8pov

Balance of the 'Force'

2011-04-01T18:41:00.002-04:00

A response to articles from the New York Times and the BBC sent to me by very good friend.

I believe that the world must remain engaged in Africa's conflicts — from Cote d'Ivoire, north to Tunisia, east to Somalia, and south to Zimbabwe — for no other reason than to reinforce the idea that this world is a single body. What affects one nation will eventually affect us all. This is not to imply that a world state is the logical conclusion. Clearly, though, the decisions of one person make a great deal of difference. Ghaddaffi, Obama, an others can be cited. Clearly human disasters spread the pain around. Soaring energy and food prices are evidence of this. Clearly, one natural disaster has broad ramifications. The plight of Japan makes this clear.

I started, then stopped, watching a talk about Ayn Rand's views as they play out in the world today. I stopped when the speaker started talking about the prospect for 'gain' by America as a product of intervention. Rand, and the cabal that follow her ideas, are hyper-capitalists. Any studious reading of Rand would reveal that American-style big-C Capitalism would have been permitted to FAIL in September of 2008. Similarly, any studious reading would hold that an armed response to armed aggression is just. For the naysayers, remember this. As a nation of weapons manufacturers your GDP goes up almost every time someone fires a rocket. Defending the faceless rebel faction is profitable. That's the cynic in me talking.

The idealist in me realizes that balance is a nigh impossible thing to strike when both ends of scale are so 'forced'. Obama, to save himself, continues to walk the tightrope. He can't make enough of America believe that there is just cause there. Furthermore, I argued against arming the rebels in Libya for some of the reasons cited here. If they are armed, they will eventually have to be disarmed.

America won a bloody revolution in 1789. The French intervened in support of the breakaway colonial republic known once as New England. The French were a little too busy to disarm them in 1789, the French Revolution had just begun. Imagine trying to disarm America now.

Did Canada make the American Revolution happen?

2011-03-18T01:04:00.007-04:00

In a word, yes.

In 1759, battles between English and French forces in territory known as New France, led General James Wolfe to the capture of Quebec from the French. This decisive victory, The Thin Red Line on the Plains of Abraham, effectively ended the Seven Years' War — known as the French and Indian War in North America. The name of this war is, properly, Guerre du Roi Louis XV or King George's II war. This victory by the English was not without the sacrifice of New Englanders. They, who'd conquered a continent from forest, "indians" (a dirty term), beast, and weather alike. With guns. Rugged Englishmen adventurers who braved the new continent. Their stories live forever in the hearts of Americans. Is Canada responsible for giving them the impetus for revolt and revolution?

In a word yes.

Are Canadians, then, responsible for anything that America does?

In a number, 20%.

The grievances with the Crown listed in an historic U.S. document number five. After the Boston Tea Party but before the revolution had started a letter was sent by The First Continental Congress. The Quebec Act, was the fifth of five, listed Intolerable Acts.

from "the Quebec Act" article on Wikipedia: 'The Quebec Act, while designed to placate one North American colony, had the opposite effect among the Americans to the south. The act was among the so called Intolerable Acts" that infuriated the American colonists, leading them to the armed insurrection of the American Revolution.'

The English won the French and Indian War in 1759. This war began in the colonies before the great powers themselves engaged in formal declarations against one another. The French and Indian war started in 1754, the Seven Years' War in 1756. For two years, New France and New England were at war in the woodlands of North America without official sanction from Mom and Dad. Only when the great powers took notice did the war end decisively. The conquest of Louisbourg on today's Cape Breton Island followed by the capture of Quebec city with a stroke of genius and guile on the part of General James Wolfe.

It was genius, guile, and weather that help General George Washington lead the colonists of New England against England in the Revolutionary War. General Washington would go on the become the first President of the United States in 1789. Not bad for a one-time Lieutenant-Colonel, regarded an assassin as he was defeated by French forces in the — aptly named — Battle at Fort Necessity in July 1754. No wonder Americans hate the French.

Comparing histories, I would have to say that American history got this one wrong. The French began exploring with their allies the Algonquin for 100 years before any claims to Ohio Country could have been made by English surveyors. In 1699, a French officer founded the first permanent settlement in Louisiana near Biloxi, Mississippi. New Orleans was a "seat of civilian and military authority" by 1722. Ohio, upriver from these places, had run a steady stream of connections to Louisiana. They are now called the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Any claim from the East, New England, in 1753 was bogus. It's no coincidence, then, that one Major George Washington was there to lay that claim, too.

Recap.

1753 — Lieutenant Colonel George Washington lays English claim to clearly held French Territory, helping initiate war. If things had gone differently, I'd say Washington was patsy.

1754 — On May 28, French Ensign Joseph Coulon de Villiers is slain while sitting at the side of Major George Washington. His brother, eight years older and the commanding officer at Fort Duquesne forces Washington to surrender at Fort Necessity. In his surrender on 3 July, Washington signs a document that admits his participation in an assassination. Of course, like most Americans, Washington could not read the document, it was in French.

1759 — The English win the American Theatre of the Seven Years' War. They wait four years for the war in Europe to end.

1763 — The Seven Years' War ends in Europe. England is victorious. War costs are heavy.

1774 — Taxes on the American colonies' wealth regarded distastefully by colonists. Like bad tea. To the North, the French who were vanquished by war are appeased by relaxation in the weight of home rule.

1776 — General George Washington crosses the Delaware and eventually wins the war.

1783 — The American Revolutionary War ends. America defeats Britain. Britain never really cared. The French helped the U.S. to win. Says Mel Gibson. (It's true! The French helped Washington to win against the British)

1789 — Washington becomes President of the new Republic.

1789 — The French Revolution begins.

1867 — Canada becomes its own country. Not a shot fired. A series of conversations and convictions established instead.

1982 — Canada's constitution is "patriated" and our version of Amendments or the Bill of Rights, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is enacted. 219 years after the British Conquered the French, the French took part in the peaceful birth of a mature country.

Many, in their lessons of history, do not remember that time passes between the great events of history. Days, months, years. A slow build of pushes and pulls making for interesting days. These past few weeks seeing the world reshape in front of us has been truly remarkable. People are being shaken awake from slumber.

We see interesting, literally Earth-shattering, days happening now. In North Africa. Near the Persian Sea. On the Coast of Japan. Its 2011. It's time to wake up.

2007 — The financial crisis materializes amid rising oil prices and a housing bubble.

2008 — America and Canada are still engaged in Afghanistan. The bubble pops.

2009 — The Iraq War. Hostilities the world over. The First Black President takes office.

2010 — Massive unemployment, widespread infrastructure failure, food crises, wildfires, floods, earthquakes (Haiti and Chile, specifically), the worst oil spill in human history.

2011 — It's only March. Ivory Coast, Haiti, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Sudan. All in revolt. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq. All bombed this year.

All of this imbalance must stop. Perhaps, by 2086, Canada will know what it wants.

"Debt encumbered home-owners don't go on strike."

2010-11-04T15:31:00.011-04:00

(Paraphrasing) "You won't want to butt heads with your principal... at least not for your first ten years of teaching. That's what your union reps are for. Because you'll take a look at your mortgage and then you'll decide to keep your mouth shut." [2010 Nipissing University]

This is disheartening.

Granted, the system (ETFO, OSSTF, OTF) builds in an outlet for teachers. It does. I admit it. Its a pressure release valve. And, it depends heavily on the effectiveness of the union reps. However, to believe that you are bound to silence because anything you say could get you into trouble and then you might lose your job and therefore your house...! I know that the case is the same or worse in most jobs and in most lives where a mortgage and job (in)security is involved. Working at Wal-Mart or McDonalds or Disney or Nike, conscientious criticisms or contests can win you worse positions or a pick slip. How depressing is that?

I don't want to grow up.

Then, I was watching the Crises of Capitalism video again on YouTube. It reminded me that home ownership is a value drilled into Americans backed by the mortgage (read: banking) industry and supported by the government in the form of a mortgage interest tax credit (in the U.S., since the 1930s). This means that you get some of your own money back from your income taxes ("intaxication") if, and only if, you've paid interest on a mortgage. The same interest that was wished into existence by the banks in the first place! Thank you Margaret Atwood for Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth.

Anyway, the purpose of this post (previously: email/rant) was made by the video: "Debt encumbered home-owners don't go on strike." In other words, they don't stand up to authority, or for what they believe in, and they certainly don't stir up any trouble. The fix is in, the war against Americans won without firing a shot. Banks exploited millions Americans by writing mortgages people couldn't afford. Then, when economic and environmental blowback took their jobs, the banks took back their homes, along a healthy extortion of tax-payer's dollars, and depressed... er... "recessed" the economy. Recess, such a school word. It seems America's economy, the playground bully, is out for recess right now, learning nothing. A lesson in society and social skills is apt.

The Crises of Capitalism

The Crisis of Credit: Part I

The Crisis of Credit: Part II

It makes me wonder, why haven't America's domestic victims taken to the streets? Why weren't there more people at the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear"? Why is financial system given regular bail-outs by tax-payers? Why have Americans voted the right-wing, uber-capitalist f*cks who caused this mess back into a majority in the House of Representatives? It could be because the voters who are having the problems are not represented by the vote. They no longer have their previous addresses. They no longer have their jobs. Any available new jobs people cling to lend employers enormous power. Employers are not required to ensure that employees can go and vote. Employers are not required to permit employees to attend demonstrations in Washington, D.C. Concerned people are rendered voiceless, unrepresented, and unable to represent themselves. Bail-outs go forward and politics (read: lies) and business (read: thievery)-as-usual continues.

The same professor started today with a Armistice/Remembrance Day reading that was thoroughly depressing. Not because the end of World War I isn't something that should be celebrated. It is. But because "the war to end all wars" wasn't. War has moved steadily from being the end of diplomacy to being the end of economy. War is waged against the powerless abroad and at home. Where is the ode to the 21st century war? Until it ends, there won't be one.

(Incidentally, there is a work-around for Canadians so that the interest on your mortgage becomes tax deductible. It also explains why Canadians are sleeping in tents in order to buy the next release of condos. If they don't live in them, the interest paid on them is tax-deductible. Without the workaround, it explains, partly, the strength of unions in Canada and the reasons that Canadians are more willing to stand up for what we believe in. Well, we were, until the workaround came into play in 2001. What does Canada stand for now?)

Rights to Exist

2010-06-17T12:11:00.002-04:00

Israel, a place for Jewish people to call home, has the right to exist. It NEEDS to exist. And they do fight to defend their state and its people. The displacement, marginalization, and internment of the Palestinian people. This is the core problem. My thesis here is that everybody loses unless the Palestinians, somehow, win.

The lessons of North and South American and Australian aboriginal people had not yet been truly learned when the Holy Land was set aside for the Zionist cause in the 1920s. Further, there were other Arab homelands to identify with the Palestinians, to carry their cause as their own -- which exacerbates the conflict. Then, there's the mixed in divinity of the whole exercise which often confounds and radicalizes every aspect.

The causes at hand, both "Zionist" and the "Arabian" have morphed, changed, and grown into something that, ninety years later, is not what it was in the beginning. Now conflict is the product of generations of suffering on both sides and what that means to each group of people. It is a conflict about the harms being done to each other daily for each slight/devastating blow. It's the psychology of captivity, occupation, authority -- a clash of civilizations in some quarters -- that affect both groups. It's the Stanford prison experiment done on a massive scale.

It is understandable that an Israel that throws down their arms first would no longer exist. This is true for anybody, a person or a State, that has forcibly occupied another. No captor can trust that his captive will never retaliate when the boot is removed from the captive's throat. This is why the US cannot accept a sovereign Iraq or Afghanistan without sub-contracting their security operations to an industry of US friendly mercenaries. This is why Israel cannot accept an independent, sovereign State of Palestine. There would be blow-back.

