative think-tank The American Enterprise Institute said, "She's bright...She's going places."

Wolf suggests Palin's the cult figure, similar to Evita. The neo-cons know McCain isn't going anywhere. But he's not their choice. Palin is. The Rove/Cheney cabal are grooming her to be ready to take over in less than a heartbeat. Her neo-conservative advisers, not the American people, would then write the poem.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

US Helicopters, Commandos Attack Syrian Border Town Killing Nine

In a report from local witnesses later confirmed by a Syrian government spokesman, Two US helicopters landed in the Syrian border town of Al-Sukkariya while others remained in the air and eight American soldiers exited. The soldiers killed at least nine people in the attack, and wounded 14 others before reboarding the helicopters and returning to Iraqi territory.

The US military has yet to officially confirm the strike, which would be the first US strike on Syrian soil, and MSNBC reports that they were told there has been no comment and “there will be no comment.” Israel’s Channel 10 reports that unnamed western defense officials told them that the troops were carrying out a military operation against “al-Qaeda activists” in Syria. Witnesses say those killed were construction workers.

It has been speculated that the attack might be related to US military operations in the area, but there really haven’t been any. Major General John Kelly described security incidents in that area of Iraq as “almost meaningless now” and was reportedly optimistic about cutting troops in the area.

Keep Reading ...

punditman says ... It will be interesting to see how this story plays out. What will Syria have to say?

Update: there's been a reaction. Buried have way down the biased page, of course. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. Syrian commandos storm into Texas to knock of some extremists and accidentally kill a bunch of construction workers and their kids. Oh wait, we're not allowed to think of things that way.


(Mentarch, here: October surprise, anyone?)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

APOV's Weekly Revue (10/26/2008)

If it's Sunday and you are thinking that it is time for Teh Weekly Revue - then you would be quite right, folks!

It has been a big week news-wise, so today's Revue is likewise a big one - please adjust your seat-belts before we take off.

So here we go:

Oh, Canada!
Harper and his Harpies were a mere week before election day as they presented us their electoral platform - which now turns out to be almost completely broken/disavowed already by themselves after being re-elected, as 900ft Jesus @ In the House and Senate superbly demonstrates in a series of posts titled "Breaking platform promises: the series" (parts I, II, III and IV - so far). In between, pale @ ACR exposes what cruel conservatism is all bout, while Dr. Dawg @ Dawg's Blawg informs us about Canadian asbestos and what it has been doing lately (most of it bad). It would seem that the dispirited, cynical congratulations of Dana @ The Galloping Beaver to Harper are being justified, eh?

Meanwhile, Chuckman @ Chuckman's Other Choice of Words dissects down a propaganda book about how the war in Afghanistan has saved Afghans, and Dr. Dawg (again) waxes cynically about "democracy" in Afghanistan - demonstrating yet again that this pointless political exercize/FUBAR 9-11 vengeance operation was for absolutely nothing (as yours truly usually puts it). And speaking of the Global War on Terror(TM) ... blueness @ NION tells us the ugly story of how three Arab-Canadian men were sacrificed to show the U.S. that Canada was "doing something", which in turn inspired matttbastard @ bastard.logic to discuss why the tragic and shameful roles of Canadian officials in the torture of these three men constitute more cobblestones on the road to Hell, and prompted pogge @ POGG.E to decry (rightly) the "Nuremberg defense" invoked by said Canadian officials and the mindboggling acceptance of such a ludicrous defense. In between, Dark Daughta @ The Peace Tree exposes more shocking abuse of power from Canadian security agencies and their blatant lies to cover themselves.

(When I say that we are marching towards authoritarianism, a veritable security state, and that we are losing ourselves beyond redemption in the process, I certainly don't mean all of this just for Americans, folks. But I disgress ...)


Oh, U.S.A.!
The McCain-Palin campaign continues to disintegrate from without and from within. Kyle E. Moore @ Comments From Left Field discusses the so-called "principles" of John McCain, Jimmy Crackcorn @ DKos has an hilarious (but quite à propos) photographic essay establishing the "proof" that the endorsement of Barack Obama by Colin Powell is about race; emptywheel @ Emptywheel tells us the tale of "When mavericks clash", digby @ Hullabaloo exposes the divas on parade, JollyRoger @ Reconstitution explains how the "wingtards done lost it", greg @ DTK illustrates how racism - as displayed by the Palinmaniacs - is a lot like religion, Daniel DiRito @ Bring It On! is waiting for the finale of the McCain-Palin melodrama, and BooMan @ Booman Tribune concludes that the republicans/G.O.P./McCain-Palin campaign simply failed to adapt to the times. On a related note, The Station Agent @ Les Enragés/The Unruly Mob shows us why there won't be enough Katherine Harrises to steal this election for McCain-Palin, whereas Jeff Huber @ Pen and Sword is writing a superb series on "Johnny (McCain) and the warmongers" (parts I, II and III - so far).

Meanwhile, the U.S. ship keeps on sinking slowly. Dr. Prole @ ACR has an hilarious video essay on "8 years later- whassup?", Anderson @ Shockfront tells us how the Bush administration swells the wave of lawlessness, Impolitic @ Impolitical explains what is the one more big gift of Bush to his successor, while Tom Harper @ Who Hijacked Our Country waxes cynical about Bush being "shocked" by World hostility toward America. In between, The Mound of Sound @ Rolling Back The Tide Of Extremism, One Post At A Time exposes carpetbagging on the public dime, which is what it looks like the bank bailouts are all about, whereas BJ @ Newshoggers informs us of the coming battles for on-line freedom.

Now on to the Global War on Terror(TM) again ... Chris Floyd @ Empire Burlesque waxes cynically on how Iraq after the surge is a Hell of a success, Glenn Greenwald @ Salon discusses more alarming threats of war against Iran, and Valtin @ Invictus exposes Unit 731 and its purpose in biological warfare and human medical experimentation.

Through it all, Boris @ The Galloping Beaver was inspired to write about the near future in his piece titled "Dystopia".


Oh, Humanity!
April Reign @ April Reign explains the hows and whys is it that anti-choice = anti-truth, whereas Saskboy @ Abandoned Stuff tells us more about "Inherit the Earth".



Thus on this note ends the Weekly Revue on this Sunday October 26th, 2008.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Here's That "October Surprise"

(Updated below) (Update II)

This just in:

Reports: U.S. helicopters raid Syrian village
Residents, TV report two helicopters carrying U.S. soldiers kill seven people

U.S. military helicopters attacked an area along the country's border with Iraq, causing casualties, Syria's state-run television and witnesses said Sunday.

The TV report quoted unnamed Syrian officials and said the area is near the Syrian border town of Abu Kamal. It gave no other details on Sunday's attack.

Local residents told The Associated Press by telephone that two helicopters carrying U.S. soldiers raided the village of Hwijeh, 10 miles inside Syria's border, killing seven people and wounding five.

The U.S. military in Baghdad had no immediate comment.

Indeed.

Now, let us see how this "new crisis" (i.e. actually sought after) will be exploited by McCain-Palin through yet more fearmongering and the all-purpose need for "Security" to sway the electorate - thanks to the helping hand of the incompetent Bush-Cheney et al. still in office ...

In any case - this arrogant and dangerous Bush Doctrine to attack any time, anywhere in any soverign country (Pakistan being another recent example) in the name of the ludicrous Global War on Terror(TM) has to be relegated to the hash heap of incompetence and history.

This is criminal (check the U.N. charter, if you will) and must be disavowed by the American people once and for all.

I wonder how the U.S. would feel if other countries would do the same to them?


Update: from the same article linked to - we now have emerging details:

The Syrian report comes just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq told reporters that American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he said was an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.

A government statement carried by the official Syrian Arab News Agency said Sunday's attack was on the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal, five miles inside the Syrian border. Four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction, firing on the workers inside, shortly before sundown, the statement said.

The U.S. military in Baghdad did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The area is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money coming into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency.

Iraqi insurgents seized Qaim in April 2005, forcing U.S. Marines to recapture the town the following month in heavy fighting. The area became secure only after Sunni tribes in Anbar turned against al-Qaida in late 2006 and joined forces with the Americans.

On Thursday, U.S. Maj. Gen. John Kelly said Iraq's western borders with Saudi Arabia and Jordan were fairly tight as a result of good policing by security forces in those countries but that Syria was a "different story."

"The Syrian side is, I guess, uncontrolled by their side," Kelly said. "We still have a certain level of foreign fighter movement."

He added that the U.S. was helping construct a sand berm and ditches along the border.

"There hasn't been much, in the way of a physical barrier, along that border for years," Kelly said.

It is still no excuse to unilaterally violate the sovereignty of another country.

Period.



Update II: This is the convenient reasoning of rogue nations (emphasis added):

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the foreign fighter network that travels through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area because Syria was out of the military's reach.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

Indeed - the same kind of reasoning by any incompetent, by every criminal - "take what you want when you want, who cares what others think?"

That is the Bush Doctrine for you.

Did I say "rogue nation"?

Yeah - I thought I did ...

Now let us all sit back and watch the consequences fall in like dominos.

More than ever - I loathe dangerous incompetents like Bush et al.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Desperation Politics = Demagoguery = Potential Tragic Consequences

Continuing the discussion from here, here and there on the inherent dangers of whipping the ugly raging beast of ignorance, fear and hate into a frenzy, I offer the following article for additional consideration:

Desperation Makes for Dangerous Politics
by: Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III, Ph.D.

As America moves into the final days of the 2008 presidential campaign Senator McCain and his surrogates are desperately seeking any message that will resonate with the American people. The problem is that their desperate actions are resulting in dangerous and ugly politics.

Senator McCain hails himself as a maverick - a visionary and independent man who breaks from the politics of the past. Actually, McCain and his supporters are simply pandering to the conservative right and the fringe elements of America. They are not "reaching across the aisle" or "seeking consensus." His campaign is not building bridges to move the country forward; it's building bridges to nowhere. McCain and his surrogates have turned to fear mongering through racist innuendo as Senator McCain attempts to become America's 44th president.

