Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Wages, It All Gets Down To Wages

A strong economy must be built on a solid foundation of steadily rising wages. If wages don't keep pace with production, the only way the economy can grow is through the expansion of debt, which leads to disaster.

Consider this: the US economy is 72 percent consumer spending. That means the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) cannot grow if salaries don't keep up with the price of living. Low Income Families (LOF)--that is, any couple making less than $80,000--represent 50 percent of all consumer spending. These LOF's spend everything they earn just to maintain their present standard of living. So, how can these families help to grow the economy if they're already spending every last farthing they earn?

They can't! Which is why wages have to go up. The cost to short-term profits is miniscule compared to the turmoil of a deep recession which is what the world is facing right now. The present crisis could have been avoided if there was a better balance between management and labor. But the unions are weak, so salaries have languished while Wall Street has grown more powerful, stretching its tentacles into the government and spreading its anti-labor dogma wherever it goes.

The investor class has rejiggered the system to meet their particular needs. Financial wizardry has replaced factories, capital formation and hard assets while real wealth has been replaced by chopped up bits of mortgage paper, stitched together by Ivy League MBAs, and sold to investors as priceless gemstones. This is the system that Bernanke is trying to resuscitate with his multi-trillion dollar injections; a system that shifts a larger and larger amount of the nation's wealth to a smaller and smaller group of elites.

When Alan Greenspan appeared before Congress a few months ago, he admitted that he had discovered a "flaw" in his theory of how markets operate. The former Fed chief was referring to his belief that investment bankers could be trusted to regulate themselves. Whether one believes Greenspan was telling the truth or not is irrelevant. What really matters is that the wily Maestro managed to skirt the larger issues and stick to his script. Congress never challenged Greenspan's discredited, trickle-down economic theories which guided his policymaking from the get-go. Nor was he asked to explain how a consumer-driven economy can thrive when salaries stay flat for 30 years. An answer to that question might have exposed Greenspan's penchant for low interest rates and deregulation, the two fuel-sources for the massive speculative bubbles which emerged on Greenspan's watch. These are the tools the Fed chief used for 18 years to enrich his buddies at the big brokerage houses while workers slipped further and further into debt.

Keep Reading ...

Punditman says ...

As usual, Mike Whitney cuts through all the doublespeak about what is wrong with the economy, who caused it and what to do about it. He notes that salaries (thus wages) have basically stayed flat for 30 years. Punditman has noticed that the cost of living hasn't. I am assuming Whitney is excluding the parasitic financial sector from his generalization—the geniuses who got us into this mess—as well as professional athletes and a few other obscenely paid "employees" such as lying media anchorpersons and loud-mouthed blithering sportscasters—but I digress.

To stimulate the economy, the answer is not to keep the average worker one paycheck away from the homeless shelter by allowing them to accumulate more and more unsupportable debt. The answer is (wait for it) ... more income at the bottom end of the economy! Imagine that. To get out of this mess, all households that make under 80 K need a raise. I find this oddly optimistic (now: how do you un-brainwash and politicize this huge constituency?).

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 29, 2008

Leaders Lie, Civilians Die, And Lessons Of History Are Ignored

We've got so used to the carnage of the Middle East that we don't care any more – providing we don't offend the Israelis. It's not clear how many of the Gaza dead are civilians, but the response of the Bush administration, not to mention the pusillanimous reaction of Gordon Brown, reaffirm for Arabs what they have known for decades: however they struggle against their antagonists, the West will take Israel's side. As usual, the bloodbath was the fault of the Arabs – who, as we all know, only understand force.

Ever since 1948, we've been hearing this balderdash from the Israelis – just as Arab nationalists and then Arab Islamists have been peddling their own lies: that the Zionist "death wagon" will be overthrown, that all Jerusalem will be "liberated". And always Mr Bush Snr or Mr Clinton or Mr Bush Jnr or Mr Blair or Mr Brown have called upon both sides to exercise "restraint" – as if the Palestinians and the Israelis both have F-18s and Merkava tanks and field artillery. Hamas's home-made rockets have killed just 20 Israelis in eight years, but a day-long blitz by Israeli aircraft that kills almost 300 Palestinians is just par for the course.

The blood-splattering has its own routine. Yes, Hamas provoked Israel's anger, just as Israel provoked Hamas's anger, which was provoked by Israel, which was provoked by Hamas, which ... See what I mean? Hamas fires rockets at Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, Hamas fires more rockets and Israel bombs again and ... Got it? And we demand security for Israel – rightly – but overlook this massive and utterly disproportionate slaughter by Israel. It was Madeleine Albright who once said that Israel was "under siege" – as if Palestinian tanks were in the streets of Tel Aviv.

By last night, the exchange rate stood at 296 Palestinians dead for one dead Israeli. Back in 2006, it was 10 Lebanese dead for one Israeli dead. This weekend was the most inflationary exchange rate in a single day since – the 1973 Middle East War? The 1967 Six Day War? The 1956 Suez War? The 1948 Independence/Nakba War? It's obscene, a gruesome game – which Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, unconsciously admitted when he spoke this weekend to Fox TV. "Our intention is to totally change the rules of the game," Barak said.

Keep Reading ...

punditman says ...
If there is one debate that trumps all others in terms of mainstream media bias, it is the question of Israel and Palestine. This article by Robert Fisk in Britain's Independent is the exception by a wide margin in that is strives for balance and objectivity.

Put simply, in the eyes of Western media, the Israelis can do no wrong; they merely act in self defence. The Palestinian leadership (and by implication, all Palestinians, are always the instigators); Israel acts 'humanely,' Arabs have no respect for human life, etc., etc. We hear this ad nasuem in each round of this tragic conflict. This is the narrative at work throughout the 'liberal media,' and it is has become a sick joke to try to find some balanced reporting each time this prolonged clash flares up.

Given the power of the Israeli lobby (see AIPAC), this should come us no surprise. Even Jimmy Carter can't criticize Israel without encountering the establishment's wrath while being shunned by his own party's orthodoxy. Thank God for Mr. Fisk who at least attempts to give us a proportioned perspective.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to find some links for the above comment, but what the hell is wrong with the internet? Who cut the damn underwater cables this time?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Shoe Journalist Says He Was Tortured After Arrest


"Apology" Letter was Written Against His Will

Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zeidi became an international celebrity when eight days ago he hurled his shoes at President Bush during a press conference. The move has had a myriad of surprising effects, from a huge financial boost for a Turkish shoe company to potentially ending the British military presence in Iraq.

One other thing it did was put renewed scrutiny on the Iraqi justice system and how it treats its detainees. That scrutiny is likely to be increasingly uncomfortable as Zeidi’s brother, the first family member permitted to see the journalist in jail, reports of his torture in the hours after his arrest.

The report also throws into doubt last week’s “apology” letter, which brother Uday al-Zeidi insists Muntadar wrote against his will after his torture. Prime Minister Maliki’s subsequent claim that Zeidi “confessed” that the mastermind behind the intricate plot (the sum total of which consist of removing his shoes and throwing them as hard as he could at the President’s head) was an unnamed militant known for slitting throats is likely to also face further doubts amid the allegations.

punditman says ...

Here is the follow-up confirmation to what punditman hinted would happen to this fella back here. So here's the size of it: you throw a shoe at the world's number war criminal and you get tortured by a puppet regime supported by the war criminal regime who happens to have authorized torture. This of course is all masquerading under the banner of democratic reform in an oil-rich country. What kind of upside down world is this?

The shoe-man has caused quite a stir. Rick Salutin of the Globe and Mail notes that this should be viewed as a Christmas present for all of us who seek non-violent (well, almost ;-) ways to react to injustice. His article, Peace on Earth, good shoes toward men can be read over at rabble
here.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 22, 2008

Advanced Missiles To Iran? Russia Says No

Iran MP Insists Deliveries Already Started

The potential sale of Russia’s S-300 air defense system to Iran has caused Israeli officials no end of concern, but as Major General Amos Gilad wrapped up his visit to Russia that nation’s intentions with respect to the system depend largely on whom you believe.

Pyotr Stegny, Russia’s ambassador to Israel, says there is no question of such a sale, adding the Russia is adhering to agreements reached during Israeli Prime Minister Olmert’s visit to Moscow. Beyond that, the ambassador insists, Israel “will be the first to know about any progress or change in the matter of the missiles.”

But Esmail Kosari, member of Iranian parliament and Deputy Head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, says today that Iran and Russia have reached an agreement on the delivery of the system after years of negotiations.

The S-300 series of surface to air missiles are the backbone of Russia’s air defense system, and their acquisition by Iran would make Israel’s long threatened attack on Iran considerably more difficult. Israel previously claimed to be developing an “electronic warfare device” which would neutralize the S-300 both in Iran and in Russia but has since claimed that the acquisition of the defensive missiles by Iran could lead to the destruction of Israel.

punditman says ...
All this talk of the economy, who Obama has chosen, who he has not or what Stephen Harper will do next--can lead you, dear reader, astray. Let's not forget about a bigger and potentially deadlier picture. As usual, it is difficult to know who to believe, at first glance, when it comes to the Middle East. But with the global focus on jobs, the region's sabre rattling keeps apace with the military industrial complex and the complex alliances that feed it. Stay tuned ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Return Of The Blogger ...


... not quite yet, folks (sigh)

Looks like I won't have my machine until around the time of the New Year - I'm facing backorder problems and all these sort of things (I am posting this entry from my office - on a very, very, very snowy late afternoon).

So, I'm wishing all of you some very merry holidays, and a happy New Year in advance!

The return of this blogger won't be until next year indeed (re-sigh).

Enjoy yourselves responsibly, eh? ;-)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Just How Rightwing Is Stephen Harper?

punditman says ...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to have finally 'got religion' when it comes to the economy:

"The truth is, I've never seen such uncertainty in terms of looking forward to the future," the Prime Minister told CTV News in Halifax. "I'm very worried about the Canadian economy."

Perhaps he is. Of course he's finally figured out what to do, not because he wants to do it, but because his political survival is at stake. A substantive economic stimulus package goes against every bone in his rigid ideological frame, so it is no wonder he has been dragged kicking and whining in the direction of John Maynard Keynes.

What Punditman finds interesting is that even some of the Prime Minister's allies and supporters have been very critical of him and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty when it comes to the economy.

The ill-fated fiscal update of Nov. 27— which has caused so much hubbub in the country— has led many to call for Mr. Flaherty's resignation. Let us recall exactly what was in the original package: plans to cut government spending; suspension of the right to strike for civil servants until 2011 and of the right for women to seek legal recourse for pay equity issues; the selling off of some Crown assets to raise capital; elimination of the existing political party subsidies of $1.95 for each vote a party receives; and, no stimulus package (the government claimed they had already done that).

That's about as far-right as you can go without becoming Genghis Kahn.

The two political volcanoes, namely the move to discard per-vote subsidies for political parties and to ban public-sector workers from striking, struck a sour note with University of Western Ontario economics professor emeritus David Laidler, quoted thusly in today's Globe and Mail, "It was just outrageous and absolutely improper," said the member of the righwing C.D. Howe Institute's monetary policy council.

"I was frankly very surprised because I thought Flaherty was a pretty competent guy."

Sensing that Harper had gone too far in his partisanship and in his failure to act on the economy before the planned budget in January, it's no wonder the opposition perceived a chink in the Tory armour and formed a coalition. They were hoping public opinion would follow. Thus far, they have won no popularity contests, the country remains in a divisive condition and it is anyone's guess how this "prorogued parliament" will play out now that the Liberals have dumped Stephan Dion and coronated Michael Ignatieff.

But one thing is clear: it seems that even Harper's fellow travelers can only stomach so much of his nasty partisanship and far-right fetishism, which should give big pause to those who voted for him.

Hey! That is a point worth repeating when you are forced to discuss Canadian politics over turkey with some of your Harper-ite relatives.

So just how rightwing is Stephen Harper? Recent events tell the tale.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Afghanistan: Anger And Grief Over War Dead

With a nephew killed in Afghanistan and a son headed for the same war zone, a grieving and frustrated Russell Higgins says Canadian soldiers are being wasted on a foolish mission.

Reached at his home yesterday in Upper Musquodoboit, N.S., Higgins said, "I don't figure our boys should be over there to start with. It's a fight that can't be won. They have been doing the same thing over there since the Crusades. You can't win a war against people that don't mind dying."

Higgins' nephew Cpl. Thomas James Hamilton, 26, was one of three Canadian soldiers killed Saturday by a roadside bomb. Pte. John Michael Roy Curwin and Pte. Justin Peter Jones, 21, also died.

Keep Reading ...

punditman says ... I wonder how many relatives of soldiers killed or wounded in Afghanistan feel the same way but are afraid to express themselves? I wonder how many Canadians are weary of watching Don Cherry's jingoism on display on Saturday nights as he shows the faces of the fallen on Hockey Night in Canada? There is now a pullout date of 2011 for this combat mission--contingent on another NATO country putting more than 1,000 soldiers into the southern province of Kandahar, by no means a guarantee.

Nevertheless, one gets the feeling from those who support the mission that they inhabit a certain obedient personality type; they will support the war from now until hell freezes over, or at least until the government tells them it is over. Call it deference to authority in the face of a very authoritarian Prime Minister.

Speaking of whom, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, "This tragic incident demonstrates the considerable risk faced by the exceptional men and women of the Canadian Forces as they work to promote freedom, security and democracy in Afghanistan."

Glowing words of liberty from the man who just prorogued Parliament.



(Mentarch here, barging in: Canada's war indeed ... and let's not forget that (Barack Obama's) Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already stated that he wants Canada to remain fully active in Afghanistan beyond 2011 ... this may have been rejected for the time being, but who can trust Harper and Co. to be competent with regards to the reality of the situation in Afghanistan - not unlike Bush and Co. as this recent example clearly illustrates?)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Do The Math #4

*Warning, this post contains racially charged language, not as a reflection of my views, but to expose the ugliness and hatred of racism for the horrifying thing that it is.

Part 2 reflected, in part, on where your jobs went; the fact that "Free Trade" had little to do with anything other than being able to enter other countries and exploit their workers at a cheaper rate.

That shouldn't be so hard to do the Math on, since the template for it exists right in your own backyards. American companies have been exploiting a segment of your fellow workers for years, and have taught you to HATE those exploited peoples by playing off of human's innate fear of different appearances.

They told you the biggest lie of all, and many of you believe it.

"Its the niggers and wetbacks taking your jobs."


I cannot cure this racist bullshit in one post, but maybe I can show you the Math on why racism is just a tool they use to fuck workers into less wages, and more profit for themselves. I can show how ultimately this is bad for EVERYONE.





This first formula is so simple, no one can disagree!

1. You take the best job you can get.

Everyone wants a job they love, a job they are well treated in, a job that pays good money. You with me so far?

No one takes a job that is hard and very physical for as little pay as possible.

Does anyone willingly choose to clean toilets for $5 an hour, all day every day? Would you want to work digging foundations and laying block in the Arizona heat for 12 hours a day for $8 bucks an hour? Would either of those jobs allow you a single family dwelling in the suburb in which you work?


I do some housecleaning, my best friend does it as her exclusive means of income. We are both paid well for it. We like our clients and are well treated, we don't mind the work. We are both lucky enough to be born into the white privilege that allows this to be true. So, there is nothing INNATELY wrong with any job. Often, your choice of job is influenced by both the respect with which you are treated, and the livable wages which you receive.

Let me take you the next step into racist, divisionary think.

2. We'll start with the White version of the Lie.

If niggers and wetbacks didn't do those kind of jobs, and wanted OUR jobs, we would have no jobs left!

Besides that, nothing could get built, because white people won't do those jobs, and if you paid Union Scale, no one would be able to afford housing.


Ok, do any of you remember the term "Skilled Trade"? Do you have an Uncle or Grandfather that was a Carpenter, a Journeyman Carpenter or Plumber?

At one time, white America did build things, and at that time, since everyone made equitable pay, everyone could afford housing.

At that time, a family could buy a house with a single income, and feed and clothe said family.

What changed?

It wasn't that blacks and immigrants came and stole his job.

It wasn't that niggers and wetbacks worked for way less to steal that job. If that was true, wouldn't housing be even CHEAPER????

DO THE MATH, YOU RACIST IDIOTS!


A builder somewhere decided that paying less, and raising the pricing of housing made for...

can you guess it?

BIGGER PROFITS!

...and now neither your grandfather or uncle, nor the men of color who built the houses can afford one.

2.5 The sub-lie to this lie is the Black version:

"We were already getting shit jobs, and now the Mexicans and Eastern Europeans have come and stole them all. Damned illegal immigrants. We deserve better, because we didn't come here by choice, they snuck in illegally by choice."


This goes back to the first point.

You take the job you can get.

Do you think anyone who wasn't grossly oppressed or starvingly poor would chance illegal immigration, work for slave wages, and choose to share a dwelling with other families in the same situation?

This takes the Caste system of Class warfare up a notch, and plays directly into the hands of the exploiters.

Classic warfare:

Divide and Conquer.

DO THE MATH.

They didn't steal your jobs, the sweat shop factory owners found someone in more dire circumstances to exploit.

Which brings us around to those who claim to oppose Mexican immigration solely on LEGAL grounds.

(and I will leave the missives about how we are all here illegally from a Native American standpoint on the sidelines for now... and the fact that generations of people from Europe are here as result of illegal immigration as well... remember that the term "WOP" for Italian Americans meant "With Out Papers"...)

3. The next lie is about Immigration, and I will use Mexican immigration as my example.

Illegal Immigration has drained our economy. Those wetbacks don't pay anything in, and expect everything for free.


Lets start with the OBVIOUS.

You claim they steal your job, yet do nothing for the system. They are WORKING. Many, if not MOST, pay taxes under some fake Social Security number to not get caught and deported. Money they will never see a return on.

Now, the LESS OBVIOUS question is this?

Why do they have to come here illegally?

It is because the US has set a wildly low bar on the number of Mexican people who can enter legally.

Why would they do that?

DO THE MATH.

Because ILLEGAL labor is cheaper.

Really.