No land in the world could have been set aside that would have been less of a powder keg as the land that then State of Israel now has. It has been contested throughout history. One must wonder what wisdom there was in a Christian administrator taking land from Muslim, Arab, and Christian farmers to set it aside for Europe's -- and the the rest of the world's -- Jewish population. Since then, with all that has been done in the name of protecting Israel, the chosen path cannot be undone. Therein lies the bind. Would the Palestinians -- and the Arab nations who support them -- throw down their weapons, there could be peace in the Middle East. That would mean they concede the taking of Palestinian land for Israel's right to exist. Palestine would concede to disappear from history for an achievable peace.

The fact that it was 1917 when British Lord Balfour declared it makes as much difference to Palestine now as it does to the people of the First Nations when, in 1534, Jacques Cartier took the name of Canada for that nation; or, to the First Nations of the United States when Columbus landed in 1492 claiming America for the Spanish. Nobody asked, "well, what about the people who are already there?" Nobody figured out whether or not the indigenous people had a right to determine their own future. They didn't have futures worth considering. Throughout history there is one solution: conquer and establish a new order erasing the old.

If these historical dramas were replayed in the 20th century, the people of the First Nations of the Americas or Australia would never be marginalized on their own continents in an age of antibiotics, arms trade, and an international eye. They would fight the Spanish, the British, the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese or any other comers. They might have even found some benefactor to support their cause, perhaps Russia or China. The fate of the American First Nations and Australian Aboriginal people is a matter of our bloody history. Unfortunately for Israel's right to exist, history has hit the wall with Palestine.

Since the turn of the 20th century, the paths toward conquest by arms have been resisted at every turn. The major international wars -- World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars -- have yielded little in acquisition of territory. On the contrary, the world has splintered in the wake of these wars. States have broken away from imperial and colonial bonds. More countries exist today than at any point in history. Only economic conquest has been successful, but then, this is often achieved with nationalistic fervor attached. Without a nation to undermine their ideas, Palestinians will not fall to economic conquest either. Things cannot get worse for them. Imbalanced trade agreements, privatization of utilities, currency devaluation and other forms of shock treatment would fail. So it is that Palestine continues to resist. It is their lot to be sacrificed at the altar of two ideals. That of resistance to the occupation of their lands, no matter who the occupier is; and at the altar of the right for Israel to exist.

Palestinians can't recognize Israel because doing so admits that the lands of Palestine, hence Palestinians, don't exist. It is cultural suicide and they cannot allow that to happen. They refuse to fade from history. They and their allies refuse to allow this to happen. Let it be said that I don't approve of or agree with the methods of resistance employed. The methods of suppression, incursion, and occupation breed such resistance. Israel controls the land but it cannot control the people. As long as Israel holds the land, Palestinians pose a threat to the security of Israel -- they are de facto enemies of the State. As long as the Palestinians are weak and stateless, their attacks on the powerful State of Israel will be defined as acts of terrorism, not as acts of war in response the war which set up the Occupied Territories. As long as Palestinians support the cause of Palestine, Palestinians will be known only as terrorists -- a powerful image in the eyes of people on all sides in this crucible. Any others who support Palestinians will be known as "enemies of freedom" and terrorists themselves.

And, as long as the fight against terrorism remains politically and economically viable -- read: profitable -- support for Palestinians will be marginalized. A state of conflict will persist between supporters of Palestine, some rich and powerful nations in their own right, and a powerful State of Israel and her allies. Arms dealers, oil companies, and heavy industries are ready to take the orders. Banks are ready to extend loans. So it goes.

[Solution]

The unthinkable must happen to resolve this conflict. Israel cast as Goliath and falling to a stone cast by a Palestinian David is a bitter irony. Whether this final stone is cast by arms or by diplomacy is entirely in the hands of the belligerents. What Israel has won by war and occupation must be given back. Jerusalem, at the heart of the conflict, is to be divided. Its center, the holy sites of all the world's major faiths is to be administered by the UN in perpetuity until the two state solution is sufficiently co-dependent as to negate the possibility of war. Jerusalem must be a world city open for all humans to share.

Palestinians and the newly minted State of Palestine must have the right to self-determination and self-defense. The right to trade and freely associate in the world community. The right to establish trade agreements that do not exploit her people. The right to a cultural identity of its own making. The right to develop energy production and resources and an education system and a history of its own writing. In short, all of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by any other sovereign state. This is too much of a threat to Israel and it is why the two-state solution is roundly rejected. The chains of history, those dreadful acts that gone before and are impossible to undo, dictate that Israel will not feel secure unless it controls the Palestinian people.

Failing to recognize the Palestinian people, their claims on the land and their right to exist in that holy land, is altogether worse than what has already transpired in the Americas and in Australia. It has not yet been one hundred years since the first Jewish people flooded into Palestine after World War I. No apology will ever resolve this conflict. No tax breaks or land reserves set aside will staunch the flow of blood that has defined this conflict. Only a change in direction by Israel, and the lobbyists in Washington, can secure a peaceful future for all.

Upon Reflection...

2010-03-22T06:08:00.002-04:00

I guess that this is still what a blog is for... So... I have thoughts.

Health Care

This morning, the U.S.House of Representatives passed, by a narrow margin, legislation that grants health insurance to 30 million people who do not have or cannot afford private health insurance. I applaud the efforts of the the ever-patient President and those who have worked through some difficult times to get this bill passed. As I have mentioned before, Americans are due for this type of health care and it's about time that they receive it.

But.

Because this is America we're talking about, there is bound to be some assholerry. Undoubtedly. No disrespect due to those who have a brains between their ears, however, some dink is going to try his best to get as much as is humanly possible out of this. That is, people are going to try to abuse the system.

One would think that, when it comes to health care, this sort of thing would not happen. One would think that people would value health and well-being ahead of doing stupid things expecting to get nifty drugs. Or, doing stupid things for the sheer sake of doing stupid things expecting to be "taken care of" to some level of expectation. Or, doing stupid things to try to prove that this health plan can't/won't/doesn't work. Since it's America we are talking about, it HAS to happen. It is inevitable.

Further, the expectation is the mother of all disappointment so, if, come November (or... April, since election cycles start ridiculously early), there are Representatives wailing about how health reform has screwed their jurisdiction — take a moment to see if there is some other foul play afoot. Really, and I'd like to wear my hope on my sleeve here for a minute, people want to be good to one another and to themselves. There's a lot of money to be made in health care. Doctors take an oath against inflicting harm. The government has delivered on a mandate to watch closely for waste. Healthy people are productive people. Maybe this will all work out.

I expect that I'll be updating this post with examples as soon as the bill becomes law or as soon as they are available. Whichever comes first.

This isn't a shot at Americans. This is a shot at stupidity. It's out there. Be vigilant.

Africa

Having watched Africa Unite this weekend and having participated in a discussion about a unified Africa I'd just like to put down the few thoughts that I didn't mention on Sunday afternoon. Y'know, out loud. To people.

1. African "development" along the same path as the rest of the world would be suicidal.
2. United, an African trading block would only have power with complete control over resources and economy. So, the World Bank/IMF imposed debts and lingering remnants of the colonial era would have to be removed. Those powers will put up a fight.
3. A United Africa would have massive, post-colonial identity crises. Certainly, the industrialized world counts on this.
4. The stronger African nations cannot lead the way for the weaker ones. More than likely, it would have to be a grass-roots, bottom up, (pardon the pun) snowball effect.
5. Arms reductions across the continent.
6. Trade within the Union of African States, for a time, would supersede trade outside of Africa. Which, again, would irk the big boys on the global stage.
7. Trade agreements would be renegotiated and labor standards established to prevent the exploitation of Africans within or in trade deals outside the continent are necessary.
8. Uniting Africa would have to overcome many recent conflicts within Africa, not the least of which are in Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Rwanda, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Zimbabwe and Congo. This will be a long, long process.

Africa already has a lot to offer the world in terms of helping others to understand how to do more with less. How many are willing to look to Africa as a teacher in this age of dwindling resources?

Oh, I also want to start participating in this social experiment/MORPG.

Education Reform

2010-03-17T23:59:00.007-04:00

So, it's been a while. I started to comment on this article and its embedded links. The comment grew bigger and bigger. So, here it is:

Noting that I am Canadian and teach in South Korea alongside teachers from the Canada, the US, the UK and every other English-speaking, modern western civilization on Earth, there are a few things that education reform worldwide NEEDS to take into account.

First, education underpins every experience a person has in life. "An education" is neither a system nor a product, it is a child-specific process. Any reform in education needs to address this. I believe that Bill Maher is correct. Parents, responsible for the growth, values, and development of their children must positively reinforce the education process. Admittedly, John Legend's defense of parents, particularly those who live in poverty or are underemployed or work two jobs to make ends meet cannot commit the time they would like to help with homework or simply support the effort of their child. Both Maher and Legend call for a different way of living in America; a change, perhaps.

The school building, books and peripherals, teacher salaries, computers, and, often omitted, preparation time are all expenses that must be paid by every institution that claims to educate. These expenses, profits for education-profiteers, bean-counters seek to eliminate. Propping up the education system with different books, different teachers, and more technology doesn't matter much as long as "children" are treated as a gray, amorphous cloud of matter for idealized "teachers" to "educate." Students see the system for what it is, indoctrination, and what it is not, supportive of individuality. Many under perform. Some drop out. Others massage the system and slip by. Few enjoy the experience. Nostalgia will always regard school as a good time, since the lives of adults now are invariably more difficult.

Which brings us to security. Geopolitical and economic security are wrapped up in one another.* It is the tacit admission of successive iterations of the American government that a military establishment is regarded better as an investment than education. They "vote with their dollars." Afghanistan is a war zone now and the greatest achievements of the occupation are schools that have been built. Meanwhile, metal detectors and security personnel frame the entryways of some American middle- and high schools. It could be argued that the threats military forces protect Americans against are threats against the commercial and political American way of life, not the educational — unless the product known as "an education" holds that America's commercial and political way of life is sacrosanct.

Individualism, especially as practiced from 1945 to now, is both a blessing and a curse learned by children. Youth of three generations have walked this unpredictable path with the support (read: exploitation) of companies but without the support of education. Investment in education cannot guarantee a return on investment when so many of America's heroes, success stories, and captains of industry dropped out of college.

Which leads to my second, and most important point, kids don't learn like they used to. "Reading is FUNdamental" just doesn't fly anymore. Information out of a book is too slow and too dull in an entertainment-rich society. Instantaneous gratification is sought in all other quarters, but it lags in education. Delayed gratification is a big expectation when every aspect of modern western culture is geared to the opposite. Students have individual questions. Teachers can't possibly answer them all instantaneously. The hands-up, wait-your-turn rule is an artifact of a time when there was time to wait or an interest in raising a hand. Speaking at TED in 2006, Sir Ken Robinson remarked,

"If you were to visit education, as an alien, and say "What's it for, public education?" I think you'd have to conclude -- if you look at the output, who really succeeds by this, who does everything that they should, who gets all the brownie points, who are the winners -- I think you'd have to conclude the whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors. Isn't it?" (09:45 mark)

For all those kids who want to be video game designers, or dancers, or are simply bursting with questions, what does the dull drone demonstrating a dearth of diligent duty to "an education" win them?

Schools, some of them still the asbestos-lined institutions that they are, need to be torn-down, rethought and rebuilt from the ground up. The whole world has changed. The old school of education is uniform: a child is an empty vessel to be filled with "an education" with which they will succeed in life. The future of education must be more organic a process. Every education received has particular basics: literacy, mathematics, logic, and so on. There must be more of a reward, a motive, for students.

I disagree with John Legend's stance on standardized testing. The high-level view is that there is no other way to determine the effectiveness of programs nationwide. Certainly, this has had a spiral of effects. Since it often determines funding, bad schools get worse. Underfunded (read: all) schools are induced to "teach to the test," neglecting student needs and education quality in order to secure funding. Students and teachers are, consequently, beholden to a downward spiral of annual judgment by the government.