On Sunday, October 19, on "Meet the Press," Gen. Colin Powell, a centrist Republican, offered a well-thought-through and eloquently articulated endorsement of Senator Barack Obama. General Powell clearly explained that Senator McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for vice president raised his concerns about McCain's judgment. General Powell also spoke about the troubling nature of the personal attacks on Senator Obama, based on false intimations, and that: "Over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party has become narrower and narrower." He also said he became "concerned" that "in the case of Mr. McCain, he was a little unsure how to deal with the economic problems."

When asked by Tom Brokaw if race played a factor in his decision, General Powell said that he had pondered a decision for months, and that he had told Obama, "I'll give you all the advice I can, but I'm not going to vote for you just because you're black." For some reason, conservatives such as Limbaugh and George Will cannot take General Powell at his word. In an effort to dismiss General Powell's endorsement as less than substantive and provoke old racist fears, Limbaugh and Will both pointed to race as the basis for General Powell's endorsement. Limbaugh said Powell's decision was "totally about race." Will stated that the Powell endorsement, "adds to my calculation - this is very hard to measure - but it seems to me if we had the tools to measure we'd find that Barack Obama gets two votes because he's black for every one he loses because he's black, because so much of this country is so eager, a) to feel good about itself by doing this, but more than that to put paid to the whole Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson game of political rhetoric."

Is George Will suggesting that Barak Obama has an inherent advantage in this election because he is African-American? I've always admired George Will's intellect even though I've disagreed with his politics. This statement makes me wonder; what America is he living in? What poll data is he not looking at? That's an utterly stupid assessment.

In California, a Republican group in San Bernardino County distributed a newsletter that depicted Senator Obama on a fake $10 food stamp along with images of a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken. On an official state Republican Party web site in Sacramento County, Republicans posted a series of violent anti-Obama images and statements. Senator Obama was depicted in a turban and paired with images of Osama bin Laden, with a caption that read: "The only difference between Obama and Osama is BS." Below that were the words "Waterboard Barack Obama!" This goes right to General Powell's issues with the false intimations that Obama is Muslim.

Senator McCain has stated that Hamas endorses Senator Obama, "I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States ... I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas' worst nightmare!"

This libelous, slanderous and inflammatory rhetoric has turned dangerous. At a recent McCain campaign rally, when McCain asked, "Who is Barack Obama?" a supporter screamed "terrorist"! In Pennsylvania during a speech by Sarah Palin, one supporter screamed "kill him" in reference to Obama.

While it is clearly understood that Senator McCain is not responsible for the actions of his supporters and those who endorse him, we do expect a man claims to break from the politics of the past to soundly and clearly disassociate himself from these tactics. Senator McCain should repudiate and disavow those engaged in this behavior in the same manner Senator Obama was forced to repudiate and disavow Reverend Wright. Instead, McCain uses Sarah Palin to spread the most vicious of the attacks. At a rally in Denver, Palin said, "This is not a man who sees America as you see it and as I see America - our opponent, though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." All may be fair in love, war and politics, but the rhetoric of desperation should at least be based in fact and not place the well-being of your opponent in peril.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Coalition Opposition Needed Against Harper Agenda

Following up on this post, more discussion as to the (obvious) reasons why opposition parties need to come together to stand against Harper, his Harpies and their agenda:

Left Coalition Badly Needed
Harper's agenda must be stopped by Liberals, NDP and Bloc.
By Murray Dobbin

Was the federal election just a bad dream? After five weeks of fear and loathing, disappointment and disbelief, Canadians woke up to election results that were hardly different than when the election started. Most of the commentary since has been about numbers and pro-Harper media spin. The man who is claiming a new "enhanced" mandate actually received 168,737 fewer votes than last time but garnered an additional 19 seats. The turnout, at 59 per cent, was the lowest in our history, which means that the Harper Conservatives will govern the country with the support of fewer than 23 per cent of the eligible voters. Democracy in Canada has seldom seemed so corrupted or so unrepresentative.

For many of the 62 per cent who voted against Harper and his unhidden agenda, there has been an outpouring of demands for a coalition government of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc to form a minority government as soon as they can conceivably bring down the Harper government.

The movement for proportional representation suddenly has thousands of new recruits and supporters as Fair Vote Canada's website is being flooded with visitors and its petition has been sent out through hundreds of individual e-mail lists.

Those of us on the left can be enraged by Harper's win, but we should not be surprised. The political right has been working for this result for some 20 years with a campaign deliberately aimed at lowering Canadians' expectations of what is possible from government, and hence elections. The campaign to give democracy a cold shower actually started with the 1975 publication of a book called The Crisis of Democracy. Put out by the Trilateral Commission, the most powerful elite group in the world at the time, it concluded that there was an "excess of democracy." The authors lamented that the public now questioned "the legitimacy of hierarchy, coercion, discipline, secrecy, and deception -- all of which are in some measure inescapable attributes of the process of government." A governable democracy, the American co-author Samuel P. Huntington wrote, requires a large degree of "apathy and non-involvement." That they now have it is no accident.

Deficit terrorism, surplus suppression

For the succeeding 30 years, corporate think tanks, media outlets and foundations got down to work to rid the world of its excess of democracy. In Canada, beginning with the national debate on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the neo-liberal movement waged an extremely effective campaign along the lines of "there is no alternative" -- known by its acronym TINA. In the late '80s through the early 1990s the focus was the deficit and it was relentless: thousands of articles, TV programs, editorials, academic studies and political campaigns warned about hitting the "debt wall."

But always connected with the deficit terror campaign was the solution: cutting government spending -- specifically, social spending. The result? In 1995, when Paul Martin slashed federal social spending by 40 per cent, Canadians barely complained. Other aspects of the campaign denigrated government and those who provided its front line services. Preston Manning characterized government as having its "hands in taxpayers' pockets."

Just two years after Martin's cuts, Ottawa began racking up increasing, multi-billion dollar surpluses -- surpluses which threatened to once again increases people's expectations. They were quickly dispensed with, first by paying down the debt and second by the biggest corporate and high income tax cuts in Canadian history. Harper, of course, continued with the project.

Where Layton and May stumbled

But given Canadians' resilient attachment to progressive values, this world of lowered expectations could be challenged by genuine visionary political leadership. Nothing can be expected from the Bay Street Liberals whose shameless "running from the left" strategy should fool no one. There is a temptation to feel sorry for Dion given the ruthless personal attacks on him by Harper and Co. But this was the man who supported every piece of legislation that Stephen Harper could muster in his two and a half years as PM. Only as part of a minority government can we expect anything but corporate kow-towing from this politically compromised machine.

And the NDP, which actually has a collection of progressive policies, has yet to take on the challenge of raising expectations. Canadians are looking for someone who gives them hope for the future. The NDP gives them clever tactics, catch phrases and a virtual prime minister. Looking at the NDP campaign, as smooth and smart as it was, the whole was far less than the sum of its parts. The party seems incapable of getting beyond the momentary imperative of strategy and tactics to offer a vision that Canadians so desperately seek. We want leaders but we still get managers.

Looking south, it is ironic that Barack Obama, whose policies are almost universally mainstream Democratic Party (that is, mostly reactionary) is running a campaign based on values and hope. But in Canada, his ostensible counterpart, Jack Layton, a man whose policies really are progressive, failed to provide hope or vision because, we have to assume, he and his party thought Canadians weren't ready to respond to such a bold campaign. They were wrong.

As for Elizabeth May, she actually sounded like a leader, not boxed in by the careful scripting and focus-group-think that the other leaders demonstrated. But she, too, had a major flaw. May has always known that in a first-past-the-post system a small party divides the electorate. She could easily have won the party's leadership based on this understanding and made it clear from the beginning that she would not run candidates in competitive ridings where the Conservatives could be defeated. That is, until the country got proportional representation. Instead, she went for the money -- the $1.95 per vote trumped her principles. But then she tried to have her pie and eat it, too. Three times promoting strategic voting and then unconvincingly denying she had, she failed to exhibit the one essential trait of any successful political leader: good judgement.

What to expect of Harper now

For a smart politician, Stephen Harper has twice thrown away majority victories with moves that are breathtaking in their stupidity. His comments on culture (much worse than the actual cuts) and his pledge to send 14-year-olds to prison for life are headed for the political history books. For a party with an absolute lock on its core supporters, both these policy initiatives were inexplicable. They not only lost him the majority he desperately wanted, but may have set him and his party back permanently in Quebec. After all, he has given the province everything they asked for already, in a cynical strategy to get seats. What will he do for an encore?

There is no hidden Harper agenda. It is there for all to see. A rigid ideologue who detests government, he will continue to corrupt Canadian democracy and political culture with negative advertising, aggressive partisanship, out-right lies and cynical policy initiatives aimed at capturing carefully calculated segments of the population.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Global Economic Crisis: Potential Solutions?

I now yield the floor to the following article which is of interest to Canadians as well:

Global capitalism: on the edge of the abyss

Dramatic recent events have thrown into sharp relief some chronic and long-standing problems of our global and national economic system: an over-developed financial sector which has fuelled rampant speculation rather than productive, job-creating investments in the real economy; huge returns for senior executives and corporate insiders while the wages and the incomes of working families have stagnated; rising household debt instead of a fair sharing of productivity gains with workers; over-reliance on the export of raw resources; a deep crisis in our manufacturing and forest industries; and massive global financial imbalances driven by unbalanced and unfair trade.

Even heads of government of the largest advanced industrial countries are now saying that the age of deregulated "neo-liberal" global capitalism is over. Financial collapse has led not just to the discrediting of an ideology, but also to a major reassertion of the role of governments in maintaining systemic financial stability. What remains to be seen as we await emergency international meetings is how far the re-regulation of finance will go, and how much more profound will be the needed re-assertion of the role of governments.

Toward solutions
A co-ordinated international response

Future financial crises will be avoided only by strengthening government regulation of the banks and other financial institutions, and by extending the scope of government regulation to include hedge funds and private equity groups. Leverage (the use of borrowed funds) must be both limited and closely monitored by regulators to reduce excessive risk-taking and to forestall future asset bubbles. Calls for self-regulation must be rejected. There must be regulation of credit rating agencies to prevent conflicts of interest.

An international framework is needed since re-regulation at the national level would soon be undermined by capital moving to the least onerous locations. Governments should be encouraged to restrict or ban capital flight to locations which do not agree to abide by a new set of rules.

Governments must follow up with further concerted cuts to interest rates.

A small transactions tax should be levied on all securities trading, including the trading of commodity futures, to discourage short-term speculation in financial assets and to raise government revenues.