How many times have you read that some government official gets caught with their tits in the wringer for having an illegal work at/on/in their homes?

These are the Lawmakers themselves. The big money Lobbyists don't EVER push for more LEGAL immigration, for a LEGAL laborer can demand more money. (at least in States that still have minimum wage laws)

Now, as to draining resources, as in Social Security?

Were they allowed to become citizens, pay into social security, we would be close to solvent in that department.

Add a gazillion now-legal immigrants to the coffers and WOW!

BIG MATH!

The drain on medical care would be resolved if all of us ACTUALLY HAD medical care that was based on Heath, not PROFITEERING, anyway.

Even a DUMBASS could get that MATH.

I want to keep this simple, really, I do.

Right now, the traditionally multi-tiered Caste system is being compressed.

It scares the fuck out of white people, who suddenly are being as poorly compensated in an ever increasing cost of living world as their Black and Mexican counterparts.

Right now?

It is becoming the poor (read workers) and the wealthy (read owners) with little in between.

Here is the MONEY EQUATION for ya folks. read it twice if you have to.

THEY WILL PAY AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE TO WHOMEVER THEY CAN TO MAKE AS MUCH PROFIT AS POSSIBLE ON WHATEVER THEY PRODUCE.

THEY WANT YOU TO BLAME EACHOTHER, WHILE THEY FUCK YOU ALL.

IT KEEPS YOU FROM BLAMING THE LOW WAGE SETTERS, AND HIGH PRICE DEMANDERS.

THEM.


Instead, hate crimes between us are rising, and we are all losing ground in the ability to survive.

Whites blame "niggers" and Blacks blame "wetbacks" and the Christinazis blame "faggots" and so on and so on....

They have taught WE THE WORKERS to BLAME OURSELVES.

They have exploited what we perceive as DIFFERENCES amoung ourselves to keep us from remembering the most basic fact of all.



1. You take the best job you can get.



Now, they have us fighting for less jobs, poorer pay and basic survival. They like racism as a means to this end:

WHAT THEY DON'T WANT US TO LOOK AT IS, WHOSE FAULT IT IS THAT THERE ARE LESS JOBS, POORER PAY AND WE CANNOT BUY THE SHIT WE MAKE.

The Profiteers, man.

DO THE FUCKING MATH.

Or, cling to your ugly racism while we all starve.

Your choice.





(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 15, 2008

Iraqi Reporter Throws Shoes At Bush, Calls Him Dog

An Iraqi reporter called visiting U.S. President George W. Bush a "dog" in Arabic on Sunday and threw his shoes at him during a news conference in Baghdad.

Iraqi security officers and U.S. secret service agents leapt at the man and dragged him struggling and screaming out of the room where Bush was giving a news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

The shoes missed their target about 15 feet (4.5 metres) away. One sailed over Bush's head as he stood next to Maliki and smacked into the wall behind him. Bush smiled uncomfortably and Maliki looked strained.

Keep Reading ...

punditman says ... I second that emotion. But I would like to see the follow-up story as to what happens to the Iraqi journalist.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Do The Math #3

#1 HERE

#2 HERE


Ok, today's Math may need a little brain power.

As in "PULL YOUR REPTILIAN & LIMBIC BRAINS OUT OF YOUR ASS, AND USE YOUR CEREBRAL CORTEX."

* There are actual numbers to back me up on this, but you know, in the interest of keeping it simple, and the fact that I, as a middle aged housewife with no education typing away with my first cup of coffee, have no interest in googling numbers AT ALL, am going to suggest if you don't get the overall premise, Google may or may not be able to help you anyway. So have at it. I have run-on sentences to write.

Fear reflex is a good thing. It makes you duck when your kid hits a good hard fastball right back at your head when you pitch to him, and you only catch it peripherally too late because you are looking at your flowerbed over his shoulder thinking you should be weeding.

That's what the lower function in your brains are for. They are NOT meant to be your primary data functioning unit.

So, using your cerebral cortex, the best reaction in such a case would be to realize you are becoming as ADD as the rest of America, choose to focus on your kid and the game, rationalize that your child is only young once, think, "FUCK THOSE WEEDS" and PLAY WITH HIM.

Were you to process this, keeping that REPTILIAN BRAIN to the forefront, you would instead think baseball evil, and your child under suspicion of trying to kill you. You would tell your husband for your own safety to ground him to his room forever, and watch his every word and move. Then you would start being suspicious of every one of those Motherfucking OUT TO GET you little bastards in America wearing baseball hats.

Lets Do The Math on THE WAR ON TERROR, shall we?




Here's some MATH. Read the * NUMBERS.( * disclaimered above, but close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades)

You are more likely to have a SATELLITE fall on your HOUSE TWICE on the same day than be the victim of domestic terrorism, no matter how long you live.

Really.

I'm not going to even baffle you with bullshit about "unnamed sources" and conflicting evidence about terrorist groups.

Think of everyone you know. How many Terrorists have they known, or been victimized by?

ZERO.

I will get into 9/11, and a friend of your aunt's sister knew a girl in the buildings, and the horrible tragedy that was, later when we get to the Limbic brain. That's the one we called the Horsey Brain as children, the one capable of emotion as well as reflex.

But for now, here's your next * NUMBERS.

You are a hundred thousand times more likely to be at the least roughed up, and the worst unfairly kidnapped by your local POLICE than by a TERRORIST.

Think of everyone you know. Who has not had a story about being arrested, and being pushed around by some jack-booted young thug with a badge? Do you know anyone who doesn't know someone with a horror story of being arrested on a bullshit charge, then having to put out a shit-load of money to buy their freedom back?

Police Officers used to be called Officers of the Peace, live IN a COMMUNITY, as part of said community. "The Policeman is Your Friend" has gone by and by in a World of Reptilian Brained SIEGE MENTALITY.

They have come out with combat ready POLICE CARS to use as a means of introducing the "Homeland Security" mentality to your local Law Enforcement, replete with HOSEABLE BACK SEATS and BOMB SNIFFERS. Holy Shit. They HOPE you think its cool.

If you light up the acres of convoluted cortex, you can see which one you should rationally fear. Your inattention, or the kid with the baseball. Cops & the Government or boogeymen under the bed?

DO THE MATH.

You are a gazillion to the tenth power more likely to be spied on by your own Government, than a Terrorist Spy.

Its called the PAT ACT.

The Russkies don't care what Porn you surf, the Pakistani's aren't reading your CREDIT REPORTS and BANK ACCOUNTS, the Iraqi's could give a flying FUCK which POLITICIAN here you criticize... the only TERRORISM being perpetrated on you is by the GUYS YOU VOTED for to do so.

Seriously.

Now lets go back to 9/11 and delve into your EMOTIONAL reflex center.

Lie NUMERO UNO on that, created to hot wire right into your LIMBIC Brain?

"We have kept you safe since 9/11, trust us, what we are doing MUST be working."


Wow. Doesn't that make you feel all safe and confident? Like you can grab your Teddy Bear and snuggle under the covers, cuz Daddy just looked under the bed, and there was no monsters there? We loves us some Daddy. He and Mommy make everything safe.

Except Daddy ignored the BRINKS™ alarm system and LET THEM IN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

If NOT having a TERRORIST attack was measure of a Good President, Bush would come in as number 43 on a list of 43 Presidents. Dead FUCKING LAST.

HOWS THAT MATH?

Lets make it Mommy Math simple.

1. You have nothing to fear from Terrorists.

So shut that Reptilian Brain up.

2. The government isn't making you safer, it is making you less SAFE from IT, ITSELF.

So shut up that warm and fuzzy Limbic function falling for the false security.

3. Engage your Cerebral Cortex, assess the situation and DO THE MATH about who represents the biggest THREAT to you. IT'S YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

They are the ones spying, taking away your FREEDOMS, your RIGHT TO HABEAS CORPUS, TORTURING and GENERALLY TREATING YOU LIKE A SUSPECT; they have made you an "potential enemy" in your own HOME. YOUR COUNTRY.

4. Focus on the Game.

Go play baseball with your kid. Be totally in the moment and CATCH the fastball coming at your head. Then take him and his whole baseball team to Washington to PROTEST.

There.

MATH is EASY.

If your really managing the higher thinking at this point, realize that this is related to Essay #1 and #2. Gee. Why would they want to take our jobs, take away our workers rights, take away our privacy and civil rights, make us live in FEAR, and trust ONLY THEM to protect us?

What purpose would THAT possibly serve?

FREE MEN. FREE THINKERS. NOT REALLY GOOD ASSETS FOR A CROP OF WAGE SLAVES. MIGHT REVOLT TO BEING FODDER FOR OUR EVER INCREASING WEALTH.

Its called Class Warfare.

Last MATH for now?

We are about 6 billion to their 2,000.

That is all for today.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Do The Math #2

In #1, I explained the Math of why Unions (read YOUR rights as a Worker) are a good thing.

Now, lets talk about "Why the Jobs went away" and disperse the clouds of disinformation about "Global Economies". Lets talk about TRADE.

I am not an economist, in fact my eyes roll back in my head at the dry numbers and endless spin economists like to put on things.

I am however not STUPID, and can bring this down to a few simple truths.




Truth number one? The next statement is a lie.

"Things are different now, because we have to compete in a Global Economy."


Things aren't so different. From the 1st tribal peoples to the East India Trading Company, trade has rarely been confined within borders.

"Have to?" We don't HAVE to do anything. We have CHOSEN to. Period.

Lets make it simple, how many of you even know the currency in Bolivia, let alone what a loaf of bread costs there? How about what you use and how much to pay for a pound of rice in Indonesia?

"Global Economy" is what the Owners of Megacorporations use as a code word for "Colonialism".

"Colonialism" is code talk for coming into someone else's backyard and taking their best shit. Otherwise known as Larceny. Was that too big a word, America? Try THEFT.

The idea of "Hey, they grow great tomatoes, and we can't, but we grow great corn and they can't; lets swap" is not inherently evil.

So lets talk about what Fair Trade really is and is not.

If we can only sell China 10 cars and they can sell us 100, its not fair. Most of you get that part. I've heard you bitch about it. Why would our government, our Corporations have agreed to this in the first place?

IT WAS NEVER ABOUT FAIR TRADE IN THE FIRST PLACE. It was never really about trying to sell them our shit. We know they couldn't afford it.

Do.

The.

Math.

IT WAS ABOUT GETTING OUR FOOT IN THE DOOR TO OPEN BUSINESSES THERE.

Lets see... if we only have to pay some grunt in Vietnam an American dollar a day, why pay our guys a hundred?

Lets see... if getting rid of toxic waste byproduct costs a thousand dollars here, and we can dump it there anywhere free, why not? Its not in OUR backyards.

Lets see... We just saved 1,099 dollars right there. No one will notice. The car still costs 50,000.

When we started noticing, they had to direct the blame elsewhere.

They babble a mile a minute about trading and trends, about how a "Global Economy" will bring workers elsewhere up to an equitable income, and they will become consumers of our shit.

NOT.

GOING.

TO.

HAPPEN.

The jobs went away so THEY could make more money. Period.

Trickle down never happens. The rich hoard their wealth, and have no intention of not making RECORD PROFITS, no matter where they have to move their businesses to.

This statement, if they ever spoke plainly, would be true.

"Unless you are a member of our Caste, which you will NEVER be, get used to the idea that in pursuit of our PROFITS, you are interchangeable with any third world person anywhere. You will work for us, at whatever we want you to, or we will find someone else who will. You can all eat grass for all we care. Stupid Cattle."


The ONLY way to stop this permanent exploitation is to either close our borders, and make it illegal to sell anything made, even in PART, outside our borders in the US, or for workers WORLDWIDE to unite and refuse to make anything they cannot afford.

Really.

Think about it.

They have convinced you you are powerless. They have all the assets. They have all the riches.

NOT SO.

They have paper, not goods. They have desks, not skills. They have fancy houses that are nothing but buildings we built on land that is permanent, owned only by the construct of said paper.

They have nothing without us.

We grow the food, build the skyscrapers, run their telephone companies, service their limos.

WE ARE THEIR ONLY ASSET.

IT SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF THEM THAT WE MAY FIND THAT OUT.

Who can own the land on which a man walks, the air that he breathes? It sounds like such a simplistic comment. It is not. It is truth.

They don't you want to remember you are free men.

Trade? Is entirely dependent on us, so we must DEMAND Trade that is in our interests.

The only FAIR TRADE AGREEMENT for American Workers, and Workers Worldwide is that there MUST be a cap on how the Elite can profit from us, or the elites themselves have to be eliminated.

We are the wealth. They are just Paper Dolls.

That concludes Math Lesson Number Two.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, December 12, 2008

Do The Math #1

Thanks for giving me this opportunity to speak directly to America. I have a question that has burned my very soul in its need to be asked.

"Are you FREAKING STUPID or WHAT?"

I don't mean to be insulting. Really I don't. I've met many of you in my 45 and 10/12ths years functioning as an American Citizen. Individually, I have yet to meet one person in my years on this planet that doesn't at least have a functioning clue what is in THEIR OWN INTERESTS yet, collectively you don't seem to have a clue.

This isn't being condescending. I am painfully aware of my lack of education, my inferior societal position as a middle aged, overweight housewife keying away on a minuscule lefty blog.

This is just utter confusion at how
COLLECTIVELY you do everything in your power to act directly against your own interests.

I'm sorry. I asked it badly before. What I really should have said is this:


"Are you FUCKING STUPID or WHAT?"


Maybe I can help you out a little here. Let me help you do some very simplistic MATH!




Number ONE:

UNIONS ARE A GOOD THING.

Fair Pay=Good.
Safe working conditions=Good.
Reasonable working hours=Good.

How in the HOLY FUCKING HELL did you allow yourselves to be convinced that YOU, the WORKER are at fault for HIGH PRICES and LACK OF JOBS?????

DO THE MATH.

The old math was:

You made shit, worked hard to do so for fair pay.

You could afford to buy the shit you made.

You had employee Health Care.

The owner of the company made profit enough to be richer than you.

That was ok, for the relationship of job provider to worker/consumer was balanced somewhat.

You carried usually ONE man you KNEW, who usually worked with you to make his company a success.

The math you have bought into:

You make shit, work for less.

You cannot afford the shit you make.

You have no employee Health Care.

The owner of the company decided to sell little slips of paper representing a "piece" of his company called a share.

The owner of the company, and all the thousands of shareholders make enough profit to be richer than you.

The relationship between job provider to worker/NON-consumer skewed wildly.

You carry hundreds, if not thousands of people on the back of your work, all who DEMAND to make a HUGE PROFIT from your job.

DO THE MATH.

The thousands of faceless rich people want YOU to work like third world nations, so they can each make a BIGGER PROFIT on the sweat of YOUR BROW.

They don't care if you can AFFORD your own well made product.

They make money off IMPORTING cheap-ass SHIT made by Chinese prison labor, and selling it to you at a MARK UP.

Then they blame YOU for not being Chinese Prison labor and making it cheaper for them to make shit, and make HUGER profits off of it.

Again:


"Are you FUCKING STUPID or WHAT?"


Do you really want America to be like Third World workers with no rights?

ITS THE PROFITEERS STUPID!

NOT YOU!


You say you don't want anyone else, let alone a government controlling your life, yet you want to give up all rights to a bunch of RICH MEN WHO ARE FUCKING YOU?

You are not too EXPENSIVE, they are too GREEDY.

They want to own you.

After all, they can afford to buy the shit you make.

They can buy the good SHIT and sell you UTTER CRAP.

Go ahead, make them richer, make yourselves poorer, work two jobs at 5$ an hour.

They are LYING to you.

ARE YOU REALLY STUPID ENOUGH TO CUT YOUR OWN THROATS?

ARE YOU REALLY STUPID ENOUGH TO BUY THAT ITS THE WORKERS FAULTS?

HAVE YOU NEVER SEEN WALL STREET TYPES THAT PROFIT OFF YOUR ASSES?

HAVE THEY REALLY.... I MEAN REALLY.... CONVINCED YOU THAT ITS YOUR OWN FAULT AND TO "FUCK DEM UNIONS"?????



wow.

There. I said it.

I have never met one of you who wanted to be fucked over at your jobs. I have never met ONE of you who didn't bitch when you were fucked over at your jobs. You hate mandatory overtime, hate not getting a raise when the cost of living has skyrocketed. You wish your family had medical coverage.

I have never met ONE of YOU who would go to their boss and ask for a pay cut, so your boss can take a million dollar bonus.

You are smart. Hell, most of you are smarter than me.

Yet,
COLLECTIVELY , as every year of my 45 has passed, I see you allowing more and more concessions. I see you not stand up for yourselves. I see you vote for the very people FUCKING you.

What gives?

I'm here to help. I will be doing a little MATH series for you to help you see whats happening to you. You won't even have to get out your calculator.


THE MATH IS EASY.

Dedicated to Washington Union Busters fucking 1 in 10 of us out of jobs, while we do nothing about it. Bye-bye Big 3.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Human Rights: What Lies Ahead ... If Anything?


Last Wednesday was the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In the meantime, torture, indefinite detentions and renditions are still happening - not only perpetrated by "rogue" dictators/regimes, but also by so-called "civilized" states like the U.S. of A.

In these days when torturing is conveniently justified as a matter of necessity, when debate about torture is more than ever about the effectiveness of torture versus the "ineffectiveness" in following the rule of Law, when torture is apparently no more a cause for tarnishing reputations of countries and governments, when military commissions rule at whim (one more example here) over the rule of civil and human rights, when prosecuting torturers and torture promulgators becomes something to be actually requiring debate, when promulgating/instituting torture is no more a criminal matter but rather one of "good faith" but "misguided/wrong" policy-making, or misguided interpretation of laws or merely a matter of proper "spin", when black holes of human decency and justice have become acceptable, when torture has become nothing more than a "mere legal term" and something done casually that is not to be feared or condemned, but in fact to be made money from, trivialized or joked about ...

Then more than ever, we have lost any semblance of human rationality and grace - consequently rendering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights naught but empty words to make us feel noble, good, principled and civilized - allowing us to conveniently forget however much the deluded, hypocritical, savages and barbarians that we truly are.