There is no reason to expect that a public school system will realize monetary profit in the short term. Anyone who hopes so is ludicrous. The reason public schools exist is to provide fertile ground for a majority of childhood development. What is promoted as school now is chokes growth; a wall-less cubicle, a handwriting data-entry position, and the same food as is served in prisons. Spending on education now promotes national profitability in the future. Retrofit classrooms, hire more teachers, reduce class sizes, open the curriculum to interpretation, reduce the influence of standardized testing, and, most importantly show students that there is a future worth working toward. Give kids some hope. So far, mindless entertainment in a 1500-channel universe and MMPORPGs (including Facebook) are the best offers.

*The courts decide an election. Dot-com bubbles burst. A predatory energy giant fails. A single terrorist attack happens. Then, there is a global war —not a World War, a global war. The airline industry wavers. Some more highly publicized terrorist attacks, some earthquakes, a tsunami, and more hurricanes. Genocide in Sudan. Oil prices are through the roof and New Orleans is underwater. Money is lent out to cover debts. Food is turned into gasoline. Food prices go through the roof. Mexicans can't afford tortillas, Haitians are eating mud. People can't afford their homes so they stop paying their mortgages to gas up the SUV. More warfare and sabre-rattling between America, Russia, Israel, Hamas (because Palestine does not exist), Hezbollah (operating from Lebanon), and Iran. Iraq is a pile of rubble. An investment butterfly bats an eye, someone exposes predatory lending practices, investors lose faith, the system crashes because its rife with cancer. Banks fail. Mexican drug cartels step up the violence. The auto industry falters. People start to lose their jobs. Foreclosures cause people to lose their homes. More earthquakes, one in Haiti and one in Chile. That's just the past ten years.

Compassion

2009-11-11T23:01:00.004-05:00

On 19 October, I posted this article with this comment: While I cannot recommend reading this, I urge you to. This is another of the effects of war in 2009. End war.

This was the exchange with a friend that followed (all times are GMT +9):

Her - 19 October 2009: 0156

I read that, and while I don't doubt that it happens, as a child of a soldier who was deployed in the Gulf War, I survived. I was 6. I didn't try to commit suicide. Leads me to think that maybe there was something else going on with those kids, some other factors that were not discussed in that article.

8p - 0215:

The Gulf War lasted 210 days. 379 dead Americans, 776 wounded (Wikipedia).

OEF/OIF has been eight years. Wounded and PTSD cases number scores of thousands. The number of dead are beyond 5000 Americans. Not to mention 129 Canadians in Afghanistan. The "other" dead as a result of these invasions? Millions (a Biology student cannot deny the Lancet report). Admittedly not at hands of American military bullets, but certainly as a result of the invasion and occupation and the "services" of "security" contractors.

Some American kids have known only bloody war their whole lives. This seven year old has. Don't discredit his experience by comparing to yours.

0216:

You're not thinking enough.

Her - 0241:

I'm not saying that their experience isn't worse than mine, at all. It is. The two wars now are horrific and no child should experience that. And that's my point. A seven (SEVEN) year old should NOT know what war is. They should NOT know what death is. But these kids obviously do. So my question is, why aren't their parents doing enough to prevent their kids from seeing and knowing what is happening? Why are they subjecting their kids to this? A seven year old is too young to be able to handle this, as it shows in their suicide attempts. Any sane parent or guardian (because not all military children have one parent at home) would know better than to tell their child that their daddy (or mommy) is being shot and and might not come home. When my father was gone, my mother never had the news channel on when I was in the room. She told me that daddy was "on a trip" and that he would be home soon. And I was happy. And my father did come home. If he hadn't, I'm sure my mother would have found a better way to explain it to me than "a bad man shot daddy with a gun and he died a horrific and bloody death", which is what it seems like these kids are being told.

How young is too young? Well that's for the parents to judge. Certainly, different age levels can hear different things. But a seven year old does NOT need to hear anything other than "daddy is on a trip".

0242:

I'm thinking plenty [sic] enough. A seven year old does not need to know what death is.

8p - 0307:

Oh, you're earning it now.

"why aren't their parents doing enough to prevent their kids from seeing and knowing what is happening?"

W. T. F.

Do you actually mean to say that this kid, the child of an armed forces veteran, should first learn about his father's job — if it comes to that — the day he dies? Kid's know. Kid's have more access to information now than ever. Kid's will find out if their parents lie to them. Especially the big lies.

What is it with America and avoiding dealing with the truth? Why is it that the only American childhood is in Disneyland with a complete suspension of disbelief?

Your happy childhood was a fabrication. You've said it yourself, you don't know why your father is a vet after having shot missiles from a destroyer posted 1000 miles from the front. Your father never had to worry, so, I guess, neither did your mother. Your mother never had to worry, so, I guess, neither did you. Maybe your mother was the one engaging in self-deception. You, then, were just the by-product. You should ask her.

If your child's father was sweeping and clearing an urban war zone, and if you were the one facing that reality on the home front (knowing how you deal), doesn't your child deserve to know that his/her father is in harm's way? Doesn't your child deserve to know why his mother is so anxious? or depressed? or angry? or drunk?

Especially, ESPECIALLY, when the reason has be lost in a cloud of deception?

Sure, there will be extenuating circumstances. Just like you said. But, bottom line, this kid grew up to the point that he has. There are lots of kids like him. War now is FUBAR. Too many innocent non-combatants are caught in the crossfire, physically and psychologically.

Her - 20 October 2009 (about noon, edited for content)

I firmly believe that there are somethings that children can handle and somethings they can't. One of those is death. It obviously traumatizes a child... Why would you want to cause your child that amount of anguish? Are you you looking to have a whole generation of messed up people?... Just so that they are more "educated"?!

There are a lot of things that military dependents from previous wars don't know. I knew as a child that my father was in the navy, that he went to sea on his ship a lot. I had friends whose fathers were away too, and they all knew the same things I did. Why would a child of 6 need to know that their father was being shot at? When they are older, and more mature, and ready to know why their father didn't come home, then yes, they can know.

... don't you DARE tell me that I can't deal. [Name removed] is in Iraq right now, being shot at. And you think I don't care? That I'd rather not know what's going on? I surf the news EVERY DAY to see if I can hear anything. Yes, it's driving me nuts. And if I had a child, HELL NO I wouldn't tell them what was happening. You obviously don't care about children, [8p]. No child should have the weight of being an adult when they are that young.

... dont EVER say that my mother was involved in self deception. You wouldn't know a woman who was more brave, more strong, or more resilient. My mother kept our house moving while my father was gone. She volunteered to help other families, she ran the base red cross. She is the epitome of a military wife. She didn't let us for a moment worry about our father, because it was the best thing for a 6 and 4 year old.

I thought you had more compassion than this, [8p]. A child is just that, a child. They don't need to grow up so fast.

8p - 1924

This will be my last attempt to sway you on this. Please, at least consider that what I am saying here is grounded in compassion, as has all that has gone before this. Compassion, because I believe that the conduct of warfare now is, itself, a trauma to all of us. We are all connected now, all humans everywhere share all of the same concerns. This is part of the reason why veiling truth from anyone, spinning a beautiful tale, will fail in time.

You've made it plain. You would rather not know. That's your choice. I've made a different choice. I've had a life chock full of lies. I've seen the effect that the beautiful cover story has when it falls apart. Disillusionment is shattering. Losing the illusion, do you simply build a replacement? I understand, everything that we tell ourselves is just that, a story. But, our stories will not fail and shatter us if they are true.

If you are going to tell a story, especially to a child, that story had better not have any holes. Today, that's a sheer impossibility unless that child is cut off from reality. Further, what happens when that child enters the world? The dissonance between what was "true" in the story and what is true in life causes a whole new set of problems. Maybe I was wrong. I don't know your mother. That your mother never cracked beneath the stories she told despite what she felt is a testament to her character. I know you. If she was as you are, then she denied her own feelings for your sake. One cannot be compassionate toward a person who denies or rejects that suffering exists. Covering up your own feelings, masking your reactions, concealing your motives is as bad for a person as it is for the children they teach. The compassion I have for both parents and children is manifest in saying that the truth is the only way to go.

Think about this. You are a person of deep emotion, as is exampled in your response. This is not a weakness, it is who you are. To deny this about yourself would change who you are, either to yourself or to your child. Where is does the truth lie? Even now, day-by-day with [name removed] over there, don't you have good days and bad days? Is it really the best to deny how you feel? Take it from a pro. I'm only learning now how to deal properly with my emotions instead of leaning on the "OFF" switch every time I feel something beyond my control. It would be truly sad if you've moved so far in the opposite direction as to warrant deadening your emotions like that.

Recheck your developmental psychology. Kids develop concepts about death as early as three years old. Certainly by the time they are four. Are a squashed bug, a floating fish, or a dead bird things you would lie to your child about? What if the other kids get to your kid first? There is nothing that can prevent children from learning. You had better intend to be a part if the process rather a shield from it. Parents help kids to understand the experiences of life in their own time.

I never said or implied that an adult concept of death should be forced onto a child at too early an age. Whatever concept of death is in the mind of the child, that truth should be told at the very least. Whether this death as similar to sleep (first stage), death as irreversible (second stage), or death as universal (third stage). Skipping the first two stages would, without a doubt, be traumatic. I would never induce such trauma and you know that. I just would not lie. You made it sound like I'd shoot a man in Reno just so my kid could watch him die.

I'll say it again: Parents help kids to understand the experiences of life in their own time. Parenting can't be the effective concealment of truth until a child is "ready." For many things, there's no such thing as a right time. You can't circle a day on a calendar. The whole reason that a child must be told the truth is that their own observations have to fit with what they are being told. If these two things do not fit, any person becomes confused. When harsh reality is unmasked, then is just as traumatizing — sometimes more so because of deception — than having the truth in the first place. A massive series of lies is ever more so damaging. This is what our present generation is coming to terms with. A generation of adults and a generation of kids and young adults are presently undergoing horrible pains from a series of beautiful lies spun for sixty years.

Certainly, there are things that are beyond a childs capacity to grasp. Death is not one of these things. A four-year old can grasp mortality. A seven-year old, with or without the beautiful lie, can connect death and suffering. Suicide is the product of suffering. It is with this I am being compassionate. It is this suffering that, from your reaction and by your assertions, is to best to be denied or buried or hidden. That's not compassion at all. That's jumping to the first stage of grief.

I know that you deal with [name removed] being away. I know that every family serves alongside their loved ones in harm's way. Here's hoping that despite the things you're dealing with, that today can be a good day.

When Marvel Met Disney

2009-09-01T23:56:00.002-04:00

When Marvel Met Disney

This is what bothers me about the Disney Marvel deal is this: authenticity.

As a preamble, I refer to a lecture given by Robert Sawyer as broadcast on TV Ontario's Big Ideas in February of 2008. Marvel Comics is, without a doubt in my mind, one of the greatest running commentaries on the contemporary world as achieved by science fiction. Our fiction; print, TV, film, and otherwise; must more often remind us of what is happening in fact. It should challenge us to confront the present in a way that shapes a future representative of our ideals. When Disney buys Marvel, a key voice will be lost the maelstrom, drowned in the echo chamber of positive American interests.

Since 1963, "mutant" X-men are cast distinctly as the "other," children and adults in a world that fear their potential. This role as "other" applied immediately to the civil rights movement with Professor Charles Xavier cast as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Eric Magnus "Magneto" Lensherr, a holocaust survivor and arch-villain to the X-Men, highlighted the presence of anti-Semitism in America in compelling twist on third Reich policy with his claim that "mutant-kind" are Homo superior. LGBT rights are also approached as many "mutants" live "in the closet," unless they are "outed" and, consequently, endangered.

The parallels do not stop there. The Marvel universe includes both real and fictional settings; Spider-man and the X-Men are New York super-heroes. As a result, the commentaries are immediate and poignant.