We also need a co-ordinated fiscal stimulus. Those countries, including Canada, which have no or very low deficits and paid down government debt should do the most.

China and other countries running large trade surpluses must expand demand at home by increasing public investment and by allowing free trade unions to grow and function, while helping shore up the global financial system so that the U.S. can grow its way out of a recession through higher exports.

Financial Re-Regulation and Action at Home

More government assistance to the Canadian banks should be given only in return for an equity position, with a view to increasing the power of the federal government to regulate and supervise the banks on an ongoing basis through an internal, ownership-based window on the industry.

While it is claimed that the large Canadian banks are strong and well capitalized, this should be confirmed through a thorough audit.

As needed, the federal government must be prepared to guarantee operating lines of credit to viable companies which cannot obtain credit from the banks. Consideration should be given to creating a public investment fund which would take equity positions in companies seeking funds for long term investments.

Moving forward, the Bank of Canada should be given the power to impose asset-backed reserve requirements on the banks and near bank lending institutions so as to slow the growth of asset bubbles in areas such as housing, commercial real estate, and equities without raising overall interest rates.

It is a myth that Canada has not experienced a housing bubble. CMHC must be given access to government guaranteed funds to be drawn upon as needed to refinance distressed mortgages at lower rates in return for a partial equity stake so as to forestall any wave of foreclosures.

In addition to reviews by the Competition Bureau, all major corporate mergers and acquisitions, including leveraged buyouts and private equity purchases, should require government approval, preceded by an open public interest review of the impacts on real investment and employment.

Fair Solutions to the Crisis

Executive compensation in the form of stock options must be restricted to reasonable amounts and limited to long-term gains in share values. A maximum limit should be placed on senior executive compensation which can be deducted for corporate tax purposes. Capital gains should be fully included in taxable income, and there should be a surtax on very high incomes to help pay for the costs of bail-outs.

Fighting recession

The question today is not whether we will see large job losses and rising unemployment in Canada, but rather how deep and prolonged the crisis will be.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Primitive Mind-Thinking Syndrome

Here is the primitive mind of Sarah Stillson Palin the parochial theocon at work:

This morning, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) gave her first policy speech urging the federal government to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), “a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation.” In the speech, Palin cited the need to do more for children with disabilities such as autism:

For many parents of children with disabilities, the most valuable thing of all is information. Early identification of a cognitive or other disorder, especially autism, can make a life-changing difference.

Palin claimed that the amount that Congress spends on earmarks “is more than the shortfall to fully fund IDEA.” She then ridiculed some of the projects — such as “fruit fly research” — saying they have little or no value:

Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

Watch it:

At this point, I would start writing something about such drivel, such nonesense, such insanity - however, anything I would write would end up exactly the same as what I've already written before in previous posts ...

So instead, I'll let Dr. P.Z. Myers speak my mind:

I am appalled.

This idiot woman, this blind, shortsighted ignoramus, this pretentious clod, mocks basic research and the international research community. You damn well better believe that there is research going on in animal models — what does she expect, that scientists should mutagenize human mothers and chop up baby brains for this work? — and countries like France and Germany and England and Canada and China and India and others are all respected participants in these efforts.

Yes, scientists work on fruit flies. Some of the most powerful tools in genetics and molecular biology are available in fruit flies, and these are animals that are particularly amenable to experimentation. Molecular genetics has revealed that humans share key molecules, the basic developmental toolkit, with all other animals, thanks to our shared evolutionary heritage (something else the wackaloon from Wasilla denies), and that we can use these other organisms to probe the fundamental mechanisms that underlie core processes in the formation of the nervous system — precisely the phenomena Palin claims are so important.

To be frank, I am far from surprised - because that is how intellectual sloth-afflicted primitive minds think - of which Sarah Stillson Palin constitutes a "fine" example:

It never ceases to amaze me to what levels of utter irrationality the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are willing to descend into.

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

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

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

Why else would they try to censor science, attempt to control it, seek to falsify it or rewrite it, quietly hide it, brazenly deny funding for it, attempt to change its mission/purpose, actually lie about it, use spin games to deny it, go to great lenghts to confuse people about it, attempt to dismiss it as a matter of differing beliefs or philosophies, or go as far as to demonize it?

Why else would they use the politics of fear, ignorance and lies?

Now, here's why they do so:

(...) the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are very much alike the people from the allegory of the cave, and somehow made flesh and blood.

They are indeed living in a cave, their backs to the entrance while facing the sunlit cave wall, seeing only shadows of reality. And it is from watching these two-dimensional shadows that they construct myths and stories to comfort themselves - because they not only fear the shadows that they see, but they also fear even more what these shadows represent.

Thus, they find themselves frightened to the deepest levels of their fragile souls by the glorious truth of the multi-dimensional reality in which we live, whenever they get out of their cave. Their intellectual sloth-driven, ignorant and fearful minds simply can not, or flatly refuse, to comprehend it.

That is why their beliefs and ideologies are not only parochial, but adamantly intractable.

Consequently, at the end of each day, the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters return to the safety and comfort of their cave, vowing to say and do everything in order to transform our multi-dimensional reality into the simpler, two-dimensional one made of shadows that they are accustomed to.

Hence, my conclusion is that the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are the same ignorant, fearful and surperstitious primitives that our ancestors were, thousands upon thousands of years ago - except that they now use newspapers, magazines, television, radio, politics, and the internet, to spread their intellectual sloth-driven non-understanding of the world and, consequently, working hard at bringing us down to their level of ignorance.

To which I add: that, coupled to their pathetic inhability to accept - or deal with - reality, along with their typical shameless hypocrisy in trying to justify any and all duplicity on their part in the face of whatever self-deluded moral ground du jour that they claim, make them not only nothing more than primitive minds, but utter incompetent modern human beings as well.

The result is the fierce undercurrent of anti-intellectualism, anti-science and tribalist-racism that bubbles up increasingly to the surface (especially thanks to the recent strategy of the McCain-Palin campaign), despite these modern, scientific and technological times of ours. It's what I've come to call our "Semi-Dark Ages". A few cases in point:

Congressman Rohrabacher's Floor Speech on Global Warming: "(Are we to believe) buffalo farts have more socially redeeming value than the same flatulence emitted by cattle?"

Bachmann Calls For McCarthyite Investigation Into Anti-American Activities Of Liberals;

Sarah Palin Says She Open To Teaching Creationism In Public Schools;

Palin Claimed Dinosaurs And People Coexisted;

Palin Explains What Parts Of Country Not "Pro-America";

Bachmann: ‘Not all cultures are equal’;

Palin: Iraq is a task "from God";

Conservatives Call Obama’s Correct Pronounciation Of Pakistan ‘Exotic’ And ‘Annoying’;

Palin Sees America As Wealthy And White: New Hampshire And Alaska Are ‘Microcosms’ Of The Country;

Another McCarthyite Republican: Rep. Robin Hayes says “liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God";

Bachmann tells Pelosi to give up on global warming because Jesus already saved the planet;

McCain: Washington D.C. and NYC = Fake America;

Racism, hate bubble up yet again at Palin's rally in Vegas.

Thus I give you primitive mind-thinking at work - and I could go on and on and on with further examples, just for this year alone.

Oh - and the fruit fly thing? Here's but one example of how useful the knowledge of its cellular and molecular biology as a scientific, experimental animal model has lead to a better understanding of human diseases:

Palin did not specify what fruit fly research earmark she was referring to (presumably a grant for olive fruit fly research), but she is apparently unaware that scientific research with fruit flies has led to valuable discoveries that have boosted autism research, as a study at the University of North Carolina demonstrated last year:

[S]cientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine have shown that a protein called neurexin is required for ... nerve cell connections to form and function correctly.

The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism.

The study of fruit flies has also been used for other autism research and “revolutionize[d]” the study of birth defects.

Other animal models, such as laboratory mice, are likewise extremely useful in understanding our own genetics, physiology and diseases. Just two cases in point among countless others:

First-ever Genetic Animal Model Of Autism;

New Treatment Strategy Possible For Muscular Dystrophy, Mouse Studies Show.

In case you would want to know more, instead of being a primitive mind like Sarah Stillson Palin, you might want to begin here, here, here and here - and from there, you may go as deep as you want.

(And be most welcome to my world, as well as that of all cellular and molecular biologists, geneticists, biochemists, etc.)

Feed your mind, eh?


(Cross-posted at TWWL, The Peace Tree)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Who's Waiting For Nov. 4th?

Waiting for Nov. 4th

by Larry David

I can't take much more of this. Two weeks to go, and I'm at the end of my rope. I can't work. I can eat, but mostly standing up. I'm anxious all the time and taking it out on my ex-wife, which, ironically, I'm finding enjoyable. This is like waiting for the results of a biopsy. Actually, it's worse. Biopsies only take a few days, maybe a week at the most, and if the biopsy comes back positive, there's still a potential cure. With this, there's no cure. The result is final. Like death.

Five times a day I'll still say to someone, "I don't know what I'm going to do if McCain wins." Of course, the reality is I'm probably not going to do anything. What can I do? I'm not going to kill myself. If I didn't kill myself when I became impotent for two months in 1979, I'm certainly not going to do it if McCain and Palin are elected, even if it's by nefarious means. If Obama loses, it would be easier to live with it if it's due to racism rather than if it's stolen. If it's racism, I can say, "Okay, we lost, but at least it's a democracy. Sure, it's a democracy inhabited by a majority of disgusting, reprehensible turds, but at least it's a democracy." If he loses because it's stolen, that will be much worse. Call me crazy, but I'd rather live in a democratic racist country than a non-democratic non-racist one. (It's not exactly a Hobson's choice, but it's close, and I think Hobson would compliment me on how close I've actually come to giving him no choice. He'd love that!)

Keep Reading ...

punditman says ...
Thanks to my friend "Tallahassee Lizzie" for the above article. Hilarious!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Late Friday Night Ode To ... Denialists

Whether they be denying global warming, evolution, budget deficits, economic woes, their own words, their own lies - even denying their own denials - ... denialists constitute the quintessence of intellectual sloth-driven incompetence.

So, tonight's Ode is dedicated to those primitive minds:

(Sevendust - Denial)

(Living Colours - Ignorance Is Bliss)

Keep on rockin'!