Yes, President-elect Barack Obama recently renewed his pledge to end the practice of torture - and yet, what are we to make of calls for him to keep pro-torture Bush appointees in his administration-to-be, of those potential alternatives floated around and those other "torture-is-necessary" elected representatives (like this fatuously-reasoning barbarian) so far?

In other words: it remains to be seen whether hypocritical, quaint rationalizations (like this, or that, or this, or that) to justify torture will be at last dumped in the trash bin of history of savagery, so that the barbarian practice of violating human and civil rights will be abandoned once and for all ...

So here we are 60 years later ... and we have quite a long way to go in order to finally make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not only a reality, but an absolute, unalienable standard of what it means to be human and civilized.

Here are two more large portions of food for thought on the matter, for your consumption:


************************
Happy Birthday, Human Rights
At 60, the history and future of a powerful idea.

By Michael Byers


Today, we celebrate with cautious optimism the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

International human rights have steadily gained ground and are now codified in dozens of treaties. Enforced by national courts and international councils, they have saved countless lives. Yet they have also suffered setbacks, such as George Bush’s decision to "take the gloves off" after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

What will the next six decades bring?

Will Barack Obama succeed in repairing the United States’ reputation as an international human rights leader? Will new treaties protect individuals who are still woefully exposed, such as aboriginals, gays, lesbians and transsexuals? Will our grandchildren -- as our grandparents did in the wake of the Holocaust -- reaffirm their "faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small?"

I believe that all these things will happen, for international human rights have displayed a remarkable resilience; they hold an intrinsic power enabling them to withstand the most egregious assaults on their precepts, returning to the centre of geopolitics time after time.

A defining moment

The international human rights movement has its roots in the 19th century. Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1807; many other countries joined the abolitionist movement in the following decades and, in 1926, the Slavery Convention was adopted by the League of Nations.

In 1859, Henri Dunant witnessed the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino, where 40,000 men died, many as the result of untreated wounds. When the young Swiss businessman returned to Geneva, he and some friends initiated a movement that became the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights took things to a new level. Drafted by Canadian law professor John Humphrey and U.S. first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, it constituted the first internationally agreed affirmation of a multitude of rights, including the rights to free expression, assembly, asylum, and the right not to be tortured.

Individual human beings went from being chattels of sovereign governments to autonomous agents with inalienable protections.

Next steps

The Universal Declaration was not a binding treaty. That step was accomplished in 1966 with the adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These two treaties, which affirm and elaborate the rights set out in the Declaration, have since been ratified by more than three-quarters of all countries.

Another step was taken in 1973 after Salvador Allende, the democratically-elected president of Chile, was overthrown by General Augusto Pinochet. A small, London-based human rights group called Amnesty International campaigned vigorously against the regime of torture that followed, in the process transforming itself into the first mass membership, multinational non-governmental organization with real clout in international affairs. That clout soon delivered a UN Declaration on Torture (1975) and Convention against Torture (1984).

Cold War struggles

During the Cold War, human rights were used as political and ideological weapons, with Washington criticizing Moscow for failing to respect civil and political rights, and Moscow condemning Washington over economic, social and cultural rights.

It is important to understand that context when reading President Ronald Reagan’s comments on the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"For people of good will around the world, that document is more than just words: It’s a global testament of humanity, a standard by which any humble person on Earth can stand in judgement of any government on Earth."

The Cold War struggles prompted some to argue that human rights are culturally relative; that they are a peculiarly Western concept that should not be forced upon nation-states with different social, cultural, ideological and religious traditions. Ten years ago, Kofi Annan, the then-Secretary General of the United Nations, put that argument to rest:

"Do not African mothers weep when their sons and daughters are killed or tortured by agents of oppressive rule? Do not African fathers suffer when their children are unjustly sent to jail? Is not Africa as a whole the poorer when just one of its voices is silenced?"

For better, for worse

In addition to being universal, human rights are meant to apply in the bad times as well as the good. Indeed, human rights are especially needed when the going gets rough -- as it has since Sept. 11, 2001 -- in order to protect against excessive and arbitrary state action.

Just six days after 9-11, President Bush signed a "presidential finding" that provided the CIA with broad authorization to disrupt terrorist activity, including by killing, capturing or detaining Al-Qaeda members anywhere in the world. On this basis, the agency began secretly transferring suspects -- like Canadian Maher Arar -- either to the intelligence services of countries notorious for torture or to clandestine prisons located outside the United States.

Four months later, the Bush administration began sending some suspected Taliban and Al-Qaeda members to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Ignoring public criticism from a number of allied leaders, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and even the Red Cross, then-secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld insisted the detainees could not be prisoners of war.

Mr. Rumsfeld refused to convene the tribunals required under the Geneva Conventions to determine their status, instead assigning them to a new category of "enemy combatants" that was recognized nowhere in international law. In November 2002, the English Court of Appeal opined that it was as if the detainees were in a "legal black hole."

The situation at Abu Ghraib Prison was worse. The image of a hooded man standing on a box, with electrical wires dangling from his outstretched hands, remains seared into our collective memory.

Finally, in December 2005, developments like these prompted Louise Arbour, the then-UN high commissioner for human rights, to issue the following public warning: "The absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice, is under attack. The principle we once believed to be unassailable -- the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of the person -- is becoming a casualty of the so-called war on terror."

Human rights return

In 2003, Maher Arar was returned from Syria. In 2006, George Bush admitted Abu Ghraib was a "mistake" and that "We’ve been paying for that for a long time." During the 2008 president election campaign, both candidates promised to close Guantanamo Bay. The ability of the United States to "win hearts and minds" had been severely compromised. The power of human rights -- expressed in part through international public opinion -- was beginning to be felt again.



(Keep reading ...)

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

The Human Rights Declaration at 60
by Daniele Archibugi


As the time comes to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the West has lost its moral authority and seems incapable of offering any hope of future dignity to the rest of the world. Guantanamo, 'extraordinary rendition' and Abu Ghraib will be just some of the words launched in the face of the West to deny its self-assigned role as the champion of human rights. Many despotic regimes, previously so used to being the accused, are now careful not to miss an opportunity to point out the fact that, when the circumstances are exceptional, all countries, whether they are run as democracies or not, are quite prepared to set aside human rights when it suits them.

It is obviously not true that human rights are violated with the same frequency in North America and in Asia, in Europe and in Africa - but a clear conscience is not just a luxury for those who hold close to their hearts the defence of human rights. Having turned sixty, the danger now is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can actually take early retirement as the nations that have sponsored it have shown themselves incapable of respecting it.

This discredit is commonly associated with the Presidency of George W. Bush and a well-grounded promise has been made that a radical change of direction will occur with Barack Obama. However, the degeneration under the Bush administration is in truth simply evidence of a much deeper western problem that involves Europe and the United States, both progressives and conservatives. The West believed that, since it had considered itself the bearer of the values stated in the Universal Declaration, it didn't really need to consider itself to be subject to it and consequently approached the problem of human rights as an exclusively foreign policy issue. In a large part of the world this meant that human rights rhetoric was perceived as a new form of colonial domination by the West rather than an instrument of emancipation available to peoples against their home-grown despots.

It is still not clear in what direction the United States will move as far as human rights are concerned. The closure of Guantanamo and the abolishing of extraordinary rendition will be viewed as fundamental signals indicating that the change promised by Obama will also include human rights. And yet the main lesson to be drawn is that the cause of human rights can never again be entrusted to the hands of a single country - however efficient its internal system of democratic checks and balances. On the contrary, some external control must be added, which is exercised by impartial institutions that are independent of the ruling governments.

It is certainly encouraging that a vast majority of the world population endorses the idea that the UN should take an active role in the protection of human rights (see the poll by "World Public Opinion"), but any UN action will become more authoritative if it is supported by citizens and their representatives rather than just by government's ambassadors. If, on this anniversary, western governments aim to regain the high ground, they must have the courage to go beyond the essentially inter-governmental logic that has dominated the human rights regime to date and actively promote global checks and balances which are based on a greater degree of participation.

What does this mean in practice?

ICC: bring the US back in; define state aggression

First of all, the International Criminal Court, established five years ago for the purpose of prosecuting those responsible for the more serious violations of human rights, must be strengthened (a periodic assessment is carried out by the Global Policy Forum). The Court has neither the remit nor the resources to concern itself with everything, although it does have a great advantage over other inter-governmental agencies: it has the formal independence that is enjoyed by the judiciary. While the European Union recognizes the Court, the United States (under Bush) has withdrawn from it, undoing the progress made under the preceding administration. Even during the Clinton administration, the European countries had to sweat blood to persuade the United States to join. And even then it was not possible to get it ratified by the Senate. If the United States is really serious about adopting a status of equality with the other countries, it should accept the Court fully with all that this entails.



(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Something Different: Breaking Free From Sexual Stereotypes


The following is an interesting take (on a fiction book) concerning the sexual/body/look stereotyping of women and how such pressure to conform impacts women and, especially, teenage girls - however, I would like to point out an obvious omission in such a debate: men, and teenage boys, are likewise pressured to conform to specific sexual/body/look stereotypes nowadays ... and I dare say as much as women and teenage girls.

Where sex and selling sexual stereotypes are concerned, let us never forget that there are always two sides to this equation - female and male.


Breaking free
Cleavage tackles a variety of topics, from love and sex, to body image and even discovering that your mother is completely waxed bare 'down there'

By Katie O'Connor


It is increasingly difficult to find fiction for young girls which does not promote a material lifestyle, such as getting the latest designer bag or the newest beauty product to help your lips look plumper and eyes look bigger. In a world dominated by waif-like women and the need for more, more, more, Cleavage: Breakaway Fiction for Real Girls is a refreshing compilation of 15 new short stories. Each story revolves on strong, young females who yearn to break away from the arbitrary beauty ideals imposed upon them. Cleavage tackles a variety of topics, from love and sex, to body image and even discovering that your mother is completely waxed bare 'down there.'

In today's society, our senses have become dulled to the amount of advertising we are exposed to each and every day. Young women are being sent mixed messages from every angle, from the media to their very own mothers. Teenage girls are particularly open to these messages because they are in the process of developing and discovering who they are. As a young woman, it can sometimes feel like you are in the middle of a tug of war between parental or other influences, peers, and advertising. When you are unsure of yourself, you are increasingly susceptible to these influences.

Cleavage showcases this tug of war that occurs while growing up. One short story, in particular, uniquely demonstrates the way media and teen magazines can have an influence on young girls. 'Faceless on the Farm,' by Ann Sutherland takes the form of several letters written back and forth between a teen magazine editor and a young girl who lives on a rural farm. 'Faceless' captures the way teen magazines encourage young girls to use makeup as a placebo to aid self-esteem. It creates a snapshot of the pressure girls feel to 'uncover their beauty' through make-up and various products, while ignoring their true beauty.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

This Is Why I Will Not Rejoin The LPC


Just as I was about to (finally) rejoin the LPC, with the primary motivation of contributing as much as I could in deciding who was going to be the next LPC leader, as well as in helping as much as I could in establishing a clearly defined platform, the party pulls off something like this.

If members of a party are prevented from deciding who is to be their party leader, and/or if a majority of party members accept such undemocratic crowning exclusively pronounced by party insiders, then said party is definitely not for me.

That is why I will not rejoin the LPC.

Wanna bet that when Harper meets with Ignatieff, the former will convince the latter of the "necessary pragmatism" in not voting out his sorry excuse for a (minority) government for at least a year, because this "would give time" to both parties before having to return to elections?

More triangulation on the part of the LPC while Harper rules like a majority government - that is what is in the works, folks ... just like before, complete with empty, boastful threats like this.

"A coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition", indeed.

And that is why I do not forsee at this time any kind of bright future whatsoever for the LPC (I echo PSA's feelings in this).

What a shame.

What a damn shame.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

The Case Of The Telltale Hoax

Who was behind the Mumbai massacre?

The idea that a nuclear war could be started by a hoax caller may seem too Bizarro Worldish, even for the post-9/11 era, but there you have it:

"A hoax caller claiming to be India's foreign minister threatened Pakistan's president with war during the final hours of the Mumbai attacks, prompting Islamabad to put its air force on its highest alert for nearly 24 hours, a news report said Saturday."

How did the Mumbai prankster get through to the president of Pakistan? Simple: caller ID! Naturally, these things can be faked, but what do they know in Pakistan? (Although I'll bet the caller wouldn't have gotten through to Gen. Pervez "No Nonsense" Musharraf, the previous "president"-cum-dictator.)

What this underscores – apart from the tenuous character of human existence and the utter absurdity of life – is how delicate the balance of terror is these days. One false move and – ka-boom! – the world (or a good chunk of it) goes up in a puff of smoke. If you like your humor dark and unsweetened, then this is mordantly funny. What's not so funny, however, is the probable answer to the obvious question: who made the call?

Keep Reading ...

punditman says ... This is a bit of a meandering column but well worth the read. It underscores the utter futlility of waging war in a region known for its byzantine politics and religious fanaticism. In other words, good luck trying to wade through the region by declaring as your objective the destruction of the abstract noun known as terrorism.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

BushCo And Torture: To Prosecute, Or Not To Prosecute?

One of Barack Obama’s first acts as president should be to instruct his attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to initiate a criminal investigation of former Bush Administration officials who gave the green light to torture.

At Obama’s press conference on Dec. 1, he spoke of upholding America’s highest values as he introduced Eric Holder as his choice for attorney general. Holder insisted there was no tension between protecting the people of the United States and adhering to our Constitution.

A few months ago, Holder was even more explicit. “Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution,” he said. “We owe the American people a reckoning.”

The day of reckoning is fast upon us.

Keep Reading ...

punditman says ... But will it happen? I'd say don't hold your breath.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Science And Religion: Two Short Answers To Two (Stupid) Questions


First question:
Is there such a thing as a "clean-cut" division between religion and science?
Answer: Can you properly add 1 and 1 together, you pretentious IDiot?

Second question:
Is the creation of the world "so mysterious" that it requires something as large as an Almighty to explain it, and yet remaining compatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution?
Answer: Oops - looks like you can't properly add 1 and 1 together, you fatuous ignoramus.

Bonus answer to both questions: what's next - a full blown philosophical and theological discussion on the sex and gender of angels, actually supported by scientific evidence?

Sorry folks - I just don't have any patience or sympathy today for primitive mind-thinking, intellectual sloth-driven incompetent morons.

After all, a spade is a spade and has to be called for what it is, eh?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

In These Times Of Merry This And Merry That ...


... just another little reminder of what is basically at stake, above and beyond everything else:


World’s hungry ‘close to one billion’

The food crisis has pushed the number of hungry people in the world to almost 1bn, in what the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation described on Tuesday as a “serious setback” to global efforts to reduce mass starvation.

“The ongoing financial and economic crisis could tip even more people into hunger and poverty,” the FAO added.

The Rome-based organisation said that a preliminary estimate showed the number of undernourished people rose this year by 40m to about 963m people, after rising 75m in 2007. Before the food crisis, there were about 848m chronically hungry people in 2003-05.

“High food prices are driving millions of people into food insecurity, worsening conditions for many who were already food-insecure, and threatening long-term global food security,” the FAO said in its report The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008.

Prices of agricultural commodities such as wheat, corn and rice jumped to record levels earlier this year, triggering food riots in countries ranging from Haiti to Egypt to Bangladesh and prompting appeals for food aid for more than 30 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Although food commodity prices have fallen about 50 per cent from this summer’s all-time highs, they remain well above pre-crisis levels. The cost of rice, for example, has halved since July, but it still trades at prices that are 95 per cent above 2005 levels.

In addition, the weakening of some emerging countries’ currencies against the US dollar has partially erased gains from the drop in commodity prices.

The new FAO estimates also show the food crisis has thrown into reverse a decline over a quarter-century in the proportion of undernourished people as a percentage of the world’s population. The percentage has risen now to about 17 per cent, up from a record low of 16 per cent in 2003-05 period, but still below the 20 per cent of 1990-92.

“Soaring food prices have reversed some of the gain and successes in hunger reduction, making the mission of achieving the internationally agreed goal on hunger reduction more difficult,” the FAO said.

Now, here is the total population of the World, projected to 12/10/08 at 15:36 GMT (EST+5):
6,742,531,390
So, this means roughly that for every seven human beings on our homeworld, one is malnourished or starving ...

It says a lot about modern Humanity, no?

Food for thought indeed ...

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Harper Checkmated?

At the Prime Minister’s request, the newly minted 40th parliament of Canada has been prorogued, closed until January 26th, creating a situation unprecedented in Canadian history — a government has avoided defeat by dismissing the nation’s lawmakers.

Over the next seven weeks, we will see a wave of propaganda and mobilization, amply funded, from the Conservative Party attacking the opposition leaders. This spending will take place outside the election writ period and thus, like the attacks on Liberal leader Stéphane Dion over the past two years, will be subject to no spending limits whatsoever.

At the end of January, on the date that he has chosen, Mr. Harper will meet Parliament and present a budget.

If his budget and/or throne speech fail to pass the House, Mr. Harper will seek — perhaps successfully — to dissolve parliament and go to a general election. He will have the momentum of seven weeks of wall-to-wall campaigning, without bothersome election spending restrictions, at his back.

If the Conservatives receive a couple of percentage points more of the vote (or if, for example, the Green Party takes one or two percentage points more), Mr. Harper may well receive the majority he has been desperately seeking.

With a majority, Mr. Harper will be able to move rapidly to do many of the things he has been restrained from doing so far — whether this means emasculating the opposition parties by removing democratic, proportional, public funding, completing the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board, or undermining Aboriginal and women’s rights.

If the Liberals and the NDP enter the next election competing against each other as usual — something Mr. Harper is counting on — they will divide once again the votes of progressive Canadians (the majority) and may well leave themselves, and our democracy, badly damaged.

One thing Mr. Harper may not have counted on is that, instead of falling apart, the coalition may solidify and take the initiative.

This could happen if the NDP and the Liberals (and, hopefully, the Greens as well) make a concrete agreement not to run against each other in any riding in the country.