The 2006 Civil War story line, which ran across all of the Marvel Universe, casts all "powered" beings as threats or weapons to national security. Hence, every "powered" being — all heroes, all villains — were required to register their identities and powers with the government. Some heroes, including Reed Richards, Iron Man, and Spider-Man acquiesced and supported the movement. Others, including Captain America, fought against registration. This war story pitted friends and brothers, husbands and wives, against one another. In the end, it is left to the reader to decide what is right and wrong, and to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

Disney, too, can be held in high regard for storytelling. They manage to put together some of the best stories ever told. In one respect, however, there is a distinct difference between Disney and Marvel. Disney deals in absolutes. There are no gray regions. Much like Star Wars in the aforementioned lecture by Robert Sawyer, in Disney movies the bad guys wear black hats and the good guys always win. In the Marvel Universe, the lives of our heroes are pitted with Pyrrhic victories and heroes often die. Just ask Jean Grey.

Could Disney tell the Civil War story? Captain America goes against his own government; he fights against an enacted law, all on a matter of principle. Could Disney allow their characters to explore the gray regions of the human heart? A Wolverine bound to the pillars of amnesia and berserker fury. A Professor Xavier who loses the ability to control his power, creates Onslaught, and kills scores of innocents. Consider the following: Mom and Pop fight the influence of evil in their own teenage children in the sequel to the Incredibles. Further, with all of his powers, Jack-Jack, a toddler, is taken away by the government as too great a threat. Could Disney tackle the issues of contemporary America? Radical religious groups, private military security contracts for U.S. interests, and equal rights for all divisions of humanity are all hot-potatoes handled by Marvel and remain untouched by Disney.

Marvel is not just a plethora of "cool" characters with "awesome" powers that can be engineered to squeeze dollars out of a demographic that Disney has missed, 7 – 17 year-old boys. Marvel challenges us to confront our prejudices. Recent super-hero film adventures aside, this is what Marvel stands for and what Disney doesn't.

One last question. Could Disney give Jean Grey better death scenes than the two bungled by FOX?

Alone on Health Care

2009-08-22T11:06:00.003-04:00

There are many in America who would say that Declaration of Independence guarantees the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Health, these people would contend, is a possession and is to be pursued as an aspect of happiness. After 233 years, the Obama Administration cannot change this guarantee into the right to a healthy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They would contend that founding fathers knew what they were doing. Health, like happiness, must be pursued in the face of all stumbling blocks; be they environmental, divine, or corporate.

What the founding fathers could not have anticipated is the contemporary America in which life is lived. Massive corporations own, administer, or influence the conduct of all environments, hence all health and health care in America.

Massive corporations destroy, pollute, and otherwise corrupt every environment in which Americans and many other global populations live their lives. The natural environment is laced with pollution of the air, land, and water. Urban environments are choked with automotive industry exhaust and are powered by oil, gas, and energy companies. The food supply is, increasingly, under the influence of the same pharmaceutical and chemical corporations that hold sway in the health care industry. And, to top it all off, massive media conglomerates manage to engineer confusion and pollute the mental environment. This confusion, coupled to all of the other stresses of living an American life produce depression, manias, and obsessions that range from eating disorders to stalking to anti-social, destructive capitalism.

What is to be done?

Conservative forces declare that health care will work itself out on the open market. Competition will produce better solutions and those solutions must be rewarded with profits. They would say that the profits of the current health care industry currently provide the best health care in the world to Americans. Well, to some Americans. Government influence in health care will reproduce in America the kind of Socialism that Ronald Reagan defeated with the fall of the Soviets.

There is something more to be considered here, however. Several countries in the world have socialized, government-funded or government-regulated health care. These countries, with the exception of Canada in bits of cross-border comedy, were never stigmatized as being pinko-enemies-of-freedom. The close military relationships shared between England and America or the Republic of Korea and America, as just two examples, does not really point out that only one of these two partners, in each case, has universal health care for all of its citizens. As Tim Foley points out in his 09 March article entitled "Who are you calling a Socialist, Bub?" for change.org, at the fall of the Berlin Wall, only two of sixteen NATO nations were without universal health care for all of their citizens. The other one was Turkey.

Considering the global economic effects of unmasking the sub-prime mortgage bubble; wherein the banking, insurance, and accounting industries colluded to generate massive profits for the affluent and opportunistic while pushing the middle-class toward bankruptcy; a closer look at the possibility of collusion among pharmaceutical, hospital, and health insurance companies is probably warranted. There is good reason for people to call into question the need for so crucial a communal good as health care to be regulated by market influence and to be run for-profit.

Recognize that the debate regarding universal health care in America is no less earth shattering in America than the paradigm shift that saw the world become round. Echoes of McCarthyism and the Salem witch trials are here; mass-hysteria fueled with misinformation. The issues have reached a fever pitch because it concerns life and whether or not it is a fundamental right to live a healthy life. Perhaps the obvious question should be asked: Who stands to lose if the United States adopts universal health care?

Conservative voices declare: "Everyone!" The government will decide who lives and who dies. The elderly will be put to death en masse or be allowed to die slowly, painfully, and cheaply as possible. Children will receive worse health care than ever. Companies creating life-saving drugs will close their doors and move out of America due to insolvency, unable to compete on the cutting edge of research. If such a system is made actual — as opposed to existing only as the product of various worst-case scenarios — is there any indication that the system would be permitted to persist without change?

On the other hand, perhaps only heavily moneyed interests stand to lose. Those lobby groups paying for engineered disruptions of the discussion as a secure bet against what their employers stand to lose if health-care is made affordable under government influence. A healthy American population, out from under the constant influence of its insurers and the constant threat of expensive medical care, might pose a threat to its own national security. A vast and ascendant working class is certainly considered a threat, possibly a national security issue. Hence, the specter of Socialism is so often invoked.

Universal health care is enjoyed by Canada and eleven other nations of the Americas, seventeen nations in Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and virtually all of Europe. Here, among nations of means, America is going it alone.

Remember Sammy Jankis

2009-01-29T13:00:00.002-05:00

"Remember Sammy Jankis." -- Leonard Shelby, Memento

This is the latest in my parallels between film and the "real" world. A stretch no doubt, but a comparison that must be made nonetheless. Here goes...

Memento was a film about a man whose short term memory was lost forever. His only motive in life, vengeance. This exchange was uttered in the film between the principal character, Lenny (played by Guy Pearce) and Natalie (female lead, played by Carrie-Ann Moss).

N: "What's the last thing you do remember?"
L: "My wife..."
N: "That's sweet."
L: "... dying."

Here, Leonard is a man split in two. The Leonard before and the Leonard after the vicious attack that stole his memory. But it is not his story that I wish to draw as a parallel. It is the story that he tells — the story of Sammy Jankis.

Sammy, the experiential predecessor to Leonard, also lost his ability to form new memories in an accident. After a great deal of testing — and under the influence from the insurance company for which he works — it is Leonard who denies the claim made by Mr. and Mrs. Jankis that his condition is real. It is Leonard, claiming to be no fool, that says that the condition cannot be proven to be true, therefore it must be false.

In despair, Mrs. Jankis formulates a final test for her ailing husband and the insurance company; a fool-proof test. She is a diabetic and the memory of the complex process of administering her insulin injection is a memory that Sammy retains from before his accident. She tests his ability to remember whether or not he has given her the medication by resetting her watch and instructing him to deliver a shot each time. She hopes he will remember. It is her ardent hope.

Here, too, Sammy is split in two. There is the Sammy that remembers how to administer insulin and all of his life before that, and there is the Sammy that doesn't remember the immediate past. These two pieces of a man are examples of the pieces of man that are the Palestinians and the Israelis. The Palestinians are the old Sammy, remembering a past they hold dear and will do anything to hold on to. The Israelis are the damaged Sammy, short of memory, even their own.

Mrs. Jankis is the land of Palestine, now Israel. Both manifestations of Sammy believe that they are doing what is best for her. Both manifestations of Sammy claim marriage to her. Both manifestations of Sammy love and want to protect her from death. Yet, both manifestations of Sammy are responsible for her destruction. That the old Sammy, the Palestinians, would use dangerous medicines to fight for her to live, and that damaged Sammy, the Israelis, would do the same but remember and be concerned with only the ends but not the means is the tragedy here. The same blood, the same conviction, the same purpose unties them. Yet, their identities divide them.

The Jewish state of Israel asserts its independence amid the land of Palestine, won by the declaration of a colonial power. The damage done to the Jewish people in the Holocaust reminds and strengthens the resolve they have to secure Israel and to have it persist in this world.

This world, the world which followed the establishment of the United Nations, does not recognize states won by colonization or by force of arms. Israel is the last state commanded into existence by a foreign power. It has been said that the guilt borne by Great Britain and other western democracies has made this so. This command came before the existence of the UN. The authority of the United Nations cannot reach retroactively to a time before its existence.

If it did, one could argue that Canadians, Americans, and Australians would be required to return ownership of the North American continent to its aboriginal people. On the other hand, nations such as Bolivia and Venezuela have take great strides toward equalizing the power held by indigenous and colonial populations. So, too have Canada, Australia, and New Zealand taken great strides toward recognizing the rights of indigenous people.

The plight of Palestinians, however, is markedly different. Palestinians are not simply the indigenous people of Palestine. They, as do many other denominations including Jews, claim spiritual heritage to Palestine and, notably Jerusalem. Unlike others, they are ghettoized in much the same manner that, well, Jews were in Poland under the Nazis. They are terrorized and their property taken in much the same way as, well, Jews were in Germany during the rise of Fascism. It is in this manner that Israelis are damaged, forgetting their own history, consequently destroying the land and the people — who are a reflection of their past selves.

The final test, then, formulated by the land of Palestine is to determine whether or not fundamentalists of the world can permit one another to exist at a place that will, one day, be termed ground zero Jerusalem. To test us, the post-Victorian, ideal Western world (the faceless insurance company in Memento), in our resolve to be satisfied that this conflict will resolve itself and needs no immediate or lasting attention. And, to test the Lord Balfour's (Leonard's) authority in making the decision that set this whole affair in progress. Each injection of the violent cure —manitfest as warfare and resistance — is yet another blow to the land of Palestine.

Ask an Israeli, ask a Palestinian, "What's the last thing you do remember?" The response from either side could be, "My life... dying."

Remember, Remember

2008-11-03T12:04:00.003-05:00

So it is that I am not very concerned about the events to come of Wednesday, November the Fifth. Any time I pause to contemplate that date, I have to sing back to myself the old rhyme: "Remember, remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot." It is, after all, going to be the fifth of November at around 3 pm local (GMT +9) time that the "results" of the "election" in America will be announced. What will happen? What, indeed.

The gunpowder treason. I think of it as an attempt by an individual to speak truth to power in a way that has persisted as being impossible. Actions speak louder than words and, had the British Parliament been blown up that day in November of 1611 (I'm guessing? Oops, wrong, 1605), the world would truly never have forgotten. Now, it is a catch-phrase from a Natalie Portman movie, from a graphic novel (V for Vendetta), and only to those who've seen fit to remember it, from British history.

What actions have been undertaken since that time to reconcile the vast imbalance. Few that have stuck. Yet now, against a great many odds, the world hopes that a single election will turn the tide, that Barack Obama will make good on the promise that has held him aloft for so many months. That despite the collapse of the economy, despite racial tensions and whisperings of assassination, despite the slander and libel perpetrated against him, despite his youth and "inexperience," despite voting machines that tend to favor the powerful and influential, despite his celebrity status, despite a disastrous legacy to be handed to the next President, he will win this election and help to remake the world. To remake it stronger, fairer, and safer. Can one man do this? I have my doubts.

The gunpowder treason. Much like the other acts of violence, acts of terrorism, acts of an absolute nature, it could not remake the future in the eyes of all. It could only serve as a call-to-arms, an alarm call, a siren, a warning light. It could only motivate others to think for themselves on the underlying issues. It can only serve to set principles for further action. As with other acts of an absolute nature, it is the effect that it has on the population at which it is aimed that matters most. The power against which the act is aimed will do everything possible, and often succeed, to entrench itself further.

What if no-one responds? What if nothing changes?