(P.S. Impolitic - your move!) ;-)


(Addendum: ah-hah! Let the fun begins every Friday nights from now on! Hehehe) ;-)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Disaster Capitalism For Dummies - Wall Street Style

Yes - more on the economy, folks ... whereby the following article only strenghtens my skepticism about said economy:

Wall Street's 'Disaster Capitalism for Dummies'
14 reasons Main Street loses big while Wall Street sabotages democracy
By Paul B. Farrell

Yes, we're dummies. You. Me. All 300 million of us. Clueless. We should be ashamed. We're obsessed about the slogans and rituals of "democracy," distracted by the campaign, polls, debates, rhetoric, half-truths and outright lies. McCain? Obama? Sorry to pop your bubble folks, but it no longer matters who's president.

Why? The real "game changer" already happened. Democracy has been replaced by Wall Street's new "disaster capitalism." That's the big game-changer historians will remember about 2008, masterminded by Wall Street's ultimate "Trojan Horse," Hank Paulson. Imagine: Greed, arrogance and incompetence create a massive bubble, cost trillions, and still Wall Street comes out smelling like roses, richer and more powerful!Yes, we're idiots: While distracted by the "illusion of democracy" in the endless campaign, Congress surrendered the powers we entrusted to it with very little fight. Congress simply handed over voting power and the keys to trillions in the Treasury to Wall Street's new "Disaster Capitalists" who now control "democracy."

Why did this happen? We're in denial, clueless wimps, that's why. We let it happen. In one generation America has been transformed from a democracy into a strange new form of government, "Disaster Capitalism." Here's how it happened:

• Three decades of influence peddling in Washington has built an army of 42,000 special-interest lobbyists representing corporations and the wealthy. Today these lobbyists manipulate America's 537 elected officials with massive campaign contributions that fund candidates who vote their agenda.
• This historic buildup accelerated under Reaganomics and went into hyperspeed under Bushonomics, both totally committed to a new disaster capitalism run privately by Wall Street and Corporate America. No-bid contracts in wars and hurricanes. A housing-credit bubble -- while secretly planning for a meltdown.
• Finally, the coup de grace: Along came the housing-credit crisis, as planned. Press and public saw a negative, a crisis. Disaster capitalists saw a huge opportunity. Yes, opportunity for big bucks and control of America. Millions of homeowners and marginal banks suffered huge losses. Taxpayers stuck with trillions in debt. But giant banks emerge intact, stronger, with virtual control over government and the power to use taxpayers' funds. They're laughing at us idiots!

Amazing isn't it, Wall Street's Disaster Capitalists screwed up, likely planned or let happen this meltdown and recession. Yet America's clueless taxpayers just reward them by giving the screw-ups massive bailouts, control over more than $2 trillion of tax money, and the power to clean up the mess they made. Oh yes, we are dummies!

This end game was planned for years in secret war rooms on Wall Street, in Corporate America, in Washington and the Forbes 400. Democracy is too cumbersome. It had to be marginalized for Disaster Capitalism to take over.

Reagan, Bush and Paulson were Wall Street's "Trojan Horses."

Naomi Klein summarizes the game in "Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism." This "new economy" generates enormous profits feeding off other peoples' misery: Wars, terror attacks, natural catastrophes, poverty, trade sanctions, subprime housing meltdowns and all kinds of economic, financial and political disasters. Natural (Katrina) or manmade (Iraq), either way "disaster capitalism" creates fortunes.

So you, me and the other 300 million better get out of denial. America is no longer a democracy. Voting is irrelevant. Best case scenario: We're a plutocracy, a government ruled by the wealthy, the richest 1%, the Forbes 400, the influential wealthy elite, while the other 99% are their "servants." Meanwhile, the inflation-adjusted income of wage-earners has declined for three decades.

Worst case scenario: America's no democracy and as a result of the meltdown and the surrender of our power to Wall Street's new Disaster Capitalism we are morphing into what one WWII dictator called "corporatism," a "merger of state and corporate power," kind of like what's going on now with Goldman Sachs' ex-boss as de facto president.

Wolves in sheep's clothing.

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Harper And "Competence": Bring It On - Please!

I must confess that this bit of news made me grin smile chuckle - oh, all right - laugh (emphasis added):

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will emphasize competence in the face of economic turmoil when he unveils his cabinet next week, while promoting fresh faces from ridings that swung to the Conservatives in the election.

"The overall message for everything that we are doing is that we're carrying on with competent government," a senior Conservative official said yesterday. "We have real strong people, and we elected really strong people as well. That's what you're going to see."

...

...

...

(sorry - still laughing so hard, here ... just gimme a few seconds to compose ...)

...

(this is so unbecoming of me - I apologize)

...

(OK - good to continue, now)

As regular readers of APOV well know, we here at APOV HQ are all about competence - especially by exposing incompetence ... which happens to be a consistently demonstrated trait of conservatives/republicans/neocons/theocons (Bush? Cheney? McCain? Palin? - et al., anyone?)

Of course, Harper and his Harpies have not escaped this rule - just dig through the posts archived on the right sidebar as proof enough of this, folks.

Hell - here's just one example from earlier this very day.

And add to this the following other bit of news from today's headlines (emphasis added):

Politics factored into bank aid deal

When the BlackBerrys started buzzing early yesterday morning over breakfast in executive dining suites on Bay Street, even the most senior figures in Canada's banking industry interrupted their table conversations to confirm the fix was in.

The announcement from the Conservatives that the federal government will intervene in financial markets was the culmination of weeks of behind-the-scenes dialogue leading to the sovereign pledge to repay money the country's banks borrow from other banks over the next six months, up to an estimated $218-billion.

The impetus to act originated primarily from events outside Canada's borders that put pressure on banks' own cost of capital and the liquidity needed for day-to-day operation of the financial system. While international diplomatic considerations played a role, the timing and substance of the government's actions were driven in large part by domestic political calculations, according to senior figures directly involved in a high-level dialogue between Ottawa and Bay Street.

Because of these acute political and commercial sensitivities, normal lobbying channels fell silent as chief executives engaged in direct talks with Ottawa, which was represented in key discussions by a senior, unelected, advisor to Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister. Only a tiny circle of the banks' most trusted lobbyists were at the table and on conference calls. Other veterans of government relations were excluded, while regulators participated in some meetings.

As well as this one (emphasis added):

PS faces money manager crisis

The federal government's shortage of people with the right kind of financial expertise poses a significant problem for the public service in tighter economic times, experts warn.

Charles-Antoine St-Jean, who, until a year ago, was Canada's comptroller-general, said the government has struggled for years with a shortage of accounting and financial professionals.

He worries that that shortage could undermine the government's ability to get a handle on its true costs as it heads into economic uncertainty.

That shortage becomes critical if departments are forced to make spending choices as government revenues decline.

(...) The shortage comes after years of failing to recruit or train enough qualified financial officers to handle the complexities of managing money in government. Until two years ago, the government didn't even require formal training for its financial officers -- even the chief financial officer -- as chartered accountants, certified general accountants or certified management accountants. It's now a must for all CFOs by 2009-2010.

...

...

Competence, Mr. Prime Minister Harper?

Now, Mr. Prime Minister?

Well, thank you for admiting your previously demonstrated incompetence - such admission is a very rare occurence among incompetents and constitutes a sound first step to recovery and display of actual competence - provided of course that such an admission is sincere. I nonetheless hope that you will indeed turn a new leaf in this respect - for the sake of all Canadians, for the sake of our country.

But allow us here at APOV HQ to remain ... ah ... skeptical.

So I say to you, Mr. Prime Minister: bring it on - please!

We at APOV accept the challenge and thus I reiterate: we will continue watching you like hawks ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Harper, Flaherty And Deficit Obfuscations

Why am I not surprised by this:

Ottawa posts $1.7-billion deficit in August

The federal government posted a $1.7-billion deficit in August -- a signal that Ottawa may have difficulty balancing its books this year.

The monthly deficit reported Friday was the first since April and shrinks the accumulated surplus so far into the fiscal year to a five-month total of $1.2 billion.

While economists warn it is difficult to make judgments based on one month's accounting, the steep fall-off in the Canadian economy, particularly since this month's plunge in oil prices and stock markets, suggests the second half of the fiscal year will be worse for Ottawa than the first.

Funny - that is my thinking exactly.

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Flaherty continues his Mini Leader's tap dance of obfuscation and denial about budget deficits thusly:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Thursday he still expects to have a small surplus when the fiscal year ends at the end of March, but admitted it will be tight and would not guarantee a surplus for the 2009-2010 period.

In the February budget, Flaherty predicted Ottawa would record surpluses of $2.3 billion this year and $1.3 billion next year.

Sounds a lot like incompetence to me.

But here's reality again, as further case in point:

August's shortfall was all related to a 10.1 per cent spending surge, in transfers to provinces and individuals and in departmental costs.

Revenue increased by a modest $100 million, or 0.5 per cent, during the month as a result of higher personal tax collections.

But corporate tax revenues were sharply down by $1 billion or 43.1 per cent, following a 15.7 per cent increase in July.

Now, let us not put aside the fiscal responsibility and spending restraint of Harper and his Harpies - to whit:

Still, the government's fiscal margins have become tighter following personal, sales and corporate tax cuts announced last fall, many of which came into effect in January.

For the first five months of the fiscal year, the government's budgetary surplus is down by $5.5 billion from where it stood last year.

The principal reason is the sharp increase in program spending -- $82.7 billion so far this year as opposed to $76.3 billion last year.

Other factors include a 9.6 per cent decline in goods and services tax collections as a result of January's one-point GST cut.

Not taking into account this, that, and this and that, and even this.

Once again: mea culpa, mea culpa vox populi, fellow Canadians.

We own what we got for ourselves.


Any questions?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Everyone Trying To Save Face

That's right. Interference by the Harper government in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as well as divergent agendas between the Chairman (Justice Harry S. LaForme) and the two sitting commissioners (Claudette Dumont-Smith, Jane Brewin Morley), have lead to the recent resignation of the TRC's Chairman.

More details have emerged as to the reasons behind Justice LaForme's resignation (emphasis added):

As Mr. Justice Harry LaForme agonized over whether to stay on as chairman of the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, he was faced with the question of whether he wanted to spend five years fighting for his own independence and authority.