Keep Reading ...


Punditman says ...
Perhaps Stephen Harper is checkmated or perhaps not. But the only real hope for Canadian progressives is a functional coalition of fellow travelers who can actually challenge the right-wing in Canada on the same playing field. Not the current namby pamby effort.

Unfortunately, it seems Michael ("Invade Iraq") Ignatieff looks as though he will gain control of the Liberals, at least for now. We are either back to square one and the Left will once again split into more pieces than a toxic derivative, or it is time to start to build a real coalition that can actually defeat Harper in the soon-to-be next election.
Why not take it one step further and form a new party if necessary? Whaddya think, comrades?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 8, 2008

Revenge Of Teh Machine


Sunday after lunch, my PC decided to refuse to work properly - in fact, it is plainly refusing to work, period.

I will endeavor this week to remedy the problem - most likely by buying a new machine.

In the meantime, what little blogging I can do while I'm at the office, I will continue to do (usually, I blog in the evening, including writing posts scheduled to be published at specific times the next day, and so on). Hence, blogging on my part will be quite light and erratic for this week at the very least (i.e. until I get my new machine - keeping my fingers crossed that this happens sooner than later).

I apologize for the inconvenience.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 7, 2008

On Harper: Two Short Answers To Two Quick Questions


First question:
Has Harper Hurt National Unity?
Answer: you bet, he did. Because he ever uses the Rovian playbook of fearmongering and creating divisiveness among the electorate in order to assure his stay in power.

Second question:
Is it Harper's nature to only feel truly alive when voicing hostility and contempt for his "enemies"?
Answer: of course, because that is what primitive mind-thinking incompetents do. That is all they do, that is all they can do.

Bonus answer to both questions: Chassez le naturel et il revient vite au gallop.

Any other questions?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 6, 2008

NATO Backs Missile Shield Over Russian Protest

NATO foreign ministers today praised America’s planned missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic as making a “substantial contribution” to protecting Europe from long-range ballistic missiles.

The United States insists that the shield is primarily directed at the threat of long-range Iranian missiles, though both the missile base and the radar station are well outside the range of Iran’s most advanced missile. Rather, Russia sees the bases and the 10 interceptor missiles to be placed there sometime in the next few years as an effort to slightly degrade their retaliatory capability.

President-elect Barack Obama has not yet committed to completing the base, saying he would do so only if the technology is proven workable. Russia has responded to the plan by threatening to place Iskander missiles and jamming equipment in the exclave of Kaliningrad to counter the shield. President Medvedev says his government is willing to reverse the decision to place the missiles in Kaliningrad if Obama cancels construction of the missile defense.

punditman says ...

As senior citizens' savings evaporate into a firepit of financial ruin, as the credit crisis deepens and unemployment creeps upwards, why this is just what we need: another arms race based on a massively expensive technology that doesn't work and serves only to increase tensions with the Kremlin. How does the US/NATO expect the Russians to react? Just sit there and take it on the chin?

It kind of reminds me of the Canadian Parliament. What did Harper expect the opposition to do after he tried to cut them off at the knees? The art of compromise seems to have been expunged from political discourse.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, December 5, 2008

Pakistan's Crossroads


Following up on the previous post - when one talks about Afghanistan, one must also talk about Pakistan.

Truth be told - it was always this way from the beginning, except in the minds of those incompetents who devised the Global War on Terror(TM) and the Afghanistan war itself, as well as in the minds of those MSM/traditional media stenographers.

Nevertheless - the fate of Pakistan and its apparent slow destabilization does not bode well at all - especially when taking into consideration that this nation is one of the few "nuclear powers" on the planet ...

Fair warning?

Sure sounds like one ...


Pakistan Nears the Breaking Point
Meltdown for U.S. South Asia Policy?

By Peter Lee


After the initial shock of the Mumbai attack wore off in Pakistan—and the international consensus that the attackers were Pakistani coalesced -- there was an immediate and emotional rejection of the idea that long-suffering Pakistan should be further destabilized under U.S. and Indian insistence that the miscreants be pursued inside Pakistan’s borders.

A common theme in Pakistan’s media is that the Mumbai attack was carried out by Hindu extremists, or even was a false flag operation carried out by India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) to provoke a conflict with Pakistan.

One commenter opined, Maybe this wasn’t India’s 9/11. Maybe it was India’s Oklahoma City.

That’s very bad news for the United States and its covert struggle inside Pakistan against government and public apathy concerning the Western struggle to stabilize Afghanistan, and to neutralize pro-Taliban and pro-al Qaeda elements in the Inter Services Intelligence directorate (ISI).

Pakistan’s Zardari government, which is almost doglike in its desire to please the United States, is nervously playing word games about cooperating with India as the United States demands, while it drags its feet in order to keep in step with its domestic constituency.

The U.S. is fully aware of the fragility of the Zardari government, and popular resistance to U.S. aims in the region, and is trying to tread carefully, eschewing the rhetoric of the war on terror.

However, by the momentum of its policies, the desperate need to keep Afghanistan from going down the tubes, its pro-India tilt in South Asia, and the discovery of another lever to compel Pakistan’s cooperation, the United States appears determined to disregard or steamroll over Pakistan’s obvious anxieties.

Seemingly eager to demonstrate that he possesses an invincible tin ear when it comes to Pakistani politics, Admiral Mullen took advantage of his meeting with Zardari to press Pakistan’s participation in what is possibly the only initiative less popular than assisting the Indians in a murder investigation—America’s bloody counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban and al Qaeda in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan.

Trouble is, the War on Terror dog doesn’t hunt anymore where it matters most—Pakistan.

Today the rhetoric of the war on terror is irretrievably linked to the United States, its failed strategy, its dubious objectives…and Islamabad’s coerced participation in a U.S.-orchestrated military, political, economic, and security drama that threatens to rip Pakistan apart.

The result is skewed narratives, distorted policies, an unavoidable but counter-productive American reliance on arm-twisting instead of persuasion, and a visceral Pakistan opposition to U.S. policies that is reaching the point of desperate revulsion.

And, triumphant Democrats be warned, it doesn’t look like things will improve in an Obama administration.

But to me the Mumbai attack looks a lot like blowback from the U.S. campaign to rein in Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) apparatus and orchestrate an anti-Taliban/anti-al Qaeda united front of democracies stretching from Kabul to Islamabad to New Delhi.

Any proven involvement by Pakistani state institutions in the Mumbai attack would be a catastrophe for Pakistan-India relations.

It would immediately provoke the shift of Pakistan’s military focus and resources away from a conflict it detests—the U.S. imposed counterinsurgency in west Pakistan’s Frontier and Tribal Areas (FATA)--to an arrangement much more comfortable for Pakistan’s army: the familiar display of ritualized hostility and the deployment of a conventional order of battle on the eastern border with India.

Therefore, despite some hard-to-explain anomalies, there is a determined effort by the United States, with the obliging assistance of the media, to squeeze the Mumbai outrage into a conventional South Asian tale: a brutal episode in the proxy war between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, with militants of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) Kashmir independence organization nurtured by Pakistan’s ISI serving as shock troops in the struggle.

The Mumbai operation was carefully planned over an extended period—perhaps a year—apparently in Pakistan.

The terrorists had an entire merchant ship at their disposal, as well as an arsenal of weapons. Their complex plan to evade detection by the Indian military involved locating and hijacking a suitable vessel. They got their vessel, executed the hapless captain (and apparently his crew), and continued on their mission.

Further reports indicate that the attackers left timed explosive charges in the two taxis they took to reach their targets, in order to kill the drivers and further cover their tracks.

The subsequent assault culminated in near simultaneous attacks on multiple targets and a protracted siege at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel where the attackers held off Indian commandoes for sixty hours.

No wonder that people are thinking that al Qaeda or Pakistan’s ISI are the only two organizations that could have carried out such a massive, well-planned assault.

Efforts to paint the attack as a LeT initiative are less convincing.

Clearly, the elephant in the room is Pakistan’s ISI, which has supported LeT as a proxy in its struggle with India.

The ISI, which nurtured the anti-Soviet mujahideen in Afghanistan (with U.S. aid) and supported the Taliban government is not sympathetic to America’s faltering effort to create an anti-Taliban bulwark in Kabul.

It is especially unhappy that the United States has abandoned any pretense of even-handedness in the Pakistan-India relationship.Washington has overtly tilted toward New Delhi.

An eyebrow-raising nuclear giveaway negotiated bilaterally between the U.S. and India allowed India to normalize its relationship with the international nuclear and non-proliferation community even while the Bush administration denied the same facility to Pakistan.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Afghanistan: Taliban This, Taliban That ...


As Canada's death toll in Afghanistan just reached 100, and considering the hundreds of millions of dollars that are slated to be further poured into Canada's war, as well as taking into account President-elect Obama's gung-ho attitude in upping the ante in Afghanistan, I thought the following article quite à propos in order to clearly illustrate why exactly Afghanistan is a FUBAR for absolutely nothing, a disastrous quagmire that can - and will - only get worse ... and which is essentially unwinnable:


Who Are the Taliban?
The Afghan War Deciphered

by Anand Gopal


If there is an exact location marking the West's failures in Afghanistan, it is the modest police checkpoint that sits on the main highway 20 minutes south of Kabul. The post signals the edge of the capital, a city of spectacular tension, blast walls, and standstill traffic. Beyond this point, Kabul's gritty, low-slung buildings and narrow streets give way to a vast plain of serene farmland hemmed in by sandy mountains. In this valley in Logar province, the American-backed government of Afghanistan no longer exists.

Instead of government officials, men in muddied black turbans with assault rifles slung over their shoulders patrol the highway, checking for thieves and "spies." The charred carcass of a tanker, meant to deliver fuel to international forces further south, sits belly up on the roadside.

The police say they don't dare enter these districts, especially at night when the guerrillas rule the roads. In some parts of the country's south and east, these insurgents have even set up their own government, which they call the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the name of the former Taliban government). They mete out justice in makeshift Sharia courts. They settle land disputes between villagers. They dictate the curricula in schools.

Just three years ago, the central government still controlled the provinces near Kabul. But years of mismanagement, rampant criminality, and mounting civilian casualties have led to a spectacular resurgence of the Taliban and other related groups. Today, the Islamic Emirate enjoys de facto control in large parts of the country's south and east. According to ACBAR, an umbrella organization representing more than 100 aid agencies, insurgent attacks have increased by 50% over the past year. Foreign soldiers are now dying at a higher rate here than in Iraq.

The burgeoning disaster is prompting the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai and international players to speak openly of negotiations with sections of the insurgency.

The New Nationalist Taliban

Who exactly are the Afghan insurgents? Every suicide attack and kidnapping is usually attributed to "the Taliban." In reality, however, the insurgency is far from monolithic. There are the shadowy, kohl-eyed mullahs and head-bobbing religious students, of course, but there are also erudite university students, poor, illiterate farmers, and veteran anti-Soviet commanders. The movement is a mélange of nationalists, Islamists, and bandits that fall uneasily into three or four main factions. The factions themselves are made up of competing commanders with differing ideologies and strategies, who nonetheless agree on one essential goal: kicking out the foreigners.

It wasn't always this way. When U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban government in November 2001, Afghans celebrated the downfall of a reviled and discredited regime. "We felt like dancing in the streets," one Kabuli told me. As U.S.-backed forces marched into Kabul, the Afghan capital, remnants of the old Taliban regime split into three groups. The first, including many Kabul-based bureaucrats and functionaries, simply surrendered to the Americans; some even joined the Karzai government. The second, comprised of the movement's senior leadership, including its leader Mullah Omar, fled across the border into Pakistan, where they remain to this day. The third and largest group -- foot soldiers, local commanders, and provincial officials -- quietly melted into the landscape, returning to their farms and villages to wait and see which way the wind blew.

Meanwhile, the country was being carved up by warlords and criminals. On the brand-new highway connecting Kabul to Kandahar and Herat, built with millions of Washington's dollars, well-organized groups of bandits would regularly terrorize travelers. "[Once], thirty, maybe fifty criminals, some in police uniforms, stopped our bus and shot [out] our windows," Muhammadullah, the owner of a bus company that regularly uses the route, told me. "They searched our vehicle and stole everything from everyone." Criminal syndicates, often with government connections, organized kidnapping sprees in urban centers like the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar city. Often, those few who were caught would simply be released after the right palms were greased.

Onto this landscape of violence and criminality rode the Taliban again, promising law and order. The exiled leadership, based in Quetta, Pakistan, began reactivating its networks of fighters who had blended into the country's villages. They resurrected relationships with Pashtun tribes. (The insurgents, historically a predominantly Pashtun movement, still have very little influence among other Afghan minority ethnic groups like the Tajiks and Hezaras.) With funds from wealthy Arab donors and training from the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence apparatus, they were able to bring weapons and expertise into Pashtun villages.

In one village after another, they drove out the remaining minority of government sympathizers through intimidation and assassination. Then they won over the majority with promises of security and efficiency. The guerrillas implemented a harsh version of Sharia law, cutting off the hands of thieves and shooting adulterers. They were brutal, but they were also incorruptible. Justice no longer went to the highest bidder. "There's no crime any more, unlike before," said Abdul Halim, who lives in a district under Taliban control.

The insurgents conscripted fighters from the villages they operated in, often paying them $200 a month -- more than double the typical police salary. They adjudicated disputes between tribes and between landowners. They protected poppy fields from the eradication attempts of the central government and foreign armies -- a move that won them the support of poor farmers whose only stable income came from poppy cultivation. Areas under insurgent control were consigned to having neither reconstruction nor social services, but for rural villagers who had seen much foreign intervention and little economic progress under the Karzai government, this was hardly new.

At the same time, the Taliban's ideology began to undergo a transformation. "We are fighting to free our country from foreign domination," Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi told me over the phone. "The Indians fought for their independence against the British. Even the Americans once waged an insurgency to free their own country." This emerging nationalistic streak appealed to Pashtun villagers growing weary of the American and NATO presence.

The insurgents are also fighting to install a version of Sharia law in the country. Nonetheless, the famously puritanical guerrillas have moderated some of their most extreme doctrines, at least in principle. Last year, for instance, Mullah Omar issued an edict declaring music and parties -- banned in the Taliban's previous incarnation -- permissible. Some Taliban commanders have even started accepting the idea of girls' education. Certain hard-line leaders like the one-legged Mullah Daddullah, a man of legendary brutality (whose beheading binges at times reportedly proved too much even for Mullah Omar) were killed by international forces.

Meanwhile, a more pragmatic leadership started taking the reins. U.S. intelligence officers believe that day-to-day leadership of the movement is now actually in the hands of the politically savvy Mullah Brehadar, while Mullah Omar retains a largely figurehead position. Brehadar may be behind the push to moderate the movement's message in order to win greater support.

Even at the local level, some provincial Taliban officials are tempering older-style Taliban policies in order to win local hearts and minds. Three months ago in a district in Ghazni province, for instance, the insurgents ordered all schools closed. When tribal elders appealed to the Taliban's ruling religious council in the area, the religious judges reversed the decision and reopened the schools.

However, not all field commanders follow the injunctions against banning music and parties. In many Taliban-controlled districts such amusements are still outlawed, which points to the movement's decentralized nature. Local commanders often set their own policies and initiate attacks without direct orders from the Taliban leadership.

The result is a slippery movement that morphs from district to district. In some Taliban-controlled districts of Ghazni province, an Afghan caught working for a non-governmental organization (NGO) would meet certain death. In parts of neighboring Wardak province, however, where the insurgents are said to be more educated and understand the need for development, local NGOs can function with the guerrillas' permission.

The "Other" Talibans

Never short of guns and guerrillas, Afghanistan has proven fertile ground for a whole host of insurgent groups in addition to the Taliban.



(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

After Mumbai - Will India Go The Wrong Way On Freedoms And Rights?


The question has to be asked, especially considering the unprecedented assaults on human/civil rights and freedoms following 9/11, which have occured (and keep occuring) in the U.S.A., the U.K. and even here as well, in Canada ...


After Mumbai: India’s democratic test
By Meenakshi Ganguly

The Indian government’s response to the Mumbai assault needs to be guided by principled defence of rights and freedoms.


The visible fires have died down, the dust has almost settled. Not just at the hotels, the train station, the Jewish centre, the café or the hospital that came under attack in Mumbai (Bombay). But also at the cremation grounds and burial sites, where innocent victims were put to rest. Yet, as one young man said, "There is a fire still burning in my heart." The young man is an Indian, a citizen of Bombay, and a Muslim.

There is another 21-year-old who is now in custody. The authorities say he has admitted responsibility for the indiscriminate firing at the Chhatrapati Shivaji station which claimed over fifty lives and injured many more. His picture was captured on closed-circuit television, carrying an assault rifle. He and his accomplice also allegedly killed three police officers. He is reported to have said that he is neither Indian nor a citizen of Bombay, but is a Muslim. What sort of fire burns in his heart?

The first, the Indian, said he was angry. As an Indian, he believes the attack to have been an act of war. India has been victim of so many bomb-attacks, it has become somewhat inured, almost as though rolling with the punches and moving on. But to watch a raging gun-battle over three days, a city skyline in flames, does feel like war. As a citizen of Bombay, he is angry because of the hate campaigns that tried to divide it by attacking those who come from outside into a city that does not have the infrastructure to support its vast population. As a Muslim, he believes his religion is once again being blamed as one that teaches violence. But he rushed to say that those gunmen, if they are Muslim, do not speak for my community.

The authorities say that the captured gunman - who identified himself as Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab - said that he is a Pakistani citizen and was trained in Pakistan to "kill until your last breath." If true, who taught him this? Who trained him? Who gave him guns, grenades and explosives? And why did he make this choice?

The hand of restraint

As the Indian government begins to investigate the attacks, identify and prosecute those planned this murderous spree, it has to act with great responsibility - as do all in public life in the country. Those who peddle hate for votes need to quickly learn that their actions have consequences. They should remember that this was not just an attack on India. The killers also wanted to punish westerners. They wanted to attack Jews. They wanted to destroy an economy vital for ending the horrible poverty that afflicts much of India. They should remember that avenging these acts by vilifying ordinary citizens will only help the attackers succeed - as it has in the past, when innocent Muslims were singled out and the community felt under siege.