It is up to the people. This election is as much a popularity contest as any other. Should he be elected, it is still up to the American people, their allies and friends, to fulfill the mandate he sets. It is up to him to fulfill the mandate set by the people who helped him to be elected. Should he be elected, he will preside alongside countless others, now not standing head-and-shoulders above the rest of the world, but, in accordance with his perspective among the other nations. Shoulder-to-shoulder with them. Does this equate to a fall in prestige? Does this do harm to the image of America? Certainly. But the damage has been done already. Afghanistan. Iraq. Corruption in public offices. Withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions. Guantanamo Bay. Extraordinary Rendition. Black Sites. Abu Ghraib. Hurricane Katrina. Predatory lending practices. The Mortgage bubble. The Housing bubble. Oil prices. Mounting national debt. A failing Global War on Terror. Emboldening of strong-man politics. A resurgence of the Cold War. It goes on.

It is up to the people. The people must follow through. They must demand what is possible. Better yet, the people must demand what is deemed impossible. Impossible to go away from fossil fuels? Impossible to rebuild the energy grid from the ground up for renewable energy resources? Impossible for universal health care to exist in the United States? Impossible to withdraw from Iraq without inviting retaliatory strikes? Impossible to heal the wounds of poverty, malnutrition, and strife that make ripe the ground for new enemies to grow? All impossible? No, not impossible. Just unlikely. It is for people — not one person — to undertake and to understand. It is for people to make possible.

It often starts with a single person. A beacon for others to attune themselves to. One would hope that such an extraordinary person as Obama is would signal such immense new possibility. A scholar and teacher, a visible minority in a nation with slavery at its foundation, an intellectual, a student of history. What more can be asked for in a guide?

"Pacify... and see its evolution"

2008-10-03T04:39:00.003-04:00

'"I think that's wise. One of the things I disagree with some other Western leaders is that our plan can be somehow to stay in Afghanistan militarily indefinitely," he said during a televised election campaign debate.

'"If we are to truly pacify that country and see its evolution [added bold], we have to train the Afghan army and police so that they are credibly able to take greater responsibility for their own security ... we won't achieve such a target unless we actually set a deadline and work to meet it."'

— Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada

What the West wants it has not achieved in Afghanistan or Iraq. They have not won the ideological war.

What the Western powers want is a "democratic," economic-authoritarian state raised in the middle East. The ideology of the "American-style" free market must prevail and be open to Western interests. This, say NATO and US leaders, is to benefit the lives of people in the Caucasus, Persia, and Arabia — at least in their hearts and minds. To achieve this, America has, some say, provoked two wars, is spoiling to start a third, and has resurrected the Great Bear of Cold War Russia. Not to mention entanglements with Venezuela, Cuba, China, and most of the global system of finance. At the helm of this embattled ship: a neo-Conservative lot of miscreants, power-hungry warmongers, and slick lawyers, accountants, and economists. They who have looted, pillaged, and killed for profit still lead the nation.

The West still leads the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The mission to Afghanistan was to rout terrorist camps, remove the government that supports them (read: execute regime change), and to shift the ideology of the nation to one fundamentally benefitting the global economic system (read: stimulate the US economy). In this respect, two out of three is pretty F'ing horrible. That crucial third step can NOT be achieved with armed forces and can NOT be achieved by training the Afghan army to do the bidding of the West and secure their interests. It can, however, be achieved by brainwashing, torture, and the occasional provocation.

Hence, there can be no said date for the achievement of the objectives of these wars.

The United States, in case you haven't heard, is in the middle of an economic crisis. At $12B per month, the expenses of the war are mounting quickly. Put another way, that $700B (or is it $850B?) bail-out of the criminally-irresponsible yet unregulated banking system — an aforementioned "crisis" that has slowed the frenetic pace of global commerce even for the moment — is the same as "bailing out" the Iraq War every day for three years. Four years and ten months in the case of the $850B estimate.

The Iraq War and the greater War on Terror bleeds the American segment of the US economy even as it stabs itself repeatedly. America relies on debt as the engine of growth. This set-up requires Now, to ensure that the global economy continues to service the needs of the world’s largest consumers, the federal government seeks to nationalize the debts of private companies. This, so that the wars can continue to sap the economic strength of the nation and so Americans can continue to spend into oblivion.

Canada has committed to withdrawing the 2500 troops currently serving in Afghanistan by the end of 2011, completing nearly ten years of Canadian military service there. Funds are to be redirected to peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. It is conceivable that peacekeepers and reconstruction efforts could cease in the event of withdrawal. Also, Canada may lose the spoils of war if the mission is not regarded successful. These spoils include trade agreements, treaties, and other actual and potential market considerations.

Further, to believe that techniques and tactics employed by the most powerful armies known to the world as successful in the suppression of violent opposition to the invasions is ludicrous.

Training an army, a police force, a government, and a society to behave as they would if they were "just a little more like yourself" is monstrous. It is social engineering. As policy, it is pacification. Undermining the way of life of a nation's people and consequently subjecting them to the blowback of extremism inherent in any human society, is inhumanity. As policy, it is collateral damage. Taking revenge on those deemed responsible for your suffering is human nature. As policy, it is the Bush Doctrine.

The leadership of the Western world is certainly questionable.

The current "crisis" in global finance is just another example of the failed leadership of Washington. The best and the brightest, elected leaders, and those who vie for the highest office, not only abetted the engineering of this situation, but plan to end the "crisis" in this fashion. They want the chain of bad debts being bought by an ever-increasing chain of dupes to end with the taxpayers. Something tells me that this was the plan all along.

And the failures of the West to maintain solid leadership in something as important as economy can be viewed as an indicator of the leadership shown in other affairs. Military, social, and justice issues have been raised in virtually every corner of the guiding systems of government and commerce.

Perhaps the actions of our enemy should be re-evaluated.

o Now that it is widely known that the invasion of Iraq was initiated by lies.

o Now that Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and numerous "Black Sites" are known to be American gulags.

o Now that Immigration officials within the United States have opened concentration camps.

o Now that we have questioned the depths of corruption plumbed by those in power.

o Now that you are being spied on and don't generally spend any time outside.

o Now that everyone is good and scared.

o Now that many more people are listening and not just hearing.

Now, we get this from Canada’s PM: "If we are to truly pacify that country and see its evolution, we have to train the Afghan army and police so they are credibly able to take greater responsibility for their security,"

Or, "If we are to break their wills and make 'em better than we thought they were, we have to tell the Afghan army and police all the stuff we want 'em to do so they can do it our way to ensure US (and NATO) the protection racket is in place."

This is not being achieved. There are few strategies to achieve this. All of them are ugly. A new approach is needed in Afghanistan. Afghans want to choose their own future. As do Canadians. With words like these, a new approach is needed in Canada as well. Otherwise, we may have to start asking ourselves some tough questions. What does it mean to pacify a state in our world? And what would an evolved Afghanistan be?

What happens when the Chinese stop footing the bill for America’s excesses?

Tariq Ali on Pakistan

2008-09-17T09:39:00.002-04:00

On reading these words from the eminent writer and historian Tariq Ali, I say this: Not good. This is not good.

Yes. The BA (Bush Administration) may want Osama bin Laden pretty bad. So bad, they can taste it. And, yes, it has been an election issue — to invade er.. raid Pakistan or not to invade er.. raid. As this article says, the candidates are aligned on going in so it became policy. The twist is, as I see it, the BA waited for Pervez Musharraf to relinquish his command of the military, to be forced out of the Presidency, and for Benazir Bhutto to be dead before beginning this incursion. A weaker Pakistan is possibly a more dangerous Pakistan.

Swindle?

2008-06-28T22:35:00.001-04:00

At the outset, I ought to give my reasons for holding suspect any that deny global warming is both caused by humans and is a great threat to all life on Earth. In the broadest of terms, an outline of my objections. More details will be made clear in analyzing the film.

First, no natural system, alone, can account for the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is put forward in the film that the massive increase of atmospheric CO2 is the result of oceanic release and other such natural sources. Certainly, the amount of atmospheric CO2 has drastically increased with the release of gases trapped beneath the melting polar ice caps. These “natural” carbon sources are, however, affected by the actions of humans. Humans have simultaneously amplified the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and undercut natural carbon sinks, ensuring that once the CO2 is in the atmosphere is there, it stays there. By upsetting a natural balance, no matter how small a “drop in the ocean” it appears, the record shows that this period of history is different than any other. This is the greatest aspect supporting anthropogenic global warming.

Second, humanity has never before been so widespread, nor as large a population on the face of the earth. Warming is melting the polar ice sheets and is causing a change in ocean levels. Any shift in ocean levels will have a catastrophic effect on low-lying areas and the people living there. Those who cannot move and do not have the economic or technological capacity to build dikes or levees to hold back the flood will suffer. The United Nations Security Council, among other world government and non-government bodies, has both reported on and resolved to address security issues surrounding climate change. Security issues range from environmental refugees to natural disaster response to changes in food harvest quantities. Further, conflicts arising from displaced populations, destroyed infrastructure, and shrinking food supply for a growing population must also be addressed.

Any change in global temperature will produce a consequent change in insect and animal populations. Bacteria and viruses that move with these vectors will also shift. Consequently, any who cannot afford extermination of the animals or vaccination against the diseases, will suffer immensely and in unpredictable ways. Never before have diseases been induced to be so resilient and survivable in the face of modern medicine. To add to the mix environmental resilience is to elevate any threat posed by these organisms, ranging from nuisance to deadly.

Third, living systems thrive on internal stability. The biological principle is called homeostasis. It follows, then, that aggregates of living systems thrive best in an internally stable system. Further, because of its sheer size, the worldwide aggregate of living systems is much more tightly balanced and does not undergo radical shifts. It wasn't until well into the industrial age that this global aggregate of living systems was called the biosphere.

Now, as it has ever been termed, it’s "our world." The biosphere is seen to be undergoing a radical shift, the increase of atmospheric CO2 coupled to warming, the stability once enjoyed by all life is spinning away. Our world can be exploited in any way, shape, or form we choose as long as we own it. The problem is, we, humans, don't own the world, we share it with everything else that happens to live or exist here and only here. As such, the human capacity to manipulate the world must be guided very carefully.

The present scenario, coupling warming to CO2 level increase is not mentioned in the film. Instead, the film mentions an eight hundred year lag between cause, warming, and effect, increased CO2. It does not address the logical conclusion, whatever increase in atmospheric CO2 we experience now as a product of the last warming, eight hundred years from now we can expect another spike.

This film addresses the climate change with the same sense of immediacy that justifies violence: the ends justify the means. It applies the false rationale that we can put off the concerns of the future for gains now. Burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is not really that bad because we can do more with the present systems in place. Warmer climate, in past examples, is a signpost of prosperity – at least in the parts of the world that matter. Traditional economic and industrial development are the high-held ideals for the underprivileged nations of Africa, but parts of the world such as South Asia, the Pacific Islands, Central and South America – those most likely to suffer – go unaddressed.

People talk about their concerns. This film argues that environmentalism is so "politically-charged" that it overarches all other considerations. This is a straw-man argument, at best. It sets up environmental concerns as valueless and the attacks the value of discussing the environment. Further, it casts the establishment – the top 20% in the global economy – as victims. It virtually denies that the side opposite, the side that disbelieves or actively discredits anthropogenic climate change is represented at all in the media.

I'm confused. General Electric is the world's most powerful company and is, itself, a multimedia empire without peer. Energy corporations advertise with, and hold stock in, every major media outlet in the world. These corporations hold massive influence over the messages that media outlets relate to the public. It is this way that popular public opinion is shaped. If environmentalism is, as the film asserts, simply a political hot-potato utilized to win elections and public support; if scientists have been, as the film asserts, lying for financial gain; why continue the charade? Does it still make sense to be very, very concerned about climate change?