The 61-year-old Ontario Court of Appeal judge consulted commission counsel Owen Young, whom Judge LaForme had stood by despite the opposition of some native groups to his hiring.

Mr. Young tried to persuade Judge LaForme, the country's highest-ranking aboriginal judge, to stay. "Harry, the country needs you," he said.

"We're not giving up this fight for reconciliation," the judge replied. "But we're going to have to move to another context."

An intermediary explored the possibility that Jane Brewin Morley and Claudette Dumont-Smith, the two commissioners who opposed Judge LaForme, might resign to break the deadlock, but they said they would not.

"He did the thing that he could control, let me put it that way," Mr. Young said. "He could have asked them to leave; they wouldn't leave."

His resignation Monday caught many by surprise. Attempts at conciliation had been launched at the behest of Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler, led by Toronto lawyer Will McDowell. People close to the discussion felt that, given time, solutions could have been found to the issues that divided the three: whether there was a hierarchy in the group, whether decisions would be made by consensus, whether the commission would focus on truth or reconciliation or both, and how close the commission would be to the parties to the court-supervised settlement of lawsuits over the schools. Creation of the commission was a cornerstone of that agreement.

The three commissioners met with Mr. McDowell on Sept. 30 in Toronto.

Judge LaForme was still frustrated by the other two commissioners' trip to Ottawa four days earlier at the request of the Assembly of First Nations to meet with the parties to the settlement. He had said he wouldn't go, and recommended the two commissioners do the same.

The judge said that decision was based on the need to defend judicial independence. He believed the commission had to be sympathetic to the survivors, but couldn't be seen to be captive to the AFN, according to a source close to the commission.

In an interview with The Globe two weeks ago, Judge LaForme chose to emphasize the importance of independence.

"My view of independence is such that I would defend it as strongly against the government of Canada as I would against any political organization or any church," he said.

Just for information, here is the mandate of the TRC (pdf here):

• Prepare a comprehensive historical record on the policies and operations of the schools.
• Complete a publicly accessible report that will include recommendations to the government of Canada concerning the Indian Residential School system and its legacy.
• Establish a research centre that will be a permanent resource for all Canadians.
• Host seven national events in different regions across Canada to promote awareness and public education about the Indian Residential School system and its impacts.
• Support events designed by individual communities to meet their unique needs.
• Support a commemoration initiative that will provide funding for activities that honour and pay tribute in a permanent and lasting manner to former Indian Residential School students.

The ultimate objective of the TRC is the following (emphasis added):

Create an accurate and public historical record of the past. In doing so it will help to fill the blank pages of Canada’s history. Contribute to a process of truth, healing and reconciliation. It will be forward looking and results orientated in terms of rebuilding and renewing Aboriginal relationships and the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples.

Perhaps the two commissioners should better acquaint themselves of the TRC's mandate and ultimate objective, while at the same time acquire a better understanding of what are the inherent roles of a Chair by definition - after all, why have a Chair in the first place, contrary to the self-serving contention (suspiciously echoed by the AFN) that all three (LaForme, Dumont-Smith, Morley) were "equal"? And perhaps they should from now on follow the wise legal advice for the need of the TRC to be independent of all parties - including both the government and the AFN, thus ensuring transparency and avoiding the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Likewise, the AFN should seriously reconsider any further attempts in meddling - whether directly or not - with the TRC ... once again, if only for the sake of transparency and avoiding the appearance of conflicts of interest.

And this goes double for the Harper government.

Meanwhile:

Government to hold talks over future of residential-schools commission

CBC has learned the federal government will hold a meeting next week with survivors of residential schools as well as aboriginal and church leaders to determine a course for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

A spokesman for Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl confirmed the meeting, which follows the sudden resignation of the commission's chair, Justice Harry LaForme, less than six months into his mandate.

In his resignation letter this week, LaForme wrote that the commission is on the verge of paralysis and doomed to failure. He cited an "incurable problem" with the other two commissioners, whom he said refused to accept his authority as chair and were disrespectful.

The two commissioners have hit back, saying they were stunned by LaForme's resignation and that any disagreements could have been overcome if LaForme had been willing to sit down and talk with them instead of through intermediaries.

Since LaForme's resignation, former students, aboriginal leaders and the churches that ran the government-funded schools have urged the government to meet with them to ensure the commission resumes as quickly as possible.

Sources told CBC News that the respective parties will talk about how to fill the commission's chair and discuss whether the remaining two commissioners will also have to be replaced.

Strahl has already asked for advice from the three justices supervising the settlement agreement.

Of course, the continuing parade of bruised egos continues:

The Assembly of First Nations said that was the wrong thing to do, insisting the minister should have come to them first.

"The idea of going back to the courts or engaging the courts in this process is entirely premature," John Phillips, a lawyer working for the AFN, told CBC News.

Never you mind that the TRC was created as part of a court-approved Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement that was negotiated in 2006 between former students, churches, the federal government, the Assembly of First Nations and other aboriginal organizations.

In any case, my conclusion is that the AFN is actually playing politics here, especially in light of this:

Fontaine urges feds to quickly find new residential-school commission chair

Assembly of First Nations national chief Phil Fontaine is calling for the federal government to quickly find a replacement for the man who abruptly resigned from the arduous task of chronicling the dark history of residential schools.

"Most survivors are elderly and too many are passing away each day without ever having the opportunity to tell their story to their families, their communities, the commission and indeed to all Canadians," said Fontaine.

Of course, the surviving victims and/or their families remain caught in the middle while the Harper government and the AFN keep on playing politics with something that should have remained politics-free all along:

Meanwhile, survivors have watched with disbelief as the process for healing has unraveled in recent days.

"This would be a perfect opportunity to tell their story and maybe also possibly express forgiveness to the government of Canada," said Elijah Harper, a former Cree chief and the provincial MLA partly responsible for the failure of the Meech Lake accord in 1990.

Harper himself attended a residential school in northern Manitoba and said too much is at stake for the commission to be sidetracked by political in-fighting and controversy.

"We need to hear these people," he said. "It's part of once again feeling betrayed."

(I will not address at this time my perceived hypocrisy on the part of Elijah Harper with his hyperbolic claims of "betrayal", considering how he was instrumental in killing the Meech Lake Accord and consequently preventing "reconciliation" between Canada and Québec - instead keeping all of us stuck in the same old "federalists" vs "séparatistes" quagmire, including the near-victory of the "Yes" vote back in 1995 - but I disgress)

Hence, I say to commissioners Dumont-Smith and Morley, as well as to the AFN and the Harper government: stop trying to save face, grow the hell up and start acting competently by refraining from interfering with the TRC - so that truth, healing and reconciliation may come at last.

Assuming, of course, that is what you do want ... right?

I know I do.

However much the non-First Nations Canadian that I am.



(Addendum: northwestern_lad @ Peterborough Politics has more here)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Our Canadian Economy: Some Encouraging News ...

... or are we being lulled into false reassurance?

Two bits of news reports. First one (emphasis added):

Bank of Canada sees sluggish growth until 2010

Canada's economic performance is expected to be sluggish through the first quarter of next year, the country's central bank said Thursday.

In its Monetary Policy Report, the Bank of Canada said growth is expected to pick up over the remainder of 2009 and to shoot to "above-potential" in 2010, as credit conditions improve and interest-rate cuts take hold.

The bank said it sees GDP growth of 0.6 per cent in 2009. That is forecast to rise to 3.4 per cent in 2010.

(...)

"In line with the bank's new outlook, some further monetary stimulus will likely be required to achieve the two per cent inflation target over the medium term," said Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney.

Asked if Canada was headed for recession, Carney would only say that economic performance will be sluggish for the next few quarters.

The bank said three major factors have been battering the Canadian economy, including:

• The strains on financial markets caused by the growing credit crisis.
• The fact the global economy appears headed for a mild recess led by the U.S., which it said is already in recession.
• Falling commodity prices.

The recent drop in the Canadian dollar will also help to offset weaker global demand and lower commodity prices, the central bank said in its report.

Now, the second one (emphasis added):

Canada's economy still better than U.S.: StatsCan

Canada's economy remains in better shape than the U.S. economy in a variety of areas, and recent indicators suggest the gap between the two has been widening, according to a Statistics Canada analysis Thursday.

As well as a more resilient housing market, the federal agency says Canada also has much stronger employment, financial and auto markets.

The economically reassuring report was released as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was announcing measures to bolster domestic financial institutions and as Bank of Canada was cutting its forecasts for overall economic growth here and explaining why the central bank cut rates earlier this week and expects to cut them even further down the road.

The Bank of Canada warned that Canada's economy will be on the edge of recession through this year and next, with growth of just 0.6 per cent in each year, and that a recovery won't start until the spring.

OK. So, taken the two together, we can expect a slowdown of the economy ("edge of a recession") but we'll rather quickly pick up again, in parts thanks to our own lowering dollar - right?

Provided, of course that: A) the U.S. and the rest of the industrialized world do not go deeper into global economic meltdown; B) that our banks and financial institutions do not lose big if (and/or when) they spend billions to buy toxic assets in the U.S. in order to help the later recover; and C) that we do not get mired in further budget deficits, especially by bailing out our banks and financial institutions because of B).

Hence my question: is what we are being told based on a house of cards of optimistic assumptions in order to inspire confidence in our economy, or should we take stock in such reassurances in order to follow the advice of Prime Minister Harper to "don't worry, be happy"?

Is it coincidence that he repeated (yet again) that "the fundamentals of our economy are solid" just last week?

Forgive me if I therefore remain skeptical of today's somewhat encouraging news about our economy ... especially in light of other related things like this.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

A McCain "Win" Will Be Theft, Resistance Is Planned

by David Swanson

If your television declares John McCain the president elect on the evening of November 4th, your television will be lying. You should immediately pick up your pre-packed bags and head straight to the White House in Washington, D.C., which we will surround and shut down until this attempt at a third illegitimate presidency is reversed.