Those that call for retribution upon Pakistan must also be cautious. An extreme reaction is perhaps what these extremists desired. The attacks happened just days after serious peace moves by Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari. If the perpetrators are indeed linked to Pakistan, then it is up to Islamabad to ensure that it joins in a global effort to end such acts of violence. Those responsible must be identified and properly held to account. The Pakistani government has said that its hands are clean. It should demonstrate this by taking strong lawful action against those of its citizens who are involved in such violence. But we can't forget that a civilian president in Pakistan cannot just snap his fingers and make the army and ISI intelligence services jump. A smart Indian government will take steps that will bolster moderates in Pakistan and isolate hardliners.

Inside the fire

But above all, the big test is how the Indian government responds to this crisis. India celebrates its democracy. State assembly elections were held even as government commandoes secured the hotels in Mumbai.

Democracy - one that includes due process of law, fair trials, a prohibition on torture - must be strengthened and protected.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Meanwhile ... How About That Shiny, Brand New Arms Race We Got Ourselves?


Verily, a question quite à propos indeed, especially as a follow up to previous posts here, here and here, as well as in light of the U.S.A.'s refusal (and underlying reasons) to sign the Convention on cluster munitions:


The New Arms Race
The Cost of Hegemony is Beyond Reach

By Paul Craig Roberts


Undeterred by massive budget deficits from wars, a falling economy, and financial bailouts, the US government has managed to start a new cold war with Russia. Last Friday, the Russian military announced that it was developing a new generation of ballistic missiles in response to the US government’s decision to deploy ballistic missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The “peace dividend” that the Reagan-Gorbachev accord provided has been squandered by an arrogant American government seeking world hegemony.

In 2002 the Bush regime unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that the US government signed with the Soviet Union in 1972. This treaty stabilized the “assured mutual destruction” that prevented the two military superpowers from initiating war, thus averting a nuclear holocaust for 30 years.

When the Soviet government released its Eastern European “captive nations,” the US government promised not to recruit the Baltic and Eastern European countries for NATO membership. The US government pledged that NATO would not be brought to Russia’s borders. There would be a neutral zone between the Western military alliance and Russia. The American government broke this promise as quickly as it could, bringing former constituent parts of the Russian empire into the American empire.

Last October Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, went to Lithuania to give a guarantee to the Baltics of US military intervention in the event of a Russian attack. Like the British guarantee that Chamberlain gave Poland in 1939, a guarantee that precipitated World War II, Mullen’s guarantee is worthless unless the US government initiates nuclear war with Russia in defense of the tiny Baltic republics, which would be wiped out by the radiation fallout.

The US has tried to incorporate the Ukraine and Georgia, constituent parts of Russia for centuries, into NATO. To clear the way for NATO membership, the Bush regime encouraged the American puppet ruler of Georgia to cleanse provinces, attached to Georgia by Stalin, of Russians in order to end secessionist movements. When Russian troops drove the American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian army out of the Russian parts of Georgia, the US government lied that Russia had invaded Georgia.

This malevolent lie was too much for the Russians and too much of the rest of the world. It was plain to all that the US, an aggressor state striving to encircle Russia with bases even to the edge of central Asia, had initiated a war that it then blamed on Russia. After Afghanistan, Iraq, Bush’s defense of Israel’s 2006 war criminal attack on Lebanon, and Bush’s false claims of an Iranian nuclear weapon, few, if any, countries any longer believe pronouncements of the US government. The US is regarded worldwide as an aggressor state that lies through its teeth.

This means that unless China decides to play the US and Russia off in order to emerge as the sole world power, there is no one to finance America’s side of the new cold war that the US government has created.

The only other way Washington can finance a new arms race with Russia is to cancel Social Security and Medicare, and to repudiate its massive foreign debts. If Washington does this, the likely result would be revolution at home and isolation internationally.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

The Case For The Coalition Reloaded


In spite of Harper having managed to con his way into getting his undeserved candy from an (incompetent) Governor General, truth and facts warrant to be clamored and repeated over and over and over - perhaps in the process eventually muting the shameless, mendacious lies and propaganda being dished out by Harper and his Harpies on the matter (examples here, here and here - along with their renewed pledge to do just that, shamelessly and willfully misinform and scare folks) ...


The Case for the Coalition
Harper is a dangerous driver, and we're taking away the keys.

By Michael Byers


As a failed politician, I won't be sitting by the phone hoping that Prime Minister Dion will offer a cabinet position. I can't even look forward to watching from the government backbenches as Jim Prentice leads Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Or will it be James Moore?

Canadian politics are currently so full of uncertainties -- some unavoidable, others intentional -- that predictions are mere speculations. So let's move on to what we actually know about the constitutional and political situation.

MPs are everything

Canadians never vote directly for a "government." Instead, we elect a member of Parliament in our local constituency. It is only after 308 individual MPs have been chosen that the process of forming a government begins.

The Constitution Act of 1867 doesn't even mention the prime minister or political parties. MPs are everything.

How MPs organize themselves is entirely up to them. This is why two MPs are able to currently sit as independents; there could just as easily be 308 of them. Most MPs have organized themselves into groupings known as parties. This simplifies the process of forming government but doesn't change the constitutional pre-eminence of individual MPs.

There is just one basic requirement: The government must at all times enjoy the confidence of the majority of MPs in the House of Commons.

By unwritten constitutional convention, the Governor General calls upon the leader of the party with the most MPs and asks him or her to try to form a government that enjoys the confidence of the House. When that party holds a majority of the seats, the result is a foregone conclusion. This gives rise to the illusion that parties win the "right to govern." But they just get to try to form a government first, and happen to have enough seats to deliver.

Things are different when no party emerges from the election with a majority. Again, the Governor General calls upon the leader of the party with the most MPs and asks them to try to form a government that enjoys the confidence of the House. To obtain that confidence, the newly designated "prime minister" must persuade MPs from other parties to provide their support. If he or she fails, it is open to another party (or parties) to indicate that they can get the job done -- whereupon the Governor General will let them try.

Since the 308 individual MPs whose preferences drive this process are directly elected by Canadians, all of this is entirely democratic.

A whiff of tyranny

The current whiff of tyranny comes from Stephen Harper, who has deliberately misled Canadians by asserting that "Stéphane Dion does not have the right to take power without an election." To the contrary, Dion has the right -- provided, again, that the Governor General asks him to try to form a government.

Later today, Harper will likely ask the Governor General to prorogue (in essence, recess) Parliament, enabling him to dodge two confidence votes on Monday. A new parliamentary session would begin in the New Year.

The Governor General shouldn't heed his request, and here is why.

Normally, the Governor General is just a figurehead. Most of her powers can only be exercised with the advice and consent of the government. But she is not bound by the advice of a prime minister who has lost the confidence of the House -- as Harper all too evidently has done. The publication of a coalition agreement by Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe proves that Harper is prime minister in name only. Michaëlle Jean can, and should, be taking her advice from Dion.

That said, the Governor General might agree to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid Harper's wrath. But this would reward bad behaviour while only delaying the inevitable, since the Conservatives will be defeated at the first opportunity. Nor can Jean escape the spotlight: if she agrees to prorogue, she'll have to read the speech from the throne in January, and then see it defeated.

We elect MPs to decide

The Conservatives argue that Canadians did not vote for a Liberal/NDP coalition supported by the Bloc Québécois. But we live in a parliamentary system rather than a direct democracy. MPs are elected to go to Ottawa, debate issues in depth, and make decisions based on the information they acquire. They are not bound by a precise, predetermined electoral program. They are not even bound to stay in the same party, as Stephen Harper demonstrated when he persuaded David Emerson to become a Conservative in January 2006, just two weeks after having been elected as a Liberal.

Countries with electoral systems that are more representative than ours, including Australia, New Zealand and Israel, are accustomed to coalitions being formed after the results come in. Again, it is in no way anti-democratic to allow the majority of recently elected MPs to decide who will form government. Nor is it improper for them to discuss a possible coalition -- or indeed just about any other matter -- in advance.

Who's afraid of the Bloc?

The Conservatives claim that the Liberal/NDP deal with the Bloc Quebecois is improper because of that party's separatist agenda. Putting aside the fact that Stephen Harper concocted a similar arrangement with the Bloc in an attempt to defeat Paul Martin's minority government, this argument disrespects the millions of Canadian citizens who voted for Duceppe's party. They weren't just voting for separatism; they were voting for a social democratic party with a full range of policy positions, many of them quite similar to those of the NDP.

Indeed, the Bloc did not even campaign on separation in the last election. Instead, it ran against Harper and his economic, social, cultural and environmental policies (or lack thereof).




(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Governor General - I Thank You Not


The Governor General got cold feet and chose not to respect the Parliamentary and democratic will of Canadians ... or rather, she took the incompetent decision to report the whole problem to next month, perhaps hoping it will go away?

In any case, read it and weep, folks:


GG agrees to suspend Parliament: Harper

Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean has granted a request from Stephen Harper to suspend Parliament until late next month, the prime minister announced on Thursday, a move that avoids a confidence vote set for Monday that could have toppled his minority government.

"Following my advice, the Governor General has agreed to prorogue Parliament," Harper said outside Rideau Hall after a two-hour meeting with Jean.

"When Parliament resumes Jan. 26, the first order of business will be the presentation of a federal budget."
Ergo: Harper ducks a no confidence vote for now, while he remains acting Prime Minister and retains a whole month of opportunity to mass media-propagandize us (and further demonize the awaiting LPC-NDP/BQ coalition - and so far, this seems to be successful) - at our own taxpayer expense, of course.

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Flaherty continues to demonstrate his incompetence in dealing with our current economic woes - all with the approval of Harper.

So, heckuva job, Michaëlle!

Heckuva job indeed.

And I thank you not for it.


(addendum: The Jurist points out quite correctly and eloquently the precedent that the GG has just set with her decision ...)


(Cross-posted at NetRoots)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Just A Little Reminder ...


As Harper is pleading to the Governor General to have permission to prorogue Parliament (and therefore duck a no confidence vote), and while the current financial/economic crisis remains first and foremost on our minds (one more development here), let us not forget that there are still on-going, pressing crises that we have shamefully procrastinated about for years, if not decades:


Financial crisis a distraction, says Nobel winner

The global financial crisis is distracting attention from other pressing issues such as high food and energy prices, and environmental damage, Nobel peace laureate Muhammad Yunus told AFP Wednesday.

The Bangladeshi economist warned that not addressing those other issues would lead to a "much bigger crisis ahead" that would have political and financial implications.

"What we see as a financial crisis is a part of many more crises, which are going on simultaneously in 2008," Yunus said in an interview while attending a summit of business leaders in London.

"You remember the food crisis? It's still on, it didn't disappear. Simply, this (financial crisis) became much more pressing and everybody is paying attention."

He continued: "Then we have the energy crisis, it's still there... And then the environmental crisis, we have not solved anything about the environmental crisis."

Yunus, who along with his Grameen Bank won the Nobel peace award in 2006 for efforts to lift people out of extreme poverty by giving them small loans, said that any solution had to "address simultaneously all these four" crises.

"It's a framework problem: we have to have a framework which can address these issues about the lifestyle, about food production, technology, pricing, globalisation, tariffs."

Though food prices have dropped off recently, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation notes in a briefing that should not "assume that the world's food problems have been fixed."

Energy prices have also declined from highs of around 150 dollars a barrel in the middle of the year to under 50 dollars, but Yunus said the decline would be temporary.

The former economics professor noted, though, that the "worst kinds of disasters, which we have right now, are also the best of opportunities.

"Now, we should be looking at the opportunity part, in a big way, in a global way, and in a comprehensive way, together," he said.
Which brings me back to those earlier considerations:
Mortgaging The Future In Order To Save It;

G20 = New Era Of Global Governance?

United Nations: Time For Renewal And Renovation?

The Climate For Change;

The Next Global Agenda;

What Will Be The Impact Of The Economic Crisis On The Environment?

More On The Impact Of Economic Crisis On Climate Change;

Food, And A Penny, For Your Thoughts?

Global Economic Crisis: Potential Solutions?

Failures Of The "Old-Think" Ideology;

New Thinking Required, Please;

More New Thinking Required, Please;

We Are Broke - And Too Bad For The Rest Of The World?

Willfully Ignored: Gobal Starvation;

More Wars, Please.
Words to the wise ... and just another little reminder.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Shock Doctrine - Harper Style


Following up on yesterday's post regarding Harper's mendacious and hypocritical fearmongering propaganda, as well as his waste of air-time last night - I now yield the floor to Naomi Klein:


Naomi Klein: 'We can't lose this moment'
By Kim Elliott


Kim Elliott: As you outline so well in your book and in various interviews in the U.S. media, the current financial crisis holds the possibility of being one of those moments when the shock doctrine can best be applied. Can you comment on both the Harper government's economic and fiscal statement introduced last week, and on the Opposition's response to that - that is, the formation of a coalition - in the context of the shock doctrine?

Naomi Klein: Yes, absolutely. What I think we are seeing is a clear example of the shock doctrine in the way the Harper government has used the economic crisis to push through a much more radical agenda than they won a mandate to do.

At the same time we are seeing an example of what I call in the book a "shock resistance," where this tactic has been so overused around the world and also in Canada that we are becoming more resistant to the tactic - we are on to them - and Harper is not getting away with it.

What I think is really amazing about this moment is whatever happens next - whether we end up with this coalition or not, we will have an extremely chastened Harper. So the attempted shock doctrine has failed. I think we can say that decisively.

Just to be clear, what I mean by the shock doctrine, as you know, is the use of crisis to push through unpopular pro-corporate policies. This bundling of a whole package of policies: denying the right of public sector workers to strike, the attack on public financing of political parties, with the economic program - that is what failed, and people were offended by the opportunism of it.

This is what so many of us were worried about during the election - the context of a Tory victory in an economic crisis, because we know that there is this pattern of using an economic crisis to push through policies that were nowhere during the campaign.

KE: This coalition gives us lots of opportunities, but it also poses some risks if it is successful. I'd like to ask you about that. In an interview you had on Democracy Now!, you said that part of the reason that Obama was appointing a host of neo-liberal economists was because there was a lack of "intellectual honesty" among progressives about the real legacy of the Clinton years. Does the Canadian left, in a Liberal-led coalition, risk losing our understanding of the neo-liberal legacy of the Liberals, who during those same Clinton years were ripping up Canada's welfare state, cutting social spending etc?

NK: I think it is really important to remember, and I've written about this in the book, and Linda McQuaig has written about it extensively, that it is the Liberals who actually implemented what I'm describing in Canada.

They were elected on an economic stimulus platform in 1993, with a huge mandate. The Tories were wiped out in those historic elections. And then they caved to pressure from Bay Street, from the corporate media and from the right-wing think tanks in the face of the debt crisis. They turned around and broke their election promises when it came to NAFTA, when it came to job creation, and the famous 1995 Paul Martin budget came down which did so much damage to unemployment insurances (which makes it particularly interesting that a key piece of the agreement for the coalition is about strengthening unemployment insurance). So we need to have long memories about the Liberals, because they have done exactly what Harper has just done, in terms of using an economic crisis for a neo-liberal about turn.

That said, what I find most exciting about what is going on right now - beyond just getting rid of Harper, which is exciting in and of itself - is that we have this opportunity to show what proportional representation (PR) would look like, because all of this talk that this is a coup is a joke.

What is being proposed by this coalition is much closer to representative democracy than what we have right now, which is a government that has [slightly more than] 35 per cent of the popular vote in a turnout that was historically low, of 59 per cent of Canadian voters, which means that even though the Tories won more seats they had fewer actual votes than in the last election.

I think it is really important to talk about democracy, about what it actually means in this period. In some ways I think it is even more important than talking about the policies, because our electoral system is broken. Because of the Tories' extraordinary opportunism and terrible calculation we now have an opportunity to see a better version of democracy and see more people represented in government.

To me the best case scenario that could come out of this is, one, you get the coalition, and, two, the NDP uses this moment to really launch a national discussion about why we need PR and that that becomes one of the things that comes out of this crisis.

Now, they don't have the mandate for that right now, but we could come out of this with a national referendum on proportional representation. People might actually like it, which would be really, really exciting.

KE: That is a very exciting possibility, and I wanted to ask you, if this coalition is successful, what are the two or three key issues that the NDP should focus on, the kinds of issues that were not covered in the agreement?

NK: They've put in writing what they've agreed to. I think it is going to maybe be up to the NDP to make sure that the EI improvements are protected.

KE: I'm thinking of those issues that were not in the agreement like PR, or like withdrawal from Afghanistan - those issues that were not nailed down in the agreement.

NK: Those issues weren't nailed down because there isn't agreement on them, and that I think it is not really about whether the NDP holds the line on these issues, but about how the NDP uses this platform. It is a historic opportunity, I think, to be very bold, not just because of what is happening in this country, but because of what is happening globally.

Another important role for the NDP, beyond putting proportional representation on the agenda, withdrawal from Afghanistan, is also the terms of the bailout. The bailout for the auto industry is part of their agreement, but we don't know what the terms of that agreement are going to be, and that is going to be really important in terms of negotiating a progressive automobile industry bailout - a green auto industry bailout, if such a thing is possible. So that is a very important role that the NDP could play.

I think the best analogy, in terms of the kinds of concerns you are raising in regards to the Liberals and neo-liberalism, of being the party that continued and deepened Mulroney's neo-liberal economic program, is to look at Gordon Brown. He was finance minister for Tony Blair, really the face of neo-liberalism in Britain. He is now overseeing what many are calling the death of New Labour, and the return to Keynesian economics in Britain. That is because he is fighting for his political life. That is because he was going down, until he started talking this way. That is really what is at stake for the Liberals, I think.

This is also why I think the issue of political financing for political parties is so key. The reason there is a little more latitude in Canada on these issues is because our political process is not massively owned by corporations as it is in the United States.



(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Is This It? Get Lost, Stephen Harper!