True things ring true. The unexamined life is not worth living. The environment is where all things live and struggle for life. We live in an age of air quality and ground-level ozone measurements, smog, and associated health disorders. Pollutants other than carbon dioxide being injected into the environment must be looked at. Human food production is an industrial enterprise and the environment bears the impact of feeding 6.7 billion people daily. Failing crops and soil depletion must be considered. Food, resources, and other products are transported all across the world at great environmental impact. Wars are fought for resources and, soon, food scarcity might be cause for war. The wars that are fought over control for the world's resources, whether fought on desert sands or in corporate boardrooms or in houses of national assembly, must be observed endlessly. Explosives and logistics of warfare exact both an environmental and human toll. It must be debated. Therefore, the environment, for better or for worse, will always be a political issue.

This film attacks the veracity of environmental science and, consequently, the veracity of the environmental movement for political change. The film supports the current global environmental policy – plunder at will. Use, exploit, cheat, deny, and sell for profit. As a policy, there is no room for growth or change. Most notably, there is no room for responsibility. To accept, to any degree, that human activity has any impact on the environment is repugnant to the policy in place. This film lends weak justification to this policy.

Impeach

2008-06-23T14:50:00.002-04:00

Once, the notion of an impeachment of President George W. Bush was coupled to the assertion, “we just don’t like you very much.” It was like a schoolyard popularity contest or, in a more contemporary context, a reality-TV show, “voted-off-the island” exercise. Mistakes, missteps, or misspoken moments clustered like clouds, dogging a young Administration. Even in the wake of national tragedy and national emergencies, forever tied to two elections of questionable veracity, the leadership of the chief executive of the United States and his enclave of advisers clung to, and was shored up by, unrepentant nationalism for strength. Impeachment, regardless of the transgression or crime, was not to be considered. It would, in fact, be treasonous and Anti-American to consider it at “such a time” and it is not to be considered. Now, seven years later, impeachment isn’t about popularity any longer.

In the light of the awesome power wielded by the executive branch of government at present, impeachment could be seen as a vestige of a by-gone form of democracy. The legal team that has produced such hits as circumvention of the Geneva conventions and the co-option of the justice department, certainly they could find some means to have the President veto his own impeachment – should it come to pass. Perhaps, with some sub-Herculean effort and using the precedent of emergency established by Franklin Roosevelt during World War II, the Bush Administration could force a third term.

Impeachment, this late into his second term would also be deemed useless or token in application. As unpopular as the notion was from 2001 to 2004, when his approval ratings were much higher than they are in 2008, the inertia and punditry of the last four years have kept the notion of impeachment unpopular. A great deal of damage has been done to the prestige of the office under the watch of this Administration and, damage having been done, the removal of Bush from office by impeachment could be called many things; spiteful, desperate, vindictive, or a simple exercise in futility. Bi-partisan support will be difficult to achieve as so many politicians rely one on the other for their political careers. Taking a shot at the chief could be political suicide. Fortunately, America -- unlike Zimbabwe -- is a place where political life and life itself are not inextricably linked. Or is it?

The unpopularity of impeachment proceedings in the Congress and the Senate, regardless of the fact that they are elected representatives of the people’s will, is partially because it is they who must undertake this particularly arduous task. All politicians, all of their connections and interconnections in a particularly dark chapter of American history, could be laid bare in this search for “truth.” Every decision and vote subjected to scrutiny, every statement and communication to be filtered. The first six years of the Administration, under examination, would belie the sickness in modern American government. It would relate the degree of control asserted by the White House and over autonomous entities such as the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and – before November 2006 – Congress. How deep did the hooks sink? How tight were the screws? Since all politics is a continuum, selfish interests could pollute the impeachment process. Thus, the exercise would be long, drawn-out and, in the end, would signify nothing without zealous pursuit of the elusive “truth.” In this light, an impeachment will achieve nothing that “running out the clock” will not achieve on its own.

***

Things, for some, have changed. The passage of time under the Administration has uncovered more of the ills done to, and in the name of, America. With this knowledge, and in the light that there are a great many things the Administration sought to keep secret, a call – courageously – has been raised for the decision-makers to account and take responsibility for their actions.

An age of twenty-four hour news stations and reality TV shows makes public awareness susceptible to only the punchiest of events. Nuanced discussion, complete information, and rational discussion were once the domain of politics and journalism. Now, screaming fanatics of all stripes dominate the discussion. Sound bites guide the opinions of the body politic. It is now, with change clearly at the forefront of all discussions, that the flow of information must become clearer, more nuanced, and, above all, complete. With the fate of the longest democratic experiment in history in the balance, the fate of “a government by the people, of the people, and for the people,” an informed people must be at its core; not the current nation of children, overworked and underpaid and scared to death, protected by Big Brother. Calling Big Brother to account, to hold him responsible for what he does in the name of the country, runs counter to the zeitgeist.

What is to be achieved in proceeding with impeachment?

The thirty-five articles of impeachment sent to committee by Dennis Kucinich outline the most grievous errors and miscarriages of executive power, arguably, in American history. Calling the President to account for the actions of he and his advisors for these actions is the first key achievement of the impeachment proceeding.

To date, the Bush Administration and President George W. Bush, himself, have avoided or deflected all accountability in any of the questionable goings-on of the present government. Most notably, faulty intelligence on weapons-of-mass-destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, led the propaganda campaign against, criminal invasion of, war of aggression against, and occupation of Iraq. Linked, the identity leak of Valerie Plame and perjury indictment, conviction, and Presidential grant of clemency for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Also linked are exercises of extraordinary rendition, illegal detention, and torture at prisons – both public and secret – under the auspice of a permanent emergency. Further are charges of surveillance on American citizens, suspension of constitutional freedoms, enactment of secret laws, and reckless endangerment of human lives in New York, New Orleans, and all civilians Afghanistan and Iraq. For all of this, the leaders of America must account.

Secondly, the response to these charges must be open to the public. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot continue to operate in hall of mirrors in a shroud of secrecy. The cries of “national security” and “executive privilege” do not trump the call to account of the people who installed these people in power. Arguably, men and women the likes of George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice are not elected to power. They are powerful and, as a result, are candidates for higher offices. The assumption of public office carries a heavy responsibility, accountability to the public. It is this central tenet of representative democracy that is most clearly forgotten by the Bush Administration. An impeachment proceeding can reassert, definitively, that it is the people form the government and not the government that shapes the people.

Thirdly, the actions of the Bush Administration as captured in the lens of history cannot go uncontested by an American notion of justice. It is of great disservice to American history and American identity to have these actions pass unexamined through the corridors of history and the halls of justice. Investigations into the Valerie Plame affair have been stunted for four years. An investigation into the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys has been blocked for two years. Investigations into the interference with the duties of Environmental Protection Agency are presently being blocked. Investigations of torture practices have been underway since Alberto Gonzales’s January 2002 memo suggested America “opt-out” of the Geneva Conventions.

Repeatedly, President Bush and his lieutenants have related, “history will judge” the actions of this Administration “favorably.” This sentiment, recorded for all history, is held within the enclave of power. Others rarely have an historic say. Ask the mothers, fathers, and families of all the dead, wounded, or suicidal Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Ask the populations of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon about the destabilizing force that the occupations have caused. While the actions of “insurgents” or “extremists” dominate the discourse, the voiceless hold no sway. The bigger the lie, the more it must be repeated to be believed and to hold amid the tide history.

People the world over question the foreign policies of the American government as, one way or the other; America addresses the world by this foreign policy. In the eyes of the global community, and in the light the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, what won’t America do to secure “national security” interests? All of the decisions stem from guidance of the people at the top of the chain of command. As a result, to examine the decisions made, closely and publicly, can only serve to reassure the world that there is an internal check on a virtually limitless power.

All too often, this shock and awe of limitless power applied reaches past its targets and into the lives of those it purports to protect and serve. Collateral damage and friendly fire are the common terms applied. In the contemporary frame, particularly in Iraq, a third term is becoming commonplace, contract collateral damage or contract friendly fire. Fortunately for the contractors in Iraq, they are granted immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law and are not subject to oversight by American law. It is left to the contract company to sort out the details and, if need be, punish an offender. The havoc inflicted by security contractors – properly, merchants of death – affects the relations between occupiers and subjects of occupation. Subcontracting “security,” a blurry line between a private business enterprise and a military enterprise in Iraq, is wholly endorsed by the Administration and is given tacit approval in the application American foreign policy. In the eyes of those subject to this “thug life” approach to foreign relations, private business interests have supplanted America’s armed forces and America’s armed forces have supplanted diplomacy. It is for the sake of these many eyes, the subjects at the point of a mighty sword, that America must reassert control. This, now, can be achieved only in impeachment. Calling to account, under the law, the actions of those most responsible is the only recourse of a desperate time.

In other nations, at other desperate times, when powerful people have been called to account for their actions, the cases have been remanded to the responsibility of special tribunals such as the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice. Those thinking themselves above the law, those who engaged in heinous actions – war crimes, crimes against humanity, the crime of aggression or genocide – can be so remanded. What, then, of Iraq? A war, arguably a war of aggression, was manufactured under false pretense. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died violently as a direct result of the invasion and occupation. Torture, secret prisons, and war crimes have all resulted as a direct result of decisions made at the top. The application of impeachment proceedings against those responsible for these decisions and their consequences is a viable means of addressing these offenses. Certainly, the International Criminal Court will never assume jurisdiction, as the United States one of only seven nations that declined to be signatory to the Rome Statute.

Even amid the nationalistic fervor of the early years of his Presidency, questions about Bush’s ability to lead the nation within the bounds of his office surfaced. The power of the Republican party and its friends in corporate and finance circles quelled the dissent and, instead, focused on the march to war in Iraq. Impeachment, Cassandrically advocated by Ramsay Clark in January 2003 invoking the shades of things to come, can examine the workings of the dark corners of the Administration. Now, as the scale of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” of this Administration are being brought to light, some measure of justice must be applied.

Even now as a war on Terror appears to be less and less in the interest of “national security” and more in the interest of profit security, decisions made in the Oval Office and in the tight circle about it march the nation toward its fourth armed conflict in seven years. Following Afghanistan, Iraq, and material support for the 2006 violence in Lebanon, Iran appears to fertile ground for military diplomacy. At any time the bi-directional sabre-rattling could prove a powder keg.

For all of this, even if President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard B. Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were to be impeached in the period between today and the 2008 general election on November 6, or in the period between the election and inauguration day 20 January 2009, it will reaffirm that the function of Congress as a check and balance of the American government is firmly in place. Even if none of these people are found guilty for their actions, the democratic action will, at the very least, have been undertaken and the light of truth shone in the darkest of corners. This, at the very least, for the sake of a honest history.

The exercise of impeachment is far from futile. It is an exercise of a democracy. It is a search for truth. For all the mentions of “blowback,” a disconnection of cause and effect, it is certainly time that an exercise of justice be blown back to the secret keepers and the untouchables.

Upshift

2008-06-17T14:53:00.002-04:00

Upshift

Inspired by an article that reflects on the works of two authors who -- independently -- assert that contemporary capitalism is the source of many of the world's woes and ills, I'm struck by a certain inconsistency of argument.

While I agree with this:

"Speth calls for a rejection of the necessity of constant economic growth - a central tenet of capitalism. He calls, instead, for policies that 'strengthen families and communities,' 'measures that guarantee good, well-paying jobs,' 'measures that give us more time for leisure, informal education, the arts, music, drama, sports, hobbies, volunteering, community work, outdoor work ...,' 'measures that give everyone a good education,' and more. (p. 145)"

and this:

"He rejects 'consumerism and commercialism.' Instead, 'Confront consumerism. Practice sufficiency. Work less. Reclaim your time -- it's all you have. Turn off technology. Join No Shopping Day. Buy nothing! Simplify your life. Shed possessions.'(p. 163)"

I disagree with this single term: "'Downshift.'"

Downshift.

When I think of a car -- an apt metaphor and symbol of capitalism, consumerism, economy, and all the rest -- and down-shifting, I think of waste. The car as slows in speed, it burns much more fuel and wastes much more of its energy. A downshift slows the vehicle as it strains to maintain speed in a lower gear. It is for these reasons that politicians and economists, with all the power and authority they wield, warn against any shift away from constant economic growth or away from a fossil-fuel based economy. A downshift undoes what has been done, it reverses progress.