A McCain "win" will not be illegitimate because I disagree with his policies, but because he himself has rendered it illegitimate. He and his campaign and allied supporters have sought to illegally remove hundreds of thousands of voters from the rolls, fraudulently registered people as Republicans without their knowledge and against their will, obstructed voter registration drives, falsely warned students against voting where they attend school, falsely accused community groups of voter registration fraud, falsely alleged the widespread existence of voter fraud, and encouraged supporters to falsely believe McCain's opponent is a foreign terrorist through speeches, recorded phone messages, and flyers. Already in early voting in a number of states there have been cases of votes on electronic machines visibly flipping to McCain or McKinney when intended for Obama. We will see McCain supporters on November 4th challenging people's right to vote, seeking to force people to vote on provisional ballots, and seeking to have provisional ballots discarded. And we will see electronic vote counts wildly out of step with the most recent polls, although not with exit polls -- which we will be denied any access to unless they have been "adjusted" to match the official counts.

Keep reading this rant! ...


punditman says ...

Although this is obviously a partisan article in support of Obama, I concur with its basic conclusion: that the Republicans will try to win by hook or by crook, just as they have in the past. And yes, that includes cheating. Those who are predicting an Obama landslide, should definitely pay closer attention to the vote count scandals of the 2000 and 2004 elections, including black box voting.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Sarah "Stillson": Stephen King Agrees With Me (!?!)

As regular readers of APOV well know, I've come to nickname Sarah Palin as Sarah "Stillson", based on the Greg Stillson character in the Dead Zone (movie and book, by Stephen King).

Well, in an interview published today in Salon, Stephen King says the following (emphasis added):

Q: Questions of politics are never very far away in "The Stand." Once the plague has come and gone, society has to be reformed. Do you think of it as a political novel, in any sense?

A: I did see it that way. I've always been a political novelist, and those things have always interested me. "Firestarter" is a political novel. "The Dead Zone" is a political novel. There's that scene in "The Dead Zone" where Johnny Smith sees Greg Stillson in the future starting a nuclear war. Around my house we kinda laugh when Sarah Palin comes on TV, and we say, "That's Greg Stillson as a woman."

Wow.

Looks like I was not off the grid at all on this one - as demonstrated by the author himself!

;-)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Reloaded: Electoral Reform Needed In Canada?

Continuing from this previous post, as well as additional food for thought in furthering the discussion on the matter, I hereby yield the floor to a former NDP leader (incidentally, the only time I voted for the NDP, and him as that party's leader, was in the 1988 elections):

Results highlight need for electoral reform
Stable coalition would be better than unstable minority government.
by Ed Broadbent

October 14 was a bad day for Canadian democracy — more unstable, unrepresentative government.

If Tuesday's vote had taken place with an electoral system such as those in the vast majority of democracies, Canadians would now have the prospect of a stable centre-left coalition government, with a majority of seats in Parliament representing a majority of the popular votes.

Instead, we will continue with a right-of-centre government rejected by a substantial majority of Canadians, elected by a mere 38 percent of the people, with not a single MP from Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal. Federalist parties got more than 50 percent of the votes in Quebec, but the Bloc Québécois received two-thirds of the seats.

When, oh Lord, will we wake up? Why do we persist with a 19th-century electoral system designed for two parties long since rejected by more than 40 multiparty democracies throughout the world? When a party with just over a third of the vote gets to govern, and one party, the Greens, doesn't get a single MP although nearly a million people voted for it, is it any wonder that only 59 percent of Canadians bothered to vote on Tuesday, the lowest turnout in our history?

We need change, and we need it soon. Most European democracies have successful systems of proportional representation. And a system such as those in Germany, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales would work well in Canada, combining proportionality with an individual MP for each district. Our Parliaments would be both more representative and more stable.

If seats represented the proportion of actual votes, the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens would have a majority of seats (161) and, following the European pattern, would combine to form a government, with each party having seats in the cabinet and a program that actually reflects how a majority of Canadians voted.

Instead of the instability that comes from our "minority governments" headed by one party based on a minority of votes, evidence shows that most majority-based coalition governments are stable over time precisely because the parties involved have a direct stake in the durability of the government.

Europe's most stable democracies have some form of proportional representation. Their elections are no more frequent than our own, and the need for consensus encourages greater civility in political debate.

As all Canadians know, the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens did agree on a number of economic measures, on social policy, the environment and protection for families in the current economic crisis. Since a majority of Canadians voted for these parties, they, not the Conservatives, should be determining our political agenda. Such democratic conditions work well elsewhere. Why not in Canada?


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Reloaded: Do You Hear The Jackboots Coming To Town?

I tried and tried and tried and tried to tell you so, folks - and then tried some more.

Now all can hear the thundering sound of jackboots coming to town:

ACLU demands info on domestic military deployments

Following reports that US troops will be permanently on call to work inside the United States handling "civil unrest," "crowd control" and other functions traditionally carried out by civilian law enforcement agencies, activists are demanding to know why the Pentagon is reversing a longstanding prohibition on domestic deployment of the military.

The Department of Defense for the first time is assigning a full-time Army unit to be on call with Northern Command, which was created after Sept. 11 to facilitate military cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security in the event of another terrorist attack.

The American Civil Liberties Union is demanding more details on the domestic deployments, which appear to violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits use of the military to direct internal affairs of the US. The ACLU warns that without fully knowing the reasoning and justifications behind the Army's plan, the domestic deployments could be used to expand a militarized surveillance apparatus that already includes the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program and DHS's plans to turn military spy satellites inside US borders.

“This is a radical departure from separation of civilian law enforcement and military authority, and could, quite possibly, represent a violation of law,” former FBI Agent Mike German, an ACLU national security policy counsel, said in a news release. “Our Founding Fathers understood the threat that a standing army could pose to American liberty. While future generations recognized the need for a strong military to defend against increasingly capable foreign threats, they also passed statutory protections to ensure that the Army could not be turned against the American people. The erosion of these protections should concern every American.” 


The ACLU sent a nine page Freedom of Information Act request (pdf) to the Justice Department, Pentagon and DHS for documents related to the decision to deploy an army unit and outlining the unit's duties.

A report in the Army Times last month first brought the domestic deployment to light. The Army's 3rd Infantry Division 1st Brigade Combat Team became the first unit assigned permanently to Northern Command.

According to the Army Times report, the Team would be on-call to respond in the event of a natural disaster or terror attack anywhere in the country, or they could be used to "help with civil unrest and crowd control." But most of their time would be spent training for an expected return to either Iraq or Afghanistan in early 2010.

Some fear the possibility that the unit's training could serve a dual purpose if the soldiers were deployed domestically, although the Army is attempting to downplay those concerns.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.
The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose.
“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”
The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.
The ACLU's request focuses on the deployments as yet another step in a series of what it calls "incremental encroachments" by the military towards operating within the US.

“The military’s deployment within U.S. borders raises critical questions that must be answered,” said Jonathan Hafetz, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “What is the unit’s mission? What functions will it perform? And why was it necessary to deploy the unit rather than rely on civilian agencies and personnel and the National Guard? Given the magnitude of the issues at stake, it is imperative that the American people know the truth about this new and unprecedented intrusion of the military in domestic affairs.”

Meanwhile, in other (related) news ...

Any further questions?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Any C.E.O. Responsibility Displayed Yet?

Considering the recent lavish corporate "meetings", "golden parachutes" and bonuses dished out using the monies of tax payers, the following question is most germane: have corporate C.E.O.'s learned anything for their previous incompetence-driven recklessness, greed and excesses?

As long as our politicos and governments lacks courage to tell them so and force-feed the lesson to them, instead of simply bailing them out, it looks like everything will be the same as it ever was for years to come ...

Any Pay Cuts on Wall Street Yet?
by: Dean Baker

Congress assured us that there would be no more big paychecks for incompetent Wall Street bankers when they passed their bailout bill. They told us that the tough pay provisions would put an end to the multimillion-dollar payouts to these folks.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson mailed $150 billion in checks to the big banks. From that point forward, the CEOs and all the other top executives of these banks are now our dependents. They are living off the tax dollars of schoolteachers in Iowa, truck drivers in Montana and even Joe the Plumber.

It is difficult to understand why we should be taxing people who make $40,000 a year to boost the paychecks of bankers who make more than $1 million a year and in many cases more than $10 million a year. Senator McCain has called Senator Obama a socialist because Obama believes that it is O.K. to impose higher tax rates on rich people than poor people. Senator McCain considers this sort of redistribution unacceptable.

But, if redistribution from the rich to the rest of the country is socialist, what do you call the upward redistribution that Congress approved in the bailout package? It's hard to justify taxing people who make $40,000 a year to benefit bankers who make more than 100 times as much.

The Wall Street bailout was a classic, if totally foreseeable, bait and switch. The public has a real interest in ensuring the continued operation of the financial system. This was threatened by the credit crunch last month. This was the legitimate goal of the bailout.

However, if Congress only wanted to preserve the financial system and not reward the people responsible for the financial crisis, it would have been a simple matter to impose safeguards to ensure that the bank executives were forced to take large pay cuts. While many members of Congress implied that the bill would rein in executive pay, almost all the experts who have examined the provisions on executive pay have concluded that they are largely toothless.

The bailout also did not prevent the banks from paying out dividends to shareholders, as was done in the United Kingdom when they injected capital into their banks. This restriction makes sense not only as a punitive measure but also as a way to help the banks build capital. Every dollar paid out in dividends is a dollar that is not going towards building up capital. Stopping dividend payments should hasten the date at which the banks have sufficient capital without relying on help from the government.

The failure to seriously restrict executive compensation or prohibit dividend payments, coupled with the relatively generous terms given the banks on the capital obtained from the government, shows that the bailout was not just about keeping the financial system operating. It was also about giving money to the banks' executives and their shareholders.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

When You Apply For A Job ...

... you better know what the job actually is before you are interviewed for said job.

Sarah "Stillson" Palin has shown again that she has no idea what the job of Vice-President of the U.S. is, job for which she is currently applying for - to whit:

Palin Claims The Vice President Is ‘In Charge Of The U.S. Senate’

Yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) sat for an interview with KUSA, an NBC affiliate in Colorado. In response to a question sent to the network by a third grader at a local elementary school about what the Vice President does, Palin erroneously argued that the Vice President is “in charge of the United States Senate“:

Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, “What does the Vice President do?”

PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

Watch it:

Indeed, while Palin suggests that questions about what the Vice President does is something only her daughter Piper would ask, Palin herself asked this very question on national television in July. Apparently, she still hasn’t learned the correct answer.