Stephen Harper on TV tonight, addressing the nation - after about 5 minutes (corrected this silly figure of speech) he spoke about the BQ and séparatistes, I immediately tuned off.

Is this it? Is this your argument to stake your case?
"Let me be clear: this coalition government will include a separatist party"
(or some such to this effect)

Is this all there is?

Feeling nauseated, I immediately changed the channel.

Goodbye Stephen Harper - may you choke on your own mendacious and hypocritical fearmongering, your divisiveness and your pathetic incompetence.

And good riddance.

(Say - I have to ask again: how much did this complete waste of air-time cost us Canadian taxpayers?)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

You Say Afghanistan, I say Pakistan - Let's Call The Whole Thing Off?


Continuing on today's previous posts on Afghanistan and the Global War on Terror(TM), and as a follow up on previous posts on the matter at hand (here, here, here, here and here) - here is some addtional food for thought on what roles Pakistan may yet still play ... in either helping out or actually making things much, much worse.

Are we having fun, yet?


The Pakistan army and the Afghanistan war
Shaun Gregory

Pakistan’s military and intelligence services are involved in a different power-play to that of their ostensible United States and Nato allies. The implications for western strategy are grave.


Pakistan's internal turmoil and conflict continues, even if much current external media coverage of the country is filtered through the lens of the transfixing global financial crisis and United States election. Both these events indeed reverberate in a Pakistan desperately short of funds and more hesitant than much of the rest of the world about its prospects under a Barack Obama presidency. But the country's crisis will not be salved by an emergency loan or a new figure in the White House: indeed, it is being reinforced under the influence of Pakistan's key institutional actors.

The heart of Pakistan's conflict is the violence in Pakistan's tribal areas, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and North West Frontier Province (NWFP); this in turn has a key impact on the United States-led war in Afghanistan. To understand what is happening, it is necessary to distinguish between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistan Taliban; and to grasp the relationship of each to the Pakistan military and Pakistan's lead intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

A state of duplicity

The Pakistan army and the ISI supported the Afghan Taliban in the movement's rise to power in Afghanistan between 1992 and 1996. Pakistan was one of only three states (the others being Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) to offer diplomatic recognition to the Taliban regime under Mullah Omar (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia [Yale University Press, 2000]). The Taliban offered Pakistan stability in Afghanistan after the chaos of the post-Soviet years and, more importantly, a pro-Pakistani leadership in Kabul that denied India influence in Afghanistan. After 9/11 Pakistan was given no choice other than to support the US war in Afghanistan; but Pakistan stayed loyal to the Afghan Taliban, providing Mullah Omar and his leading commanders with sanctuary in Pakistan's Pashtun-dominated tribal areas and in northern Balochistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Descent into Chaos [Penguin, 2008]).

Pakistan opposes the post-Taliban Afghan leadership of Hamid Karzai because Karzai is antipathetic to Islamabad and is permissive of Indian influence in Afghanistan (evidenced by, for example, the proliferation of Indian "consulates" across Afghanistan). Pakistan also opposes the presence of the US and Nato in the Afghan theatre - in part because the west props up Karzai and thus colludes in Indian influence, in part because the west complicates Pakistan's regional calculus, and in part because the US and Nato war continues to destabilise Pakistan (see the analyses of the Pakistan Security Research Unit [PSRU]).

The the Afghan Taliban may no longer be as subject to Pakistani influence as in the past, but they continue to serve Pakistani interests - as the instrument most likely to force Hamid Karzai from power, India out of Afghanistan, and the US and Nato out of the region. Thus the Pakistan army and the ISI have either turned a blind eye to Afghan Taliban activity on Pakistani territory after 9/11 or (to a more cynical eye) actively supported the Afghan Taliban in its resurgence; in any event, the result is that the movement now exercises a permanent presence in more than half of Afghanistan (see "Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the Brink", Senlis Council, November 2007).

While Pakistan's apologists may contest this analysis, there is no doubt that under the presidency of Pervez Musharraf - the supposed darling of Washington - no move was made against Mullah Omar or against other Afghan proxies such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaludin Haqqani.

A boomerang war

The US-led war in Afghanistan has however also radicalised tens of thousands of Pakistanis, including many amongst the Pashtun tribal groups in the FATA and NWFP. It is these groups which have grown stronger in recent years and which have come together to form the Pakistani Taliban, the core of which is Baitullah Meshud's Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) based in Waziristan but with strong following across the FATA not least in Bajaur agency; affiliates such as Maulana Fazlullah's Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM) based in Swat; and Mangal Bagh Afridi's Lashkar-e-Islami (LI), based in the Khyber Agency. These groups have the Pakistani state in their sights - fired by the intention of overthrowing the pro-western leadership of Pakistan and establishing a sharia-based state (see Jayshree Bajoria, "Pakistan's New Generation of Terrorists", Council for Foreign Relations, February 2008).


The Pakistan army tried to negotiate with these groups, even bribing them into curbing their violence against the state. A series of "peace" deals in 2005 and 2006 appeared to have achieved a degree of stability, but since 2007 it has become clear that these deals - and the money handed over - only empowered the TTP and TNSM - which have since launched an unprecedented campaign of violence and suicide-attacks against the Pakistan state. The targets have included many members of Pakistani security forces, leading Pakistani officials, the Marriott hotel, and - many suspect - the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007 (see Ayesha Siddiqa, "Pakistan: a country on fire", 24 September 2008).

The ferocity of this violence has finally provoked the Pakistan military under General Musharraf's successor, General Ashfaq Kiyani, to take the fight directly into the tribal areas with a sustained campaign in Bajaur agency in particular. This has allowed Kiyani and Pakistan's new civilian administration, which takes the international political flak but is not in control of Pakistan's military operations, to claim that a new era of Pakistani realism about the terrorist threat now obtains. The Pakistan army is taking heavy casualties in its war with the TTP, TNSM and affiliated tribal militants - and is trying to hang on to its remaining "peace deals" with other Pakistani militant groups - but it and the ISI are still making no moves against the Afghan Taliban who continue their rise in Afghanistan from safe havens in Pakistan.

This Pakistani duplicity and its implications for the faltering war in Afghanistan seemed at last, in July 2008, to have dawned on the US military and the CIA. The straw that broke the camel's back appears to have been evidence which linked the ISI, through the Pakistan-backed Jalaludin/Sirajuddin Haqqani network, to the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul (see Kanchan Lakshman, "India in Afghanistan: a presence under pressure", 11 July 2008). Pakistani denials of involvement notwithstanding, the bombing undercut the Pakistan army's supporters in Washington by demonstrating Islamabad's continued commitment to terrorism as an instrument of state policy and the tensions between the US's and Pakistan's objectives in Afghanistan.

From July 2008 the George W Bush administration articulated a new strategy for Pakistan's tribal areas which included stepping up cross-border air-strikes ever deeper into Pakistan against Afghan Taliban targets and escalating cross-border US ground incursions into Pakistan, the latter of which have been met with gunfire from the Pakistan army. At the same time the US has stepped up the hunt for the al-Qaida leadership in Pakistan's tribal areas amid continued rumours of ISI and Pakistan army involvement in their protection (see Syed Saleem Shazad, "US Strikes Deeper in Pakistan", Asia Times, 20 November 2008).

The ground beneath

The United States-Pakistan relationship is consequently under extreme strain. This will present president-elect Barack Obama, who takes office on 20 January 2009, with one of his most difficult and pressing foreign-policy challenges.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Global War on Terror(TM): Obama To Pick Up Bush's Torch?


That's an interesting question, especially in light of today's previous post on Afghanistan and considering this (not-so-encouraging) little bit of news:

Nuclear or Bioterror Attack on U.S. Likely by 2013, Panel Warns
Terrorists are likely to attack the United States using nuclear or biological weapons before 2013, according to a report released by a bipartisan commission.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden was briefed on the panel's study on Tuesday. Among other things, the report suggests that the incoming Obama administration shore up its counterterrorism efforts to fight against germ warfare.

"Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing," states the report, a copy of which was obtained by FOX News. It is scheduled to be publicly released Wednesday.

The commission is also encouraging the new White House to appoint one official on the National Security Council to exclusively coordinate U.S. intelligence and foreign policy on combatting the spread of nuclear and biological weapons.

The report of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, led by former Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and Jim Talent of Missouri, acknowledges that terrorist groups still lack the needed scientific and technical ability to make weapons out of pathogens or nuclear bombs.

But it warns that gap can be easily overcome, if terrorists find scientists willing to share or sell their know-how.

"The United States should be less concerned that terrorists will become biologists and far more concerned that biologists will become terrorists," the report states.

The commission believes biological weapons are more likely to be obtained and used before nuclear or radioactive weapons because nuclear facilities are more carefully guarded.

Civilian laboratories with potentially dangerous pathogens abound, however, and could easily be compromised.

"The biological threat is greater than the nuclear; the acquisition of deadly pathogens, and their weaponization and dissemination in aerosol form, would entail fewer technical hurdles than the theft or production of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium and its assembly into an improvised nuclear device," states the report.

It notes that the U.S. government's counterproliferation activities have been geared toward preventing nuclear terrorism. The commission recommends the prevention of biological terrorism be made a higher priority.
Delusion-induced fearmongering in order to assure the continuation of the Global War On Terror(TM), including further "justifying" the Authoritarian Security State, or is this study actually factual in basis?

Question, questions, questions - indeed ...


Taking Over Bush’s Endless War
By Eugene Robinson


A concept that excludes nothing defines nothing. That’s why one of the most urgent tasks for President-elect Barack Obama’s “team of rivals” foreign policy brain trust is coming up with a coherent intellectual framework—and a winning battle plan—for the globe-spanning asymmetrical conflict that George W. Bush calls the “war on terror.”

Terrorism (for the umpteenth time) is a tactic, not an enemy; Bush might as well declare war against flanking maneuvers or amphibious landings. Everyone knows what Bush is trying to say, and no one can deny the potential of terrorist attacks to destroy lives and change the world. Few would doubt that a line can be drawn between the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and last week’s bloody rampage in Mumbai. But is it a straight line or a zigzag? Is it bold or faint? Continuous or dotted?

The Bush administration takes the position that all terrorism is evil, and that therefore all terrorists are evil. That black-and-white view is obviously correct but it doesn’t take you very far toward useful policy choices. Being firmly opposed to rainy days won’t keep you dry in a storm.

The fact that all terrorism is evil doesn’t mean that all terrorism is alike. I’m confident that Obama understands this distinction, but not that he has worked through all its implications.

At Monday’s news conference, Obama introduced Hillary Clinton as the new secretary of state, Robert Gates as the continuing secretary of defense, retired Gen. James Jones as national security adviser, Eric Holder as attorney general, Janet Napolitano as secretary of homeland security and Susan Rice as ambassador to the United Nations—a remarkably diverse group, including just two white males, that proved Obama’s intention to show a different American face to the world.

But then a reporter asked the president-elect a particularly inconvenient question: During the campaign, Obama claimed the right for U.S. forces to go after terrorists inside Pakistan. Does the Indian government—which believes the Mumbai killers launched their assault from Pakistan—have the same right?

Obama refused to answer, saying only that he recognizes India’s right to defend itself and supports the government’s efforts to track down those responsible for the Mumbai atrocity. Soon, though, it will be his responsibility—and that of Clinton, as the new architect of U.S. diplomacy—to find a way out of this kind of logical cul-de-sac.

In his opening statement, Obama vowed to continue the fight against “those who kill innocent individuals to advance hateful extremism.” Is that his definition of terrorism? Is any one-size-fits-all definition sufficiently flexible to allow U.S. Special Forces to go after Osama bin Laden but also to keep nuclear-armed India out of nuclear-armed Pakistan?


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Crisis? What Political Crisis? In Which Deluded Universe Are We Living In?


Well, here we go, folks:


PM to address the country about political crisis

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will address the country at 7 p.m. on Wednesday to talk about the current political crisis that could topple his minority government.

Harper's address comes as Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean is expected to arrive Wednesday in Ottawa, where she will immediately be thrown into a political crisis that she will have to resolve by deciding the fate of the federal government.

(...) The Conservative government has already signalled it is considering all legal options to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition from taking power. That increases the chances that Harper will ask Jean to prorogue Parliament, which would suspend the current session until January, when his government would present a budget.

But the Governor General faces other political options as well. She could decide to call an election should the Conservatives lose a confidence vote set to take place Monday or allow the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition to govern.

The Tories have already begun a public relations blitz to discredit the pact, which the Bloc Québécois has agreed to support for at least 18 months.

Radio and TV ads have already rolled out and countrywide rallies are planned for the weekend. The Tories have characterized the agreement as an undemocratic coalition beholden to a separatist party.
Propaganda - watch it burst out of the damn to flood us all!

Let the fearmongering begin - as if this was not expected.

I mean - crisis?

What political crisis?

Whatchu talkin' about, Willis?

Typical Harper (and Harpies) primitive mind-thinking and incompetence.

Indeed, they would rather risk causing a bona fides political crisis with their shenanigans and their cries of "crisis!" when there is no such thing, and they would rather stoke fear and uncertainty among Canadians in these uncertain economic times, all in order to keep power - instead of doing the honorable, competent thing and acknowledge this simple instance of democratic outcome not only allowed by our rules and laws, but furthermore reflecting the overall will of the majority of Canadians.

Wanna bet they'll be successful with their deployment of Weapons of Mass Distractions?

Oh yes - for let us not dismiss the obvious: our (incompetent) media are already salivating giddily as they dream of all those explosive, sensational headlines they have begun writing and all those others in the days to come as the CPC truthiness machine shifts in overdrive.

The title of the preceding highlighted news item certainly demonstrates this, indicating that the media is all-too-eager to play its part in disseminating the CPC fearmongering propaganda.

Meanwhile, no one will be asking he obvious question: who is paying for all those radio and TV adds shameless disinformative propaganda exercizes, including tonight's TV time by Mr. Harper Douchebag?

You? Me? We, the taxpayers?

Interesting question, eh?


(Cross-posted at NetRoots)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Afghanistan: Obama Seeking To Sink Deeper In The Quagmire?


Following up on this previous post regarding history being re-enacted in Afghanistan, here is additional food for thought to this effect ...

(... along with this question: will our troops come home in 2011? Will we say "no" to then-President Obama in continuing our participation in this disastrous FUBAR which, in the end, has been all for nothing? Canada's war indeed ...)


Afghanistan, Another Untold Story
by Michael Parenti

Barack Obama is on record as advocating a military escalation in Afghanistan. Before sinking any deeper into that quagmire, we might do well to learn something about recent Afghani history and the role played by the United States.

Less than a month after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, US leaders began an all-out aerial assault upon Afghanistan, the country purportedly harboring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization. More than twenty years earlier, in 1980, the United States intervened to stop a Soviet "invasion" of that country. Even some leading progressive writers, who normally take a more critical view of US policy abroad, treated the US intervention against the Soviet-supported government as "a good thing." The actual story is not such a good thing.

Some Real History

Since feudal times the landholding system in Afghanistan had remained unchanged, with more than 75 percent of the land owned by big landlords who comprised only 3 percent of the rural population. In the mid-1960s, democratic revolutionary elements coalesced to form the People's Democratic Party (PDP). In 1973, the king was deposed, but the government that replaced him proved to be autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular. It in turn was forced out in 1978 after a massive demonstration in front of the presidential palace, and after the army intervened on the side of the demonstrators.

The military officers who took charge invited the PDP to form a new government under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki, a poet and novelist. This is how a Marxist-led coalition of national democratic forces came into office. "It was a totally indigenous happening. Not even the CIA blamed the USSR for it," writes John Ryan, a retired professor at the University of Winnipeg, who was conducting an agricultural research project in Afghanistan at about that time.

The Taraki government proceeded to legalize labor unions, and set up a minimum wage, a progressive income tax, a literacy campaign, and programs that gave ordinary people greater access to health care, housing, and public sanitation. Fledgling peasant cooperatives were started and price reductions on some key foods were imposed.

The government also continued a campaign begun by the king to emancipate women from their age-old tribal bondage. It provided public education for girls and for the children of various tribes.

A report in the San Francisco Chronicle (17 November 2001) noted that under the Taraki regime Kabul had been "a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city's university. Afghan women held government jobs--in the 1980s, there were seven female members of parliament. Women drove cars, traveled and went on dates. Fifty percent of university students were women."

The Taraki government moved to eradicate the cultivation of opium poppy. Until then Afghanistan had been producing more than 70 percent of the opium needed for the world's heroin supply. The government also abolished all debts owed by farmers, and began developing a major land reform program. Ryan believes that it was a "genuinely popular government and people looked forward to the future with great hope."

But serious opposition arose from several quarters. The feudal landlords opposed the land reform program that infringed on their holdings. And tribesmen and fundamentalist mullahs vehemently opposed the government's dedication to gender equality and the education of women and children.

Because of its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies the Taraki government also incurred the opposition of the US national security state. Almost immediately after the PDP coalition came to power, the CIA, assisted by Saudi and Pakistani military, launched a large scale intervention into Afghanistan on the side of the ousted feudal lords, reactionary tribal chieftains, mullahs, and opium traffickers.

A top official within the Taraki government was Hafizulla Amin, believed by many to have been recruited by the CIA during the several years he spent in the United States as a student. In September 1979, Amin seized state power in an armed coup. He executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military.

It should be noted that all this happened before the Soviet military intervention. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publicly admitted--months before Soviet troops entered the country--that the Carter administration was providing huge sums to Muslim extremists to subvert the reformist government. Part of that effort involved brutal attacks by the CIA-backed mujahideen against schools and teachers in rural areas.

In late 1979, the seriously besieged PDP government asked Moscow to send a contingent of troops to help ward off the mujahideen (Islamic guerrilla fighters) and foreign mercenaries, all recruited, financed, and well-armed by the CIA. The Soviets already had been sending aid for projects in mining, education, agriculture, and public health. Deploying troops represented a commitment of a more serious and politically dangerous sort. It took repeated requests from Kabul before Moscow agreed to intervene militarily.