Think of the necessary shift in capitalism and general human conduct as an upshift. By engaging a whole new range of thoughts, conducts, practices, and all the rest, humanity can travel along at a much faster speed on the same energy spent. Truly, it is humanity at a lower gear ratio. For many reasons, as people -- now captives of an antiquate and dying economy -- adjust to any shift made, some of what we now take for granted will fade. Some things such as immediacy -- the instantaneous satisfaction of modern-world desire. Some things such as novelty products -- the "fad" factor that feeds so many empty desires and so, too, the economy. Some things such as convenience -- the 5 000 km salad and the winter pineapple in Canada will become less possible. Essentially, from shining brilliance of our white-hot "enlightenment," the endeavours of human societies will turn to rely on less energy and require it to do more. Here, there is the possibility for real growth, renewal, and rejuvenation.

To date, humanity assumes the undertaking of many shifts over time. From the stone age to the ages of metals such as bronze and iron, from small communities to large nations and international associations, from subsistence growth and local production to factory-farming and industrial mass-production. For all of these shifts, humanity has made only one great shift -- from existence subject to nature, to command over it. The necessary shift, now, is to make the most of what is left; to make the most of what humanity has attained as a species; what humans have experienced, learned, exploited, and become. The next shift must be from command and conquer to symbiosis. It is this shift that everything humans have ever uncovered about the natural world and the universe beyond must achieve.

In order to remain relevant in this universe, in order to merely survive against the abundantly obvious human trait of self-destruction, humans must overcome our own hubris. Humans are no longer a large gear at the center of a small system, but a tiny gear of fleeting existence in a virtually infinite system.

An upshift utilizes the inertia of the moving object, a vast swell of kinetic [moving] energy, and applies it to a more efficient gear. The same energy applied achieves more work in less time. There is the threat, that this upshift could stall the vehicle of human endeavour. Misunderstanding, resistance, and rejection are all possible forestalling factors. Like any smooth shift of an automobile transmission, the transition from one gear to the next must be gradual and controlled by a clutch. The clutch, the go-between of two spinning entities, is essential to prevent a fatal stall. In the human world, the clutch is free and open communication of ideas. It is for this reason that the upshift is one mediated by information. The more information is made freely available, and the more information is shared, the easier it is to maintain inertia and effect a smooth transition. Here, too, the current model of economics and policy fails. It thrives on secrecy and the control of information and opinion.

Humanity can NOT walk the current path. The path that renews old technologies such as "Clean Coal," reinvents contemporary technology such as is exhibited in Alberta's oilsands projects, or that reassures investors that $140 per barrel does not significantly effect the conduct of business as usual. The path that extracts non-renewable resources, processes them into non-biodegradable, novel chemical products, and redeposits them into landfill sites once used up. The path that binds global profitability closely to military contracts, government corruption, or the deception, coercion, or outright bullying of the general public and their opinions. The path that reinforces ignorance as virtue yet utilizes mass ignorance to benefit the few and the wealthy. This is the path that has led us to all our current crises.

Other problems yet remain in the human condition. A shift in the conduct of business and energy policy will not quench the human condition of its taste for conflict and confrontation. It will not guarantee gender or racial or socioeconomic equality the world over. It will, however, grant us the time to address these and other issues that sorely need addressing. Instead of worrying about how long the lights will stay on or how much we must work to pay for it, we can afford to discuss politics, human rights, and the plight of others. Instead of enduring occupations for the favor preoccupations, all people can reclaim the dignity of choosing for themselves.

Monsanto - Part II

2008-06-17T14:01:00.000-04:00

Previously mentioned, the chemical giant Monsanto has created several varieties of genetically engineered -- transgenic -- crops and plans to introduce several if not dozens more that span all major cash crops. This is good business practice, as people will never stop having to be fed. Furthermore, the more of the market that Monsanto owns, the better a position it will be in to maximize its profits.

There are two significant mechanisms to consider. The first deals with the practices of Monsanto as a corporation. The second pertains to nature itself.

Monsanto must protect the profitability of its products. The company can't have people growing their transgenic crops without paying for them year in and year out. To control this, Monsanto requires farmers to sign a binding agreement against collecting seed -- seed that the plants naturally produce -- to secure and maximize annual sales. Of course the company can't be blamed, this is just good business practice. Monsanto, however takes the process a few steps farther.

In places such as India, Monsanto has bought up the majority of seed sellers to drive any possible competition out of existence, supplanting them with its own supply of seed at a significantly higher price. That there is so little natural seed further secures the capacity for Monsanto to maximize its market penetration.

The transgenic crops are, also, not guaranteed against diseases. When compared to non-transgene varieties, the Monsanto product is found to be susceptible to various kinds of plant cancers and infections. Cotton plants in India have been found to have a disease incidence rate notably higher than that measured in non-transgenic varieties. This may be the result of a misunderstanding of the manner in which the plant interacts with its environment, thus the transgene is doing more harm than good. Genetic engineering is, after all, only as smart as its engineers.

To further secure its bets against rivals, Monsanto has added nothing to its transgenic crops to prevent them from pollinating naturally-occurring varieties this tightening the grip of the Monsanto product and expanding its prevalence in all manners of growth. It is unclear whether or not Monsanto lays claim to crops pollinated and grown with their proprietary genes by accident. One thing is for certain, they do not lay claim to plants wherein natural mutations arise and shift the location of the transgenic strand of DNA producing monstrous results. Certainly, the crafty lawyers at Monsanto lay claim only to plants with an intact transgene and with the transgene in its engineered position.

The emergent properties of transgenic species remain under- or undocumented, as the capacity to engineer these species is new. Whether or not a spliced transgene will mutate to produce problematic traits is completely unknown and completely possible. Also possible, but much less likely, is the production of beneficent emergent qualities from mutations. This is less likely in transgenic, man-made, organisms because beneficent mutations themselves are rare. DNA alien to the organism that nature never saw fit to introduce is much more likely to create the conditions that are hallmark to other uncontrolled DNA insertions, most notably the inactivation or amplification of genes resulting in cancers. Organisms have usually developed the means to correct genetic errors, however, the insertion of a gene or genes from other species can supersede the cellular mechanism for such corrections.

Novel products, those that never existed before human ingenuity, have had a virtually perfect record of destructive environmental effects and persistence in the environment. This is a lesson that should have been learnt with petrochemistry. The pseudo-alchemy that is the petrochemicals industry has generated many things that have been warned against since antiquity as pursuits of magic. Should the chemists be burned at the stake as "wizards" the way witches were in days of old? Nope, they've got better lawyers, so we loyal subjects can't. Further, we must eat what they give us. This is in much the same manner that the petroleum and petrochemical industries tax generations not-yet-born with environmental sins of the present; non-biodegradable waste products, reliance on fossil-fuel energy, and pollution of the air, sea, and earth.

This is what will come of this situation, left unchecked: massive influence a corporate giant will buy up the rights to all crops. All farmers on all continents will have no option but to go to Monsanto for their seed. Seed collection, a practice from antiquity, from the beginning of agriculture itself, will be signed away as a quaint but unrealistic ideal given contemporary realities. RoundUp will never be made obsolete, as it is the institutional herbicide. The pollination process will spread transgenes into unexploited quarters. Monsanto will feed, thus control, the world.

Sounds unreasonable? Well, consider the current food shortage crises met by several countries, non-governmental organizations, and the United Nations Food Program. There is civil unrest in relatively stable countries because of rising food costs or simple food shortages. On the list of affected regions and countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Latin America, Mozambique, Pakistan, Myanmar, Philippines, Russia, Senegal, Somalia, North America, and Yemen.

Men with guns are beginning to take control of what remains, as has been done with oil supplies. The dire consequences of floods in Iowa are reverberating on corn and soy markets the world over. Further, the impact of lost corn grown for the purposes of ethanol extraction affects the "green fuel" movement. Food is the next resource to be deemed a matter of "national security" by nations around the world. This leaves only the most basic resource, water. If the Cochabamba Protests in Bolivia are any indication, a move to privatize water will be met with the fiercest public opposition.

Corporations, hardly stewards of the public good, are being given the keys to the survival of humanity. Bechtel was ousted from Cochabamba in 2000 when their IMF-mandated water privatization scheme failed. A response to claiming exclusive rights to food, whether by genetic engineering and economic influences or by brute force as exampled in Myanmar and elsewhere, must be as vehement as that of the Bolivians. However, such a response will not be seen until the needs of the influential are not being met. For now, it is only the weakest, the poorest, and the invisible that lead the charge. It is they that see the problems, act against them, and suffer our indifferent ability to feed corporate coffers in buying temporary solutions.

Monsanto - Part I

2008-06-17T14:00:00.001-04:00

*** This is a review of the documentary film, "The World According to Monsanto."

They are the death dealers.

Since 1901 Monsanto, an American chemical company, has sought to produce the most effective killing agents known to man. This sounds much more sinister than it is. Maybe.

Their flagship product, RoundUp is the most successful herbicide in the world. Herbicide means "kills plants." Remember that. Marketed as a weed killer, it will kill any plant it is applied to. Remember that, too. The longtime claim that it was the only biodegradable herbicide was, recently, dropped in a case of false advertising. Is this a sole instance of corporate falsehood? Perhaps.

Dioxin, created by Monsanto, is the active agent in the Vietnam war defoliant Agent Orange, produces a cascade of toxic effects in subjects exposed to it. These effects were not disclosed to the soldiers who were exposed to Agent Orange over the course of the war. Much less were the Vietnamese people upon whom 40 million litres of Agent Orange were dropped producing hideous birth defects, debilitating diseases, and cancers. Monsanto settled, out of court with the American servicemen it deemed afflicted, however, no such settlement was reached with the Republic of Vietnam.

Monsanto is also the chemical company that mass-produced polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, as a cooling agent. This substance, after almost 40 years of production, was outed as a massive toxin. The discovery that Monsanto had, for decades, buried massive amounts of PCBs near a small town in America, and that the state government had given the company permission to do so, shows the influence that a company can have over public policy and the welfare of people. But, with all of this influence, Monsanto must also produce positive results for people. Right?

Bovine growth hormone (or rBGH or Posilac) is injected to increase, by up to 20%, the milk yield of dairy cows. The world is, however, awash in milk. Of any farm product, milk is among the last that needs to be increased in yield. Monsanto has decided to cover up this fact, as well as the facts that active carcinogens and mast cells from over-milked cows ends up in the milk and, consequently, in people. Basically, the pus-infested milk can give you cancer. Monsanto actively blocked an investigative news report of this occurrence from airing in the US. Further, Monsanto had a hand in the dismissal of Health Canada officials that blew the whistle on rBGH. They protected the public welfare, as their job descriptions demand, but they lost their jobs. Who is protecting us now, Monsanto?

Monsanto, further evidence of their beneficence, has moved into the bioengineering of food itself. Genetically engineered crops of soy, corn, and cotton are already on the market. These proprietary crops, patented at the genetic level, are resistant to Monsanto's flagship herbicide. To repeat, these genetically engineered plants resist herbicide. What is not mentioned is the susceptibility of these transgenic crops to all manner of emergent disease that non-transgenic crops naturally fight off. That the crops are, currently, undergoing human trials in the general population is only a footnote to the successful implementation of multinational food policies by a multinational corporation.

In the end, and what the second part of this recap will look at, is the question: what does it mean when a corporation co-opts human populations capacity to decide? This is especially pertinent a question in considering that, as a matter of good fiscal conduct and proper business practice, Monsanto seeks to own the rights to produce every last gram of food on earth.

Counter-

2008-05-12T17:57:00.003-04:00

Got this email forwarded to me from Mel. It screams the need to be undone. Most of the stats that I provide are available on Wikipedia. I only used articles with source documents that verify the information. The email comments are marked (>) and are rendered in this colour.