Article I of the Constitution establishes an exceptionally limited role for the Vice President — giving the office holder a vote only when the Senate is “equally divided”:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

Moreover, the U.S. Senate website explains that the modern role of Vice Presidents has been to preside over the Senate “only on ceremonial occasions.”

As I wrote before:

Sarah "Stillson" Palin is a dangerous incompetent, a poseur, a racist and a demagogue of the worst kind.

Intellectual sloth-driven incompetence, anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Canada's Opposition Parties: Better Bring On Your Game This Time Around ....

Indeed - opposition parties in the House of Commons, especially the LPC and NDP, better get their act together this time around and constitute a true opposition to Harper and his Harpies.

Or else, he'll be governing even more as a majority government than since 2006 ...

Henceforth - you have been put on notice, boys and girls:

Opposition must work fast to prevent Harper take-over
Grits and Dippers must bang out agenda for common cause with Bloc to stop the Harperites.
by Ish Theilheimer

Campaign 2008 has come and gone in Canada and left a lot of gaping jaws. The Harper Conservatives got a percentage and a half more of the of vote than in 2006 — but won 13 more parliamentary seats as Liberals support collapsed, especially in Ontario.

In the leaders' debates, the four opposition leaders disagreed about many things, but they were entirely united on one point: Stephen Harper, Spawn of Satan (SoS), must be defeated because he is taking Canada in the wrong direction. Don't look now, but Harper is hurtling down the runway and about to take off leaving the Canada that 63 percent of us know and love in the rearview.

Unless the opposition parties work very quickly together, Harper will have free reign to govern for a full term.

The Conservative leader said on the campaign trail that a renewed minority would give him a stronger mandate. This struck many as improbable, but the logic is real. If the opposition parties could not defeat him in the campaign and prove unable to challenge him with a coalition or accord-style government, they are unlikely to stand up to him in Parliament and force another election.

Here is where things get interesting. At the time of writing, Harper has won or leads in 143 seats. The Liberals have 75, the Bloc 50, and the NDP 38. No two parties on their own can form a coalition to challenge the Conservative claim to govern. It will take the cooperation of three. They don't all have to be part of the coalition. Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton could conceivably make a case to the Governor General for forming a government if they had an undertaking from Gilles Duceppe that he would support their legislative agenda.

Of course the idea is a stretch. The Liberals and NDP hate one another, and the Bloc is not a federalist party. But all agree Stephen Harper is SoS, and Gilles Duceppe could make a strong case that he can best defend Quebec's interests by defeating Harper's government. Stopping a Harper majority proved to be Duceppe's great campaign promise and accomplishment, so this sort of arrangement could make sense to him.

Arriving at such a deal will require fast work to forge a governing agenda that all parties could live with, including significant provincial self-determination to satisfy the Bloc. It will also require a lot of pride-swallowing on all fronts.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

A Quick Word About Stéphane Dion ...

Let me get it out straight off the first line of this post: Stéphane Dion did the right thing by stepping down as leader of the LPC.

Despite his intellectual qualities and his integrity, he has shown himself to be too much the triangulator, has demonstrated indicisiveness and a tendency to make bad judgement calls when he actually made them, and has shown himself to be lacking in communicating skills (even, to some extent, in his own French language).

Now, Dion apologists and "loyalists" have been promulgating various targets to blame for Dion 's failures and demise, namely that it is all the fault of Dion's aides "giving him bad advice", of "party insiders seeking his demise", of the (rightly shameful) "smearing campaign by Harper and the CPC", of the (demonstrated) "bias of the media for Harper", and so on and so forth.

However, the fact remains that in the end, it was Dion who accepted to start off the LPC campaign with his green shift/green tax proposal as essentially the sole platform - a clearly wrongheaded decision.

The fact remains that it was Stéphane Dion who kept promising lavish "billion dollar" promises on the campaign trail, without an actual balance sheet to back it up, in addition to opening the barn doors wide open for attacks from his opponents (especially Harper) as being about "spend, spend, spend" without budgetary concerns - another momentous mistake considering the current economic woes.

The fact remains that it was Stéphane Dion who failed to prepare adequately his party and his fellow candidates in running a clear, precise and steady/consistent on-message campaign, along with failing to coax/prompt/direct the same fellow candidates into a necessary, intense and rigorous door-to-door meeting of the electorate in their respective ridings.

The fact remains that it was Stéphane Dion who lead his party into such a poor excuse of a campaign, one that was ill thought out, ill prepared, ill planned and ill run - resulting not only is losing the elections, but actually losing seats from to won in 2006.

The fact remains that, as party leader, the "buck stops" with Stéphane Dion.

And the fact remains that in the end, Stéphane Dion failed overall as a leader - not only for his party, but obviously in the eyes of Canadians who actually performed their duties as citizens and cast their votes.

Conclusion: the LPC better wake up and wise up when it will choose its next leader - along with getting its act together platform-wise and politics-wise (especially with regards to an excess of triangulation as opposition party).

And that, as they say, is that.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

War On Terror: Breaking The Silence

The following video (about 1 hr long) is a hard hitting special report into the "war on terror" - by Award winning journalist John Pilger (h/t):

Breaking the Silence

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Oligarchy And The Idiots Who Rule Us

The following article rings quite true - even for what's been going on in Canada: as example, here is this recent instance whereby we will guarantee (with our own money) loans that Canada's banks extend to other financial institutions ... who in turn will most likely continue on with their incompetent, wasteful ways.

The Idiots Who Rule America
by Chris Hedges

Our oligarchic class is incompetent at governing, managing the economy, coping with natural disasters, educating our young, handling foreign affairs, providing basic services like health care and safeguarding individual rights. That it is still in power, and will remain in power after this election, is a testament to our inability to separate illusion from reality. We still believe in "the experts." They still believe in themselves. They are clustered like flies swarming around John McCain and Barack Obama. It is only when these elites are exposed as incompetent parasites and dethroned that we will have any hope of restoring social, economic and political order.

"Their inability to see the human as anything more than interest driven made it impossible for them to imagine an actively organized pool of disinterest called the public good," said the Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul, whose books "The Unconscious Civilization" and "Voltaire's Bastards" excoriates our oligarchic elites. "It is as if the Industrial Revolution had caused a severe mental trauma, one that still reaches out and extinguishes the memory of certain people. For them, modern history begins from a big explosion-the Industrial Revolution. This is a standard ideological approach: a star crosses the sky, a meteor explodes, and history begins anew."

Our elites-the ones in Congress, the ones on Wall Street and the ones being produced at prestigious universities and business schools-do not have the capacity to fix our financial mess. Indeed, they will make it worse. They have no concept, thanks to the educations they have received, of the common good. They are stunted, timid and uncreative bureaucrats who are trained to carry out systems management. They see only piecemeal solutions which will satisfy the corporate structure. They are about numbers, profits and personal advancement. They are as able to deny gravely ill people medical coverage to increase company profits as they are able to use taxpayer dollars to peddle costly weapons systems to blood-soaked dictatorships. The human consequences never figure into their balance sheets. The democratic system, they think, is a secondary product of the free market. And they slavishly serve the market.

Andrew Lahde, the Santa Monica, Calif., hedge fund manager who made an 870 percent gain last year by betting on the subprime mortgage collapse, has abruptly shut down his fund, citing the risk of trading with faltering banks. In his farewell letter to his investors he excoriated the elites who run our investment houses, banks and government.

"The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking," he said of our oligarchic class. "These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America."

"On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal," he went on. "First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have [reined] in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government."

Democracy is not an outgrowth of free markets. Democracy and capitalism are antagonistic entities. Democracy, like individualism, is not based on personal gain but on self-sacrifice. A functioning democracy must defy the economic interests of elites on behalf of citizens. This is not happening. The corporate managers and government officials trying to fix the economic meltdown are pouring money and resources into the financial sector because they only know how to manage and sustain established systems, not change them. Financial systems, however, are not pure scientific and numerical abstractions that exist independently from human beings.

"When the elite begin to think that money is real, the crash is coming," Saul said in a telephone interview. "That is just a given in history. Because what they've done is pull themselves out of the possibility of looking in the mirror and thinking, this is inflation, speculation, this is fluff. They can't do it. And when you say to them, gosh, this is not real. And they say, oh, you don't understand, you're so old-fashioned, you still think this is about manufacturing. And of course, it's basic economics. And that's what happens every single time.

"The difficulty is you have a collapse, you have a loss of face by the people who are there, and it's not just George Bush, it's very, very deep," Saul said. "What we're talking about is the need to rethink the departments of economics, of political science. Then you have to rethink the whole analytic method of the World Bank. If I'm the secretary of the treasury, and not a guy like [Henry] Paulson, but I mean a sort of normal secretary of the treasury or minister of finance, and I say, OK, we've got a real problem, let's get the senior civil servants in here. Gentlemen, ladies, OK, clearly we have to go in another direction, give me some ideas. Well, those people don't have any other ideas because at this point they're about the fourth generation of what you might call neoconservative globalist managers, unfairly summarized. So they then go to the people who work for them, and you work down; there's no one in there with an alternate approach. I mean they'll have little alternatives, but no basic differences in opinion. And so it's very difficult to turn anything around because they've eliminated all opposing ideas inside. I mean it's the problem of the Soviet Union, right?"

Saul pointed out that the first three aims of the corporatist movement in Germany, Italy and France during the 1920s, those that went on to become part of the Fascist experience, were "to shift power directly to economic and social interest groups, to push entrepreneurial initiative in areas normally reserved for public bodies" and to "obliterate the boundaries between public and private interest-that is, challenge the idea of the public interest."

Sound familiar?

(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Harper Politicization And Corruption Of The Indian Residential Schools Truth And Reconciliation Commission

This is disgusting (h/t):

Chairman quits troubled residential school commission

The judge at the helm of a commission chronicling the history of Canada's residential schools resigned on Monday, citing major differences between himself and his two commissioners.

Justice Harry LaForme, who had chaired the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission since April, said in his resignation letter that the panel is "on the verge of paralysis" because his commissioners — native health expert Claudette Dumont-Smith and lawyer Jane Brewin Morley — do not share his vision or accept his authority.

He said the commissioners want to focus primarily on uncovering and documenting truth, while he also wants to have an emphasis on reconciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

LaForme, a judge with the Ontario Court of Appeal, also accused the commissioners of wanting to make decisions by majority rule, even though they were appointed to simply offer advice and assistance.