Jihad and Taliban, CIA Style

The Soviet intervention was a golden opportunity for the CIA to transform the tribal resistance into a holy war, an Islamic jihad to expel the godless communists from Afghanistan. Over the years the United States and Saudi Arabia expended about $40 billion on the war in Afghanistan. The CIA and its allies recruited, supplied, and trained almost 100,000 radical mujahideen from forty Muslim countries including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, and Afghanistan itself. Among those who answered the call was Saudi-born millionaire right-winger Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.

After a long and unsuccessful war, the Soviets evacuated the country in February 1989. It is generally thought that the PDP Marxist government collapsed immediately after the Soviet departure. Actually, it retained enough popular support to fight on for another three years, outlasting the Soviet Union itself by a year.

Upon taking over Afghanistan, the mujahideen fell to fighting among themselves. They ravaged the cities, terrorized civilian populations, looted, staged mass executions, closed schools, raped thousands of women and girls, and reduced half of Kabul to rubble. In 2001 Amnesty International reported that the mujahideen used sexual assault as "a method of intimidating vanquished populations and rewarding soldiers.'"

Ruling the country gangster-style and looking for lucrative sources of income, the tribes ordered farmers to plant opium poppy. The Pakistani ISI, a close junior partner to the CIA, set up hundreds of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA's arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland became the biggest producer of heroin in the world.

Largely created and funded by the CIA, the mujahideen mercenaries now took on a life of their own. Hundreds of them returned home to Algeria, Chechnya, Kosovo, and Kashmir to carry on terrorist attacks in Allah's name against the purveyors of secular "corruption."

In Afghanistan itself, by 1995 an extremist strain of Sunni Islam called the Taliban---heavily funded and advised by the ISI and the CIA and with the support of Islamic political parties in Pakistan---fought its way to power, taking over most of the country, luring many tribal chiefs into its fold with threats and bribes.

The Taliban promised to end the factional fighting and banditry that was the mujahideen trademark. Suspected murderers and spies were executed monthly in the sports stadium, and those accused of thievery had the offending hand sliced off. The Taliban condemned forms of "immorality" that included premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality. They also outlawed all music, theater, libraries, literature, secular education, and much scientific research.

The Taliban unleashed a religious reign of terror, imposing an even stricter interpretation of Muslim law than used by most of the Kabul clergy. All men were required to wear untrimmed beards and women had to wear the burqa which covered them from head to toe, including their faces. Persons who were slow to comply were dealt swift and severe punishment by the Ministry of Virtue. A woman who fled an abusive home or charged spousal abuse would herself be severely whipped by the theocratic authorities. Women were outlawed from social life, deprived of most forms of medical care, barred from all levels of education, and any opportunity to work outside the home. Women who were deemed "immoral" were stoned to death or buried alive.

None of this was of much concern to leaders in Washington who got along famously with the Taliban. As recently as 1999, the US government was paying the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official. Not until October 2001, when President George W. Bush had to rally public opinion behind his bombing campaign in Afghanistan did he denounce the Taliban's oppression of women. His wife, Laura Bush, emerged overnight as a full-blown feminist to deliver a public address detailing some of the abuses committed against Afghan women.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

About History Repeating Itself ...


... should one ignore said history:
US 'warned India before Mumbai attacks'

The US warned India before the Mumbai attacks, a senior Bush administration official said today, fuelling criticism of the Indian government's lack of preparedness.

According to an unnamed official, the US told Indian officials that terrorists appeared to be plotting a water-borne attack on India's financial capital.

Several top Indian officials have resigned after the attacks that claimed at least 172 lives and injured more than 300. Vilasrao Deshmukh, the chief minister of Maharashtra state, yesterday became the latest official to offer his resignation over alleged warnings about terrorist activities that were not acted upon.

His deputy, RR Patil, also submitted his resignation after being quoted as downplaying the seriousness of the attacks. Their offers to go followed the resignation of the home minister on Sunday and came amid Indian media reports of a string of intelligence blunders, all of which are adding to an atmosphere that the government and state apparatus cannot cope with the scale and complexity of the security threat facing the country.

Apparently, too many Indu officials were ignorant - or chose to ignore - this little bit of very recent history:
Bush Ignored 9/11 Warnings

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have publicly stated that the top-secret domestic spying program Bush authorized in 2002 could have thwarted the 9/11 attacks had the controversial, and possibly illegal, measure been in effect prior to the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Bush's and Cheney's comments have gone virtually unchallenged by reporters covering the spying story and by a majority of Democratic lawmakers critical of the issue.

However, the reality is much different from what Bush and Cheney would have you believe. The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration ignored hard evidence from its top intelligence officials between April and September of 2001 about an impending attack by al-Qaeda on US soil. There's no chance that the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping initiative would have saved the lives of 3,000 American citizens if an intelligence memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside US" that President Bush received a month before 9/11 couldn't move Bush to take such threats seriously.

(...) to suggest that the 9/11 attacks could have been avoided if the NSA had had domestic surveillance powers is outrageous.

Simply put, terrorism was not a priority for the Bush administration during the first nine months of 2001. As former Bush administration counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke told the 9/11 Commission investigating the attacks in 2004: "To the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you."

Clarke served as a White House counter-terrorism official in three presidential administrations.

The truth is that the administration received warnings about al-Qaeda's intentions to use jetliners as bombs in August 2001, but it was too busy obsessing about a war with Iraq to take action. Although President Bush has maintained over the years that terrorism was his number one priority before 9/11, evidence suggests otherwise.
Just like Bush ignored warnings about levees breaking, of an impending financial meltdown, or of the economy being in a recession.

Lesson from history - even if only the very recent one: ignore warnings at your own risk and at the risk of the lives of countless others.

Let's hope such blatant (and/or willfull) ignorance of such a basic historical lesson will not occur again.

Then again - it seems the whole of Humanity is chronically afflicted by intellectual sloth and such affliction remains quite difficult to treat, let alone cure.

Hence why I'll be keeping my fingers crossed but won't be holding my breath.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Reloaded: The Underlying (Real) Problem With Terrorism


Following up on this older post regarding the real problem with terrorism, and this subsequent one illustrating why it is ourselves first and foremost, as well as this one and that one further illustrating why and how the terrorists have already won, I offer this article as additional food for thought on the matter:


Confronting the Terrorist Within
By Chris Hedges


The Hindu-Muslim communal violence that led to the attacks in Mumbai, as well as the warnings that the New York City transit system may have been targeted by al-Qaida, are one form of terrorism. There are other forms.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when viewed from the receiving end, are state-sponsored acts of terrorism. These wars defy every ethical and legal code that seek to determine when a nation can wage war, from Just War Theory to the statutes of international law largely put into place by the United States after World War II. These wars are criminal wars of aggression. They have left hundreds of thousands of people, who never took up arms against us, dead and seen millions driven from their homes. We have no right as a nation to debate the terms of these occupations. And an Afghan villager, burying members of his family’s wedding party after an American airstrike, understands in a way we often do not that terrorist attacks can also be unleashed from the arsenals of an imperial power.

Barack Obama’s decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan and leave behind tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines in Iraq—he promises only to withdraw combat brigades—is a failure to rescue us from the status of a rogue nation. It codifies Bush’s “war on terror.” And the continuation of these wars will corrupt and degrade our nation just as the long and brutal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank has corrupted and degraded Israel. George W. Bush has handed Barack Obama a poisoned apple. Obama has bitten it.

The invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were our response to feelings of vulnerability and collective humiliation after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. They were a way to exorcise through reciprocal violence what had been done to us.

Collective humiliation is also the driving force behind al-Qaida and most terrorist groups. Osama bin Laden cites the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which led to the carving up of the Ottoman Empire, as the beginning of Arab humiliation. He attacks the agreement for dividing the Muslim world into “fragments.” He rails against the presence of American troops on the soil of his native Saudi Arabia. The dark motivations of Islamic extremists mirror our own.

Robert Pape in “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” found that most suicide bombers are members of communities that feel humiliated by genuine or perceived occupation. Almost every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent—carried out attacks to drive out an occupying power. This was true in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Chechnya and Kashmir, as well as Israel and the Palestinian territories. The large number of Saudis among the 9/11 hijackers appears to support this finding.

A militant who phoned an Indian TV station from the Jewish center in Mumbai during the recent siege offered to talk with the government for the release of hostages. He complained about army abuses in Kashmir, where ruthless violence has been used to crush a Muslim insurgency. “Ask the government to talk to us and we will release the hostages,” he said, speaking in Urdu with what sounded like a Kashmiri accent.

“Are you aware how many people have been killed in Kashmir? Are you aware how your army has killed Muslims? Are you aware how many of them have been killed in Kashmir this week?” he asked.

Terrorists, many of whom come from the middle class, support acts of indiscriminate violence not because of direct, personal affronts to their dignity, but more often for lofty, abstract ideas of national, ethnic or religious pride and the establishment of a utopian, harmonious world purged of evil. The longer the United States occupies Afghanistan and Iraq, the more these feelings of collective humiliation are aggravated and the greater the number of jihadists willing to attack American targets.

We have had tens of thousands of troops stationed in the Middle East since 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The presence of these troops is the main appeal, along with the abuse meted out to the Palestinians by Israel, of bin Laden and al-Qaida. Terrorism, as Pape wrote, “is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.”

The decision by the incoming Obama administration to embrace an undefined, amorphous “war on terror” will keep us locked in a war without end. This war has no clear definition of victory, unless victory means the death or capture of every terrorist on earth—an impossibility. It is a frightening death spiral. It feeds on itself. The concept of a “war on terror” is no less apocalyptic or world-purifying than the dreams and fantasies of terrorist groups like al-Qaida.

The vain effort to purify the world through force is always self-defeating. Those who insist that the world can be molded into their vision are the most susceptible to violence as antidote. The more uncertainty, fear and reality impinge on this utopian vision, the more strident, absolutist and aggressive are those who call for the eradication of “the enemy.” Immanuel Kant called absolute moral imperatives that are used to carry out immoral acts “a radical evil.” He wrote that this kind of evil was always a form of unadulterated self-love. It was the worst type of self-deception. It provided a moral façade for terror and murder. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a “radical evil.”

The tactic of suicide bombing, equated by many in the United States with Islam, did not arise from the Muslim world. It had its roots in radical Western ideologies, especially Leninism, not religion. And it was the Tamil Tigers, a Marxist group that draws its support from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of Sri Lanka, who invented the suicide vest for their May 1991 suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi.

Suicide bombing is what you do when you do not have artillery or planes or missiles and you want to create maximum terror for an occupying power. It was used by secular anarchists in the 19th and early 20th centuries, who bequeathed to us the first version of the car bomb—a horse-drawn wagon laden with explosives that was ignited on Sept. 16, 1920, on Wall Street. The attack was carried out by an Italian immigrant named Mario Buda in protest over the arrest of the anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti. It left 40 people dead and wounded more than 200.

Suicide bombing was adopted later by Hezbollah, al-Qaida and Hamas. But even in the Middle East, suicide bombing is not restricted to Muslims. In Lebanon, during the attacks in the 1980s against French, American and Israeli targets, only eight suicide bombings were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were the work of communists and socialists. Christians were responsible for three.

The dehumanization of Muslims and the willful ignorance of the traditions and culture of the Islamic world reflect our nation’s disdain for self-reflection and self-examination. It allows us to exalt in the illusion of our own moral and cultural superiority. The world is far more complex than our childish vision of good and evil. We as a nation and a culture have no monopoly on virtue. We carry within us the same propensities for terror as those we oppose.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

A Short Answer To A Simple Question


Here's the question:
Did Harper make an error in judgment?
Here's the answer:
No. He simply acted like the genuine primitive mind-thinking, intellectual sloth-driven incompetent that he is.
And that, as they say, is that.

Any other questions?

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

More (Desperate) Harperisms


Harper and his Harpies have stated that they are willing to do anything and everything to stop the newly formed/agreed upon NDP-LPC coalition (with BQ backing) (emphasis added):



Tories set for battle against coalition deal

The Tory government has signalled it is considering all options to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition from taking power and is expected to begin launching a public relations blitz to discredit the pact.

"We will use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power," Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Tories gathered behind closed doors for their annual Christmas party at an Ottawa hotel on Monday, the Canadian Press reported.

"My friends, such an illegitimate government would be a catastrophe, for our democracy, our unity and our economy, especially at a time of global instability."
Seizure of power?

Illegitimate government?

Undemocratic?

(the expression "stampeded coup" was also brandied about)

Let's see here ...
Number of CPC seats in the House of Commons: 143
Number of LPC seats: 77
Number of NDP seats: 37
Number of BQ seats: 49

Sum of LPC+NDP seats: 114
With the backing of the BQ: 163
Ergo - a LPC+NDP coalition, backed by the BQ, constitutes a clear majority in the House of Commons and thus can constitute the next government.

But wait - what about the proportion of people who voted for each party nationally in the last election?
37.6% of the votes went to the CPC
26.2% went to the LPC
18.2% went to the NDP
10% went to the BQ

Sum of LPC+NDP votes: 44.4%
With the backing of the BQ votes: 54.4%
Ergo - an LPC-NDP coalition, backed by the BQ, constitutes a clear majority of the votes of Canadians in the last elections.

The rules of the game state that the majority of seats may lead the government - whether such majority is from one party or from a coalition of parties.

All in all, there is nothing illegitimate here. There is nothing undemocratic here.

There is certainly no seizure of power here.

What we do have here are Harper and his Harpies acting like the bunch of arrogant, power-hungry, intellectual sloth-driven incompetents that they are, ready to do anything and everything to prevent one normal course of expression of a democratic election that happens to have not gone the way they would've liked.

They are willing to lie, to misrepresent, to fearmonger and waste money in legal fees in order to actually seize power, consequently seeking to form in turn an actual illegitimate and undemocratic government.

Perhaps Harper and his gang should undertake remedial courses in basic Canadian civics, including how our parliamentary representative system of government is not only established by democratic vote, but also how it is supposed to function.

Obviously, they are severely lacking in such basic knowledge.

Harper and his Harpies - primitive minds indeed:
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.
And all around incompetents:
"(...) it is a fact that those individuals who are 'corrupted' by power are inevitably revealed at their core to be selfish, greedy, covetous, paranoid or fearful. Consequently, these use power expediently as a tool for the wasteful satisfaction of their every whim, want and need, or as a weapon to aim recklessly at their outwardly-projected inner demons. In short: only incompetents abuse power". Incompetents cheat, lie, misuse, "backstab" and abuse anything and everything in order to get their way - and they always make perfectly quaint rationalizations, as well as giving themselves a deluded moral highground (or authority), to justify their wrongdoings. In other words, incompetents are morally hypocritical and ethically impaired, because of their intellectual sloth-driven reasoning/emotional immaturity, egocentricity, intellectual vanity/intolerance, and slavery to expediency.
Wanna bet they'll be using Federal monies to bankroll their legal shenanigans to undermine our very system of democratic parliamentary governance?

As I wrote previously:
In other words: here they are again trying to exploit a perceived loophole in the election laws ("In-and-Out" scam, anyone?).

Here's the rub: what does it say about someone's honesty, integrity and sense of fair play when one always attempts to exploit loopholes?

Exploiting loopholes is seeking to cheat legally - in other words: it is cheating and getting away with it.

All the while conveniently forgetting that just because something is not illegal or forbidden or disallowed, that it means that said something is inherently honest, upright, moral or straight-up.

Only incompetents (as per the Second Principle of Incompetence) exploit loopholes whenever they can, thus allowing them to cheat the game while claiming a (false, deluded) moral and ethical high ground ("Hey - we did nothing technically wrong here!").

So in essence, what we have here is another example of de facto utter lack of sense of fair play, of integrity, of honesty - of honor.

But what we do have here is hypocrisy.

And what we do have here is Harper and the CPC.

Harperism par excellence indeed.
Thank you for proving my point (yet) again, Mr. Harper.

May you and your neocon/theocon ignoramuses disappear quickly from politics, kicking and screaming all the way to obscurity.

Hence, we would have that many less authoritarian, power-hungry, anti-democratic, and plainly anti-Canadian, buffoons to deal with.

I can't wait for the day I will be able to bid you "goodbye and good riddance, you pathetic incompetent and poor excuse of a Canadian".


(Cross-posted at NetRoots)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Mortgaging The Future In Order To Save It


Wise words should be heeded - even here in Canada.

But mortgaging the future in order to save it has to be done wisely, with the proper accountability and strings attached - got that, dear Mr. Prime Douchebag?


Deficits and the Future
by Paul Krugman


Right now there's intense debate about how aggressive the United States government should be in its attempts to turn the economy around. Many economists, myself included, are calling for a very large fiscal expansion to keep the economy from going into free fall. Others, however, worry about the burden that large budget deficits will place on future generations.

But the deficit worriers have it all wrong. Under current conditions, there's no trade-off between what's good in the short run and what's good for the long run; strong fiscal expansion would actually enhance the economy's long-run prospects.

The claim that budget deficits make the economy poorer in the long run is based on the belief that government borrowing "crowds out" private investment - that the government, by issuing lots of debt, drives up interest rates, which makes businesses unwilling to spend on new plant and equipment, and that this in turn reduces the economy's long-run rate of growth. Under normal circumstances there's a lot to this argument.

But circumstances right now are anything but normal. Consider what would happen next year if the Obama administration gave in to the deficit hawks and scaled back its fiscal plans.

Would this lead to lower interest rates? It certainly wouldn't lead to a reduction in short-term interest rates, which are more or less controlled by the Federal Reserve. The Fed is already keeping those rates as low as it can - virtually at zero - and won't change that policy unless it sees signs that the economy is threatening to overheat. And that doesn't seem like a realistic prospect any time soon.

What about longer-term rates? These rates, which are already at a half-century low, mainly reflect expected future short-term rates. Fiscal austerity could push them even lower - but only by creating expectations that the economy would remain deeply depressed for a long time, which would reduce, not increase, private investment.

The idea that tight fiscal policy when the economy is depressed actually reduces private investment isn't just a hypothetical argument: it's exactly what happened in two important episodes in history.

The first took place in 1937, when Franklin Roosevelt mistakenly heeded the advice of his own era's deficit worriers. He sharply reduced government spending, among other things cutting the Works Progress Administration in half, and also raised taxes. The result was a severe recession, and a steep fall in private investment.

The second episode took place 60 years later, in Japan. In 1996-97 the Japanese government tried to balance its budget, cutting spending and raising taxes. And again the recession that followed led to a steep fall in private investment.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that trying to reduce the budget deficit is always bad for private investment. You can make a reasonable case that Bill Clinton's fiscal restraint in the 1990s helped fuel the great U.S. investment boom of that decade, which in turn helped cause a resurgence in productivity growth.


(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 1, 2008

Israel-Iran Conflict On The Horizon?


Questions, questions, questions ...


Will Israel attack Iran?
Paul Rogers


The eight-week window before the new United States president takes office is causing high nervousness among those wondering about Tel Aviv's intentions vis-à-vis Tehran.

The discussion in the last few years about a possible United States assault on Iran's nuclear facilities has often been accompanied by the coda that if Washington refrained from targeting this member of the "axis of evil" proclaimed by George W Bush in January 2002, then Israel might - with or without American collusion or forewarning - act on its own account. Several columns in this series have examined the possible circumstances and consequences of an Israeli attack, including the likelihood of involvement of the US itself after expected Iranian retaliation (see, for example, "Israel, the United States and Iran: the tipping-point" [13 March 2008] and "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war" [24 July 2008]).

Now, the interregnum in Washington before the inauguration of Barack Obama on 20 January 2009 is coinciding with a fresh round of nervous speculation about Israeli plans and intentions. Two recent reports widely circulated in the Israeli press serve as a reminder of the continuing risk of a conflict involving Iran. The first was that Iran had on 12 November conducted another test of a medium-range ballistic missile capable of hitting targets right across the region (see "Amid nuclear tensions, Iran says it successfully launched rocket", Ha'aretz 26 November 2008); the second was that Iran claimed on 26 November now to have installed 5,000 uranium-enrichment centrifuges.

Much is being made of Iran's new missiles, both in Israel and the United States. Uzi Rubin - the founder of the Israel Missile Defense Association (Imda) - argues in a leading US defence journal that the new Iranian Sajeel/Ashura missile is far more advanced than any previous type (see Uzi Rubin, "Iran's Game-changer", Defense News, 24 November 2008). Most Iranian surface-to-surface missiles have been based on North Korean technology, especially the No Dong series of missiles, which themselves use technology based on the Soviet Scud missiles of the 1950s.

Rubin, however, claims that the Sajeel/Ashura "is a brand-new missile, an original design more advanced than anything available to the North Koreans themselves." This may be rather over the top, but it does appear that the new missile is a relatively advanced two-stage solid-fuel system, which would certainly be a generation ahead of the liquid-fuelled No Dong (see Lauren Gelfand & Alon Ben-David, "New missile marks 'significant leap' for Iran capabilities", Jane's Information Group, 14 November 2008).

To add to the sense of unease in Israel, the Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak told the Knesset on 24 November that Hizbollah now has 42,000 missiles, three times the total available at the time of the July-August 2006 war. Most of these are short-range unguided Katyusha-type rockets; but others have a range sufficient to reach all the significant populated centres in Israel as far south as Beersheba in the Negev desert (see "Hezbollah missile stock ‘tripled'", BBC News, 24 November 2008).

A time of choice

None of this, of itself, means that Israel is preparing for a military attack on Iran. But there are dangers and these need to be put in context. The overwhelming view in security circles in Israel is that a nuclear-armed Iran is completely unacceptable, either now or in the long term (see "Israel won't allow a nuclear Iran", Jerusalem Post, 29 August 2008). In this perspective, Israel's regional nuclear dominance is essential for its security for as long into the future as can be foreseen. A nuclear-armed Iran is out of the question in its own terms, but also because it might also set in motion a regional proliferation of nuclear capabilities involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and ultimately even Syria. This might be over a twenty-to-thirty-year timescale but that is not long in terms of Israeli security thinking.

Furthermore, for the more immediate future, Israeli military planners can point to the potential for a rapid Iranian "break-out" from its current civil nuclear-power ambitions. There are a number of western analysts - usually but not always of a hawkish disposition - who claim that Iran will shortly have enough low-enriched uranium to be able to run it through the centrifuge cascades. They would further enrich it to the point where there might be enough weapons-grade material for a single crude "gun-type" uranium-based bomb (see William J Broad & David E Sanger, "Iran Said to Have Nuclear Fuel for One Weapon", New York Times, 19 November 2008).

Whether Iran has the technology to actually produce such a device is unclear, and there have been reports that Iran's supplies of uranium ore are so contaminated with heavy metals that the resultant bomb would not work. No one can really be sure; in any case, producing a nuclear arsenal that could serve any kind of military purpose could still take years and there is no indication that Iran intends to take this path. From the Israeli perspective, though, the possession by Iran of even one "inefficient" device would be an act of huge political symbolism, both in terms of domestic Israeli concern and its perception of its military status across the region.

In one sense, none of these short-term developments matter as much as the real concerns among Israeli military strategists. This is that the Iranians do not seek to develop nuclear weapons in the coming years. Instead they work hard to develop their civil nuclear infrastructure - building more nuclear power stations (six more are planned after Bushehr), as well as research reactors and enrichment plants (see "Russia and Iran: crisis of the west, rise of the rest", 21 August 2008). All the time, they would be acquiring comprehensive nuclear expertise that could allow them to develop nuclear weapons at any time of their choosing over the next decade.

An Israeli nightmare

There is a further political context for this kind of worst-case scenario, one that combines developments in Iran and the United States (see Trita Parsi, "The Iran-Israel cold war", 28 October 2005). Over the past couple of years, power has become more and more concentrated in Tehran in the hands of the elderly supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. For all his populist anti-Zionist rhetoric, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is little more than a puppet, but he is presiding over a deteriorating economy that combines 30+% inflation with a budgetary crisis, the latter worsened by the recent halving of oil prices to around $50 per barrel ("The party's over", Economist, 20 November 2008). He faces an election in June 2009 and it is by no means certain that Khamenei will back him; Khamenei might prefer another "principalist" who would help distance the supreme leader from the current problems.

This is becoming more and more necessary since, as one current analysis puts it: "the Islamic Republic is facing an urban, educated, healthy and informed population, but has yet to deliver political liberalisation to accommodate prevailing societal realities, while economic difficulties threaten living standards" (see "Republic Enemy: US policy and Iranian elections", Jane's Intelligence Review, 13 November 2008 [subscription only]).



(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

A Coalition? Yes. Now, How to Make It Work?


As talks have bore fruits for the LPC and NDP (and BQ) to form the next government as a historic coalition (deals have been made to this effect), one has to think about how to make such a government work. Beginning of course with the question of who will lead said coalition ... and I am not sure that Dion is the right choice.

The $30B "coalition" stimulus package sounds good on the surface - but is it well thought out? Will this be nothing more than additional money given to be used as plain capital? Will this be yet another blackmail con game played out at our expense? Details are lacking at this time.

So we shall see ... including whether Harper and his Harpies will react in their, you know, usual incompetent and hypocritical fashion.

In any case, here's some interesting food for thought on the whole matter of an NDP-LPC governing coalition and how to make it work:


Making coalition government work
By Duncan Cameron


When she was elected NDP member for Edmonton Strathcona in the last election, Linda Duncan probably did not think she would shortly be a cabinet minister. But as the only non-Conservative member from Alberta she is certainly entitled to a cabinet post in the coalition Liberal/NDP government likely to be formed - as early as next week - because Stephen Harper has misunderstood how parliamentary democracy works.

The people elect the parliament, but governments are formed (and undone) by parliament. Winning the largest number of seats only entitled the Conservatives to form a government, and only at the invitation of the Governor General. Losing the confidence of the House of Commons, as the Harper government did when its economic update failed to recognize a worldwide economic slump and the need for stimulus, and promoted restraint instead, opens the door for a coalition government to take power - at the invitation of the Governor General.

For the Governor General to invite a coalition government to take power she must be convinced the coalition will be stable enough to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. The Liberals have 77 seats, the NDP 37; together that is not enough for a majority. Indeed the Conservatives, with 143 seats, outnumber the 114 Liberal and NDP members combined. Thus, the statement by the Bloc Québeçois (49 seats) declaring its willingness to support, on an issue by issue basis, a Liberal/NDP alternative to the Harper regime looms as important, and may prove decisive in issuing an eventual invitation to the Liberals and NDP to form a government following the expected non-confidence vote December 8.

There is every reason for a coalition government to be formed: Harper and his party have lost their legitimacy as a government. No amount of backtracking can conceal their intentions to limit the right to strike, undermine pay equity and, especially, ignore the international commitment taken as a G7 member nation to stimulate the economy. The Liberals have issued a statement entitled Canada First saying it is time to put the interest of Canada before partisan party interest, and Jack Layton has initiated coalition talks, with Ed Broadbent acting as party emissary.

What is needed to make a coalition government work? First, an agreement to work together for a minimum period, say two years. Second, a common set of priorities for action. Third, an understanding of what needs to happen on both sides, so as to preserve the government, and not compromise either political party.

Setting aside party differences should appeal to the 62.4 per cent of Canadians who voted for a party other than the Conservatives. As to Liberal and NDP partisans, signing a two-year armistice, in return for rescuing Canadians from the embrace of the Conservatives, represents an attractive trade-off.

Priorities are the real issue. For the NDP, entering government on condition that the next parliament is elected under proportional representation would make sense. But how much would it have to give up to have that option accepted? For the NDP, reversing the militarization of world politics is a party imperative. Though, as the minority partner, the NDP is poorly positioned to demand a new Canadian Afghanistan policy (to replace military duty in Kandahar province until 2011) it can push for modifications of overall NATO strategy.

The most important priority is to deal with the economy. The NDP should fight to have the recent Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) economic and fiscal update serve as the starting point for devising a new approach. The economic slide needs to be stopped by enriching Employment Insurance along the lines proposed in the CCPA paper. Boosting other automatic stabilizers, such as pensions, minimum wages and student awards, is the best way to provide the spending power needed from government to counter deflationary pressures.

To move the country forward, the coalition government can start by to adopting infrastructure projects put forward regularly by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. The NDP proposal to "poverty proof" communities should be among the first policies announced. Agreement on investments for social housing and alternative energy should be quickly reached.

There are serious issues such as regulation of banking and finance where government needs to know more, and recourse to outside committees of enquiry would be advised. Other areas such as anti-scab legislation need immediate attention.

A coalition government would need a new deputy minister of finance, and a new secretary to the cabinet, since they bear some responsibility for the failed economic update document.



(Keep reading ...)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

The Jackboots Are Coming ...


Following up this post, that one, that one and that one with regards to jackboots thundering in your neighborhood soon not only in the U.S.A., but also in Canada ...


Pentagon plans to station 20,000 troops for 'domestic security'

The US Department of Defense plans to deploy 20,000 troops nationwide by 2011 to help state and local officials respond to terror or nuclear attacks and emergencies, The Washington Post said Monday.

Citing Pentagon officials, the newspaper said the plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces.

The first 4,700-strong unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade, is based at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and is already available for deployment, according to General Victor Renuart, commander of the US Northern Command, it said.

Two additional groups will later join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops to support local and state authorities nationwide, The Post said.

They will all would be trained to respond to domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attacks.

The newspaper said that civil liberties groups and libertarians had expressed concern that the plan could undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- "would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable," Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month noted by the Post. But the recognition that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe [Hurricane Katrina might be used as an example] prompted "a fundamental change in military culture."

"The Pentagon's plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011," the Post added. "The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command."

"If funding continues, two additional teams will join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops in supporting local and state officials nationwide," they continued. "All would be trained to respond to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it."

READ THE FULL STORY HERE.
Oh yes - the jackboots are indeed coming soon in a neighborhood near you, folks.

Congratulations.

Looks like all this worshiping at the altar of Holy Security is finally paying off, eh?


(Cross-posted at TWWL)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

Bush Incompetence - Self-Admitted Without Awareness Of It


Let's hear it again from the (lame duck) Supreme Incompetent-In-Chief himself (emphasis added):


Five years after he declared victory in Iraq on the US aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, President George W. Bush says he was "unprepared" for a war in Iraq that has gone on to claim thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

"I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess," Bush tells ABC's Charlie Gibson in an interview to be broadcast tonight, and said he didn't know if he'd have gone to war if he didn't think there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"That is a do-over that I can't do," Bush said.

He said incorrect intelligence about Saddam Hussein's arsenal was the "biggest regret of all the presidency."

"I think I was unprepared for war," Bush remarked. "In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack,'" he said. "In other words, I didn't anticipate war. Presidents -- one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen."

But also he tried to spread the blame -- and his credulity -- for bad intelligence on others.

"A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein," Bush said. "It wasn't just people in my administration. A lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington, D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence."

"I listened to a lot of voices, but ultimately, I listened to this voice: I'm not going to let your son die in vain," he said. "I believe we can win. I'm going to do what it takes to win in Iraq."

In the interview, Bush also defended his administration's response to a now paralyzing economic crisis spurned by the failure of the US credit markets.

"When you have the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed say, 'If we don't act boldly, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression,' that's an 'uh-oh' moment," he said.
It's not his fault at all, you see.

It's the fault of them terrorists.

It's the fault of that darn Global War on terror (TM).

It's the fault of that damn war in Afghanistan.

It's the fault of intelligence agencies and the cooked intelligence they were ordered to produce.

It's the fault of that damn war in Iraq.

It's the fault of all his advisors and senior cabinet members - especially Cheney.

It's the fault of Congress.

It's the fault of other world leaders.

It's the fault of Wall Street and the economy.

It's the fault of scientists and the environment.

It's the fault of the Constitution and all those other quaint laws.

It's the fault of his decisions and signing statements.

It's the fault of his intellectual sloth-driven ignorance.

It's the fault of his "gut-checks".

It's the fault of everyone and everything.

But it is not George W. Bush's fault if his inept Presidency proved destructively catastrophic.

He's the victim here, you see ...

Then again - that is the lot of incompetents like Bush. Remember the 4th principle of incompetence?
Fourth Principle: Incompetence does or says anything to defend itself.

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

However, let us remember that incompetents stick together and defend/protect/justify each other - one more case in point:
To mark World AIDS Day, Saddelback Pastor Rick Warren is hosting a Civil Forum on Global Health at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. Warren will present President Bush with the first “International Medal of PEACE” from the Global PEACE Coalition in recognition of his unprecedented contribution to the fight against HIV/AIDS and other diseases. The “International Medal of PEACE” is given for outstanding contribution toward alleviating the five global giants recognized by the Coalition, including pandemic diseases, extreme poverty, illiteracy, self-centered leadership and spiritual emptiness. The Bush administration reports that its AIDS initiative helped treat two million people this year living with HIV/AIDS.
(because Bush did so much to fight AIDS indeed ...)

Which makes me wonder whether Bush will follow on Bill Kristol's advice to keep on dishing out medals of freedom to his incompetent peers/subbordinates:
In his new Weekly Standard column, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol lays out a to-do list for President Bush before he leaves office. He urges Bush to deliver speeches “reminding Americans of our successes fighting the war on terror.” Kristol dreams, “Over time, Bush might even get deserved credit for effective conduct of the war on terror.”

After urging Bush to fight the incoming administration’s desire to close Guantanamo, Kristol concludes with this:

One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning–and should at least be vociferously praising–everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

In the Bush era, the Medal of Freedom has come to absurdly represent a reward for those who carried out policy failures at the urging of the Bush administration. By this standard, the implementers of torture and warrantless wiretapping certainly qualify for such a medal.

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that the White House “isn’t inclined to grant sweeping pardons for former administration officials involved in harsh interrogations and detentions of terror suspects.” President-elect Barack Obama is reportedly unlikely to pursue criminal cases against such officials, but is said to be considering a 9/11-style commission that would investigate counterterrorism policies and make public as many details as possible.”

Bush’s “record of stonewalling inquiries into his administration’s legally questionable behavior — the torture policy that led to the Abu Ghraib nightmare; illegal wiretapping; the politically motivated firing of federal attorneys — justify concern that he may be considering pardoning officials involved in those misdeeds,” the New York Times warns in an editorial this morning. “If he wants to try to reclaim his reputation, he can start by not abusing the pardon power on his way out the door,” the Times writes.

(talk about incompetence cheerleading for the rewarding of incompetence ... and the list would be long indeed)

In any event - thus the Bush Grand Delusion Magic Circus Farewell Show goes on.

However, I will add this: in the end, it is definitely the fault of the American people for having elected Bush ... twice.


(Cross-posted at TWWL)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content

In Matters Of Privacy ...


There are no small victories when fighting the relentless juggernaut of the would-be Security State:


Ottawa will not give personal data to U.S.

Ottawa has quietly dropped plans to let the U.S. house a database of personal information about Canadians who hold special driver's licences used to cross the border.

The move follows criticism from federal and provincial privacy commissioners, who have warned that any plan to attach detailed personal information to ID cards could lead to abuse of the sensitive data.

The office of federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart is still wary of plans to share information on so-called enhanced driver's licences with the United States, and stresses a passport is still the ideal travel document for Canadians.

"All in all, we are pleased to see that they listened to some of our recommendations, but we remain hopeful that they'll heed to many of our other concerns," said Anne-Marie Hayden, a spokesperson for Stoddart.

As of June, under the U.S.'s Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, everyone entering the U.S. must have a passport or ID card confirming citizenship and identity.
One victory indeed - one step further away from my previously described Security State of North America potential nightmare.

But we must ever remain wary and on alert - case in point:
British Columbia has launched a test project for the new licences, and Ontario announced this month it will usher them in. The new cards contain a radio frequency tag that can be scanned at the border, transmitting a number that identifies the traveller, allowing the agent to call up the person's information.
Talk about being tracked every hour of the day ...

Any questions?


(Cross-posted at NetRoots)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

Sphere: Related Content