"At the heart of it is an incurable problem," LaForme said in his letter to Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl, which he made public in a press release.

"The two commissioners are unprepared to accept that the structure of the commission requires that the commission's course is to be charted and its objectives are to be shaped ultimately through the authority and leadership of its chair."

The crux of the problem? Harper seeking to politicize (as in everything else) this supposedly independent Commission in his pathological need to control everything - including, apparently, the truth:

"The head of a commission set up to help exorcise the demons that haunt the aboriginal survivors of Canada's residential school system is warning that federal government control over spending and administration could threaten the integrity of his mandate. In an interview, Justice Harry LaForme said political or bureaucratic interference could compromise his fledgling Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the concerns are delaying its startup.

The Ontario Court of Appeal justice said the panel cannot allow itself to be "shackled" by bureaucratic requirements, and that the commissioners, not government, must be able to decide how to spend their $58-million budget.

"It's an issue that's very important," LaForme told The Canadian Press.

"If we've got to answer for the mandate, then we've got to have control of the mandate."

LaForme said it came as "a surprise" to discover the feds had created a secretariat as a government department staffed by civil servants reporting to the minister of Indian Affairs, instead of allowing the commission to set up its own office. The government is also insisting it appoint the secretariat's executive director as part of its desire to ensure financial accountability.

"There is the potential for this friction with our independence," LaForme said.

LaForme called it imperative the panel, set up June 1 as part of a $1.9-billion class-action settlement, not be seen as an arm of government. He noted that part of its five-year task is to encourage former students and others affected by the tragic legacy to share their experiences in a culturally appropriate and safe manner."

So, thank you, Stephen Harper for corrupting what was set out to be a noble and honest exercize in illuminating the truth about what happened in those residential schools - and what I've come to call the blackest stain on our national soul and history.

Yes indeed - thank you, Mr. Prime Pathetic-Excuse-For-A-Human-Being.

And thank you, fellow Canadians, for re-electing this hypocritical, incompetent douchebag.

(However, putting disgust, sarcasm and cynicism aside for a moment, I do sincerely thank Justice LaForme for having been a sincere and honest man of his word - thus I applaud his resignation in order to expose the Harper corruption of this Commission).

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

More "Lie And Cry" - As If We Should Be Surprised

Following up from this post about wingnuts - including elected/running for office ones ...

We are now graced by yet another, totally expected (according to the 4th Principle of Incompetence) instance of "Lie and Cry":

Bachmann Lies, Denies She Ever Called Barack Obama’s Views ‘Anti-American’

After right-wing Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball on Friday and called for a McCarthyite investigation into the “anti-American views” of members of Congress, she has come under a withering storm of criticism. Her opponent — Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg — has raised $640,000 since Bachmann’s comments.

This morning, Bachmann tried to undo the damage. Appearing on WCCO (Minneapolis’ local CBS affiliate), Bachmann denied she ever called Barack Obama’s views “anti-American”:

HOST: You do feel his [Obama’s] views are anti-American?

BACHMANN: I feel his views are concerning. I’m calling on the media to investigate them. I’m not saying that his views are anti-American. That was a misreading of what I said. And so I don’t believe that’s my position. I’m calling on the media to take a look at what his views are.

Watch it:

That’s a lie. Here’s what Bachmann said on Hardball:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: So you believe that Barack Obama may have anti-American views?

BACHMANN: Absolutely. I’m very concerned he may have anti-American views.

Watch it:

In her Hardball appearance, Bachmann said, “The news media should do a penetrating exposé” into the “views of the people in Congress and find out if they’re pro-America or anti-America.”

Just for fun, check the following out and let's see how long these will turn into yet other instances of "Lie and Cry":

Palin breaks with McCain on Federal Marriage Amendment;

John McCain breaks promise of sticking to issues and not relying on sleazy politics;

McCain Lies Again, Repeats False Claim He ‘Received The Highest Honor And Awards’ From Every Vets Group;

McCain Says Palin Is A Counter To "Liberal Feminist Agenda";

Palin Sees America As Wealthy And White: New Hampshire And Alaska Are ‘Microcosms’ Of The Country;

McCain falsely claims to have ‘repudiated every statement by any fringe person’ in his party;

Pfotenhauer Insults Virginians: ‘Real Virginia’ Is Only Where McCain Is Winning.

Meanwhile, on a related note ...

To reiterate: that is what primitive minds and/or incompetents) do.

That is all they can do.

Q.E.D. yet once again.

Any questions?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Got Protest? Lose All That You Own - Including Your Rights

Following up on today's earlier post, here's one more item from the files of Project Censored.

No one is safe folks. To whit:

Seizing War Protesters’ Assets

President Bush has signed two executive orders that would allow the US Treasury Department to seize the property of any person perceived to, directly or indirectly, pose a threat to US operations in the Middle East.

The first of these executive orders, titled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq,” signed by Bush on July 17, 2007, authorizes the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to confiscate the assets of US citizens and organizations who “directly or indirectly” pose a risk to US operations in Iraq. Bush’s order states:

I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined 1) to have committed, or pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq . . . or 2) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order (...)

Section five of this order announces that, “because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine . . . there need be no prior notice of listing or determination [of seizure] . . .”

On August 1, Bush issued a similar executive order, titled “Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions.” While the text in this order is, for the most part, identical to the first, the order regarding Lebanon is more severe.

While both orders bypass the Constitutional right to due process of law in giving the Secretary of Treasury authority to seize properties of those persons posing a risk of violence, or in any vague way assisting opposition to US agenda, the August 1 order targets any person determined to have taken, or to pose a significant risk of taking, actions—violent or nonviolent—that undermine operations in Lebanon. The act further authorizes freezing the assets of “a spouse or dependent child” of any person whose property is frozen. The executive order on Lebanon also bans providing food, shelter, medicine, or any humanitarian aid to those whose assets have been seized—including the “dependent children” referred to above.

Vaguely written and dangerously open to broad interpretation, this unconstitutional order allows for the arbitrary targeting of any American for dispossession of all belongings and demands ostracism from society. Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration says of the order, “This is so sweeping it’s staggering. I have never seen anything so broad. It expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population.”


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Running The Expense Clock Of "Canada's War" In Afghanistan

The Afghanistan FUBAR has cost us some $21.7 billions so far.

So, what's an extra $100 million to spend in this wasteful, empty, political exercise meant for absolutely nothing ... right?

Instead of simply getting out of there, therefore saving lives (not putting our men and women at risk) and money? Especially when other NATO partners are simply there for show while our men and women die?

"Canada's war" and "Pentagon North", indeed.

Meanwhile ...

Once again, my fellow Canadians: you wanted it, you now own it.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Shhhhh ... Don't Speak, Don't Say A Word ...

From Project Censored files - one more example of post-9/11 overreaction and paranoid-driven fear of terrorism, leading to potential abuses resulting in abrogating the most basic rights in democracy-based societies by intimidation, bully investigations and excessive trumped up accusations: namely, free speech and free assembly. Then again, this fits exactly within the mind set parameters of the ever convenient rationale of security agencies to spy indiscriminately on citizens.

Because it's all about prevention, you see.

Got that, activist groups? From now on, it's "shhhh ... don't speak, don't say a word", because spooks may think that you are (maybe, perhaps, possibly) a potential threat to security.

But never mind little me - cuz I certainly never warned you folks about any of this - so just read the following instead (and remember: you have the right to remain silent ... which looks increasingly to end up being your sole remaining civil right - unless, of course, you end up being detained and, ah, interrogated ...):

The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

In a startling affront to American freedoms of expression, privacy, and association, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 1955) passed the House on October 23, 2007, by a vote of 404–6. The Senate is currently considering a companion bill, S. 1959. The act would establish a national commission and a university-based “Center for Excellence” to study and propose legislation to prevent the threat of “radicalization” of Americans.

Author of the bill Jane Harman (D-CA) explains, “We’re studying the phenomenon of people with radical beliefs who turn into people who would use violence.”

The act states, “While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States. Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.”

The act’s purpose goes beyond academic inquiry, however. In a press release Harman stated, “The National Commission will propose to both Congress and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent.”

The act states, “Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.”

Harman, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment, also has close ties to the RAND Corporation, a right-wing think tank, which appears to have influenced the bill. Two weeks prior to the introduction of H.R. 1955 on April 19, 2007, Brian Michael Jenkins of RAND delivered testimony on “Jihadist Radicalization and Recruitment” to Harman’s subcommittee.

In June, Jenkins was back before Harman’s subcommittee discussing the role of the National Commission. “Homegrown terrorism is the principal threat that we face as a country and it will likely be the principal threat that we face for decades. . . . Unless a way of intervening in the radicalization process can be found, we are condemned to stepping on cockroaches one at a time,” he stated. In a 2005 RAND report titled “Trends in Terrorism,” one chapter is devoted entirely to a non-Muslim “homegrown terrorist” threat—the threat of anti-globalists.

In an effort to prevent people from becoming “prone to” radicalization, this preemptive measure of policing thought specifically identifies the Internet as a tool of radicalization: “The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens,” says Harman.

The legislation authorizes a ten-member National Commission (the Senate bill calls for twelve members) appointed by the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, congressional leaders, and the chairpersons of both the Senate and House committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

After convening, the Commission is to submit reports at six-month intervals for eighteen months to the President and Congress, stating its findings, conclusions, and legislative recommendations “for immediate and long-term countermeasures . . . to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence.”

This commission has disturbing similarities to the Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which was investigated by a US Senate select committee on intelligence activities (the Church Committee), in 1975. The Church Committee found that from 1956 to 1971, “The Bureau [FBI] conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence.”

H.R. 1955 would give the DHS secretary power to establish a “Center of Excellence,” a university-based research program to “bring together leading experts and researchers to conduct multidisciplinary research and education for homeland security solutions.” the DHS currently has eight Centers at academic institutions across the country, strengthening what many see as a growing military-security-academic complex. Harman, in an October 23 press release, stated that the Center would “examine the social, criminal, political, psychological and economic roots of domestic terrorism.”

Hope Marston, regional organizer with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) warns against the danger of vaguely defined terms in this legislation, which, open to very broad interpretation, mirrors a historical pattern of sweeping government repression.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)