In short, this is one of those things that gets tossed around the internet and is never really questioned properly. Lots of people will read it, it's been around since 2004, but not many will question it thoroughly.

I did because I've been meaning to look into American interventionism for the past two years and haven't had someone or something annoy me enough to actually do all the work. Now, I've got this.

To summarize: the thrust is that Bush the Second is doing a great job. Iraq is a better place, America is historically justified in invading/occupying Iraq, military morale is high, everything is moving along efficiently and its all very good for America. Further, national hero John Glenn gives implicit support for the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq because, well... just because.

I looked into the claims that the email puts forward.

> For those of us who spent time in the military or believe in our military, and support the men and women of our military, read on............

Well that's a pretty broad appeal. It also implies, falsely, that if you don't read on, or if you disagree with the statements made here, you must NOT:

a. have spent time in the military,
b. believe in the military,
c. support the men and women of the military

Sound familiar? This kind of false logic permeates advertising, political campaigns, and propaganda everywhere.

> There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq

Off the top, do you really want Detroit -- or any American city -- to be more violent than Iraq? Further, if this is the case, what kind of ideal is America exporting abroad?

Check your stats, kids. There may have been 39 "combat-related" killings, but this omits all of the killings that went unreported because they weren't

a. reported or
b. "combat-related."

Counting violent deaths that are the result of exchanges between "insurgents," "militiamen," or "resistance-fighters" and private security contractors -- which, I might add, outnumber American troops in Iraq -- or between the Iraqi militias, sectarian violence, and civilians -- all a product of horrible conditions caused by the American-led Occupation of Iraq -- will boost this number to 544 (January 2008). This is in Iraq, a nation of about 30 million. Detroit has 4.5 million people. That works out to 25 times as many violent deaths in Iraq, making Iraq MUCH more deadly.

I'd also like to point out that Iraq has seen a massive increase in its death rate since the invasion of US forces since 2003. Not all of this is the result of "combat-related" fatalities. Most of it is the result of a humanitarian crisis that has seen no relief since the 2003 invasion and occupation. Estimates place the death toll, directly associable to the invasion and not necessarily the product of "combat-related" deaths, as high as 655 000 up to June of 2006.

> When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:

> FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II.

> Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
> From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ..
> an average of 112,500 per year.

"Germany never attacked us", as in "the US" that matters, right?

And, by the by, World War II started on 1 September 1939, not 7 December 1941. Remember that. America entered the war at Pearl Harbor, but that was more than two years after much of the rest of the world confronted Hitler.

Germany attacked most of Eastern Europe. Germany had blitzed Britain (y'know, our buddies in Iraq, Britain) before the US decided to stop selling them computers from IBM or Fanta Orange from the Coca-Cola Company. The military dead -- 416 800, 0.3% of population -- is only a blip when compared to the 10.7 million killed in the former Soviet Union, the 3.8 million Chinese, or even the 3 million Poles (16.1% of population). We won't even discuss the civilian dead of Japan or Germany (1.6 million and 580 000, respectively), as they just don't count. "Some [people's lives] are more equal than others" (Orwell, Animal Farm).

Bottom line, World War II killed 72 million people. People. The world never wanted another war after the First World War. The Iraq Invasion, now a longer American military engagement than WWII and localized within a single country, has killed between 100 000 and 1 million Iraqis. Civilians aren't counted because, as long as Iraq is under Occupation and not conforming to America's standard, Iraq is an "enemy" state. Iraqi civilians are potential "enemies."

> Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea

Truman didn't end WWII.

Europe fought Hitler until the costly error of attacking Stalin's Russia bled Germany dry and until; with American assistance and a concerted French resistance movement [nowadays they'd be called Terrorists or Insurgents or "la Qaeda en France" depending on where your loyalties lie], the Allies exploited tactical mistakes and D-day was a military success (see the first scene of Saving Private Ryan). Truman had been in office for a little less than a month when the Nazis surrendered, and only for 18 days before Hitler committed suicide.

As for ending the war with Japan...

Dropping the nuclear bomb was, by the standards of Nuremberg trials, a plain and simple war crime. Truman pushed the button. The war was just about over and Japan had been firebombed to ashes. Their supplies were wearing thin and they were surrounded by newly "freed" colonial conquests in Korea and China. Japan was a field test for the ultimate equalizer. The "Little Boy" bomb directly killed 100 000 civilians. The "Fat Man" detonation over Nagasaki killed 70 000 more civilians. Another 140 000 have died in the days, months, and years to follow from radiation poisoning, cancer, leukaemia, burns, grief, and so on. The living envied the dead in those days.

Truman didn't start the Korean war. The Postdam conference, the end of Japanese colonialism, and the fledgling Cold War did.

> North Korea never attacked us
> From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost.
> an average of 18,334 per year.

This statistic, again, only counts some lives. 58 000 South Korean military, 36 500 American military, and so on... 474 000 casualties are estimated for the Korean War on the "Allied" side, while up to 1.6 million are estimated for the "enemy" side. There is no telling how many civilians died, certainly in the millions.

And, officially, the war is still going.

> John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
> Vietnam never attacked us.

This is an out and OUT lie. Kennedy did NOT start Vietnam. He inherited the situation from the French at the end of their colonial rule of Indochina (it culminated in the Geneva Conference); Dwight D. Eisenhower, the POTUS before Kennedy; and the belligerence of Ngo Dinh Diem, ruler of South Vietnam. Military engagement started in 1959, while America supplied money, weapons, and training starting in 1950. Further, being entirely ignorant of Vietnamese history, culture, and ideals, America refused to admit that:
a. Diem was bad for Vietnam,
b. Vietnam was not fighting as an element of the Cold War, and
c. Vietnam was fighting a civil war
They were fighting for their right to build a nation they wanted, a choice FREE of any influence.

America did not activate its war machine outright until after Kennedy was assassinated. And, AND, there are indications that Kennedy was assassinated because he opposed the secret State Department and CIA-approved coup that killed Diem just three weeks earlier. He had already "failed," in 1961, to order air-support for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, and had narrowly resolved an embargo of Cuba to end the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. By 1963, American hawks certainly saw him as a military liability.

As an element of the Cold War, Vietnam would have resisted influence from Soviet Russia or China just as zealously as Vietnam fought America. Had America entrusted Vietnam with the future of their own country, perhaps there the conflict in Vietnam would not have stretched for the better part of two decades.

> Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
> From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost.
> an average of 5,800 per year.

Quagmire (def.): an awkward, complex, or hazardous situation.

Vietnam, Indo-China, all military interventionism can or does lead to a quagmire. Notably, this particular summary of history does not say that the US LOST Vietnam. But, notably, it still only counts American war dead.

Now, this is the most telling section of this whole "analysis." It leaves out all of the American interventionism including that of Richard Nixon (REPUBLICAN), Jimmy Carter (DEMOCRAT), Ronald Reagan (REPUBLICAN), and George H.W. Bush (REPUBLICAN).

Lyndon Johnson invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965. Already at war in Vietnam, an articulation of the Cold War to American eyes, the left-leaning, constitutionally-electd president of the Dominican Republic raised the specter of "a second Cuba" emerging close to America's borders. As such, after civil unrest erupted in a mad power struggle and succeeding coups, Johnson ordered Marines and the 82nd Airborne Division to "secure" the situation. In 1966, the Dominican Republic "elected" a President openly supported by America. He would be President of that country for 12 years, and then return to the presidency for a further ten years beginning in 1986.

Nixon entered the office of the President with Vietnam in progress. He couldn't finish it either. After Nixon was caught in the Watergate Scandal and relinquished the presidency, Gerald Ford withdrew from Vietnam having no support from Congress to authorize funding. Before he left office, however, Nixon intervened in Chile to depose the democratically-elected and left-leaning Salvador Allende in a CIA-backed, US-approved coup d'etat. Chile fell to the control of General Augusto Pinochet and at least 3 000 people were "disappeared" and political rivals were systematically suppressed.

Carter, a DEMOCRAT, was the first president to intervene in Afghanistan. Being a good Cold Warrior, Carter backed a militia that would fight to the end against the Soviet "menace," the Muhaijadeen. It could not be known in 1980 that the Taliban would be born of this militia. However, America's incapability to relate directly to the concerns of the people being used as proxies is as clear here as it was in Vietnam.

Reagan, a REPUBLICAN, did nothing to stop the flow of money to Afghanistan as is made abundantly clear in the 2007 film, Charlie Wilson's War. That is, until the Russians were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan by the US-backed Muhaijadeen and when the money was needed most for reconstruction and infrastructure and to promote democracy in a "free" country. This is what Charlie Wilson, a Texas DEMOCRAT meant when he said that America "fucked up the endgame." The Muhaijadeen and other factions exploited the power vacuum left by the withdrawal of the Soviets, sparking a Civil War. In this instance, however, the Republicans did not decide to act to support a fledgling nation as, in an election year, the expense may have cost them the White House. The political safe bet worked out and George H.W. Bush, a REPUBLICAN, was elected to office in 1988. Too bad that his willingness to do business with the Taliban resulted in training facilities for al-Qaeda and a heavy-handed, theocratic regime. Also, it is too bad that this business arrangement did not produce an understanding between people that could prevent the development of animosities between nations.

Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries were funded by the CIA under Ronald Reagan using the proceeds of arms sales to Iran in the Iran-Contra Affair, yet another element of the Cold War. This Affair included under- or unreported trafficking of cocaine back to the US. Essential to this trafficking, whether of information or narcotics, was Panamanian CIA- operative-cum-dictator Manuel Noriega. He played both sides against the middle in the face of attempted American hegemony in central America.

Reagan invaded Grenada despite assuring the United Kingdom, seat of the Commonwealth to which Grenada belonged, that there were no plans to do any such thing. The pretense that the democratically-elected President had been murdered in an "unstable" nation so close to America and that "medical students" were there, ostensibly secured justification; however, the fact that the United Kingdom was not consulted or notified by America about a military operation on a protectorate nation smells rotten.

El Salvador, a nation embroiled in Civil War in the 1980s, was also used as fertile ground for covert American intervention as Presidents Reagan and Bush the first, via the CIA, helped to influence the outcome of the 1984 election in that country.

In 1989, Panama's Noriega sought to flaunt his power by nullifying a democratic election and maintaining his office by force. President Bush, the first, was called a wimp by the media in relation to this situation. To this, Bush the first responded with a military intervention in Panama that was more in the interest of saving international face and to settle a grudge match than the arena of bettering the lives of Panamanians. Norieaga was forcibly extradited to America where he stood "trial" and now resides quietly in a Club Fed.

Bush the first, was also responsible for the now-infamous escapades in Somalia and Kuwait. Though the Battle of Mogadishu -- the Black Hawk Down incident -- has resonated forever among of the world as a shining example of the ability to contest the technological and military supremacy of America and the west, occurred under the Presidency of Bill Clinton, the insertion of American forces, a policy of strategic intervention in conflicts such as that in Somalia, was Bush.

First, however, there was Kuwait and the first Gulf War. America moved to protect its strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia. Then, with a little spin from the media, it found reason to intervene in Kuwait, and then to beat Hussein back to Baghdad. Then, when the whole Iraq mess could have been solved once and for all, America saw fit to leave him in power. America, then turned a blind eye to the brutal crushing of uprisings in both the north and south, with the exception of UN mandated no-fly zones, and did not return until another Bush, the second, assumed the White House.

Finally, Bill Clinton could not collect the political will in America to intervene in Rwanda in the face of the genocide of ethnic Tutsis.

> Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
> Bosnia never attacked us.

Since when does any American look for French consent or sanction?

I haven't finished my research on this really, really complex topic. The surface says that America, maintaining its alliegences with NATO, became involved in the conflicts of the former Yugoslavia.

> He [Clinton, I assume] was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

What would it have cost America to take bin Laden from the leaders in Khartoum? Would it have been to turn a blind eye to the genocide unleashed in Sudan since Bush took power and, as a result of being spread all over the world, has not been adequately addressed as a form of terrorism by America or her allies?

Personally, I find it a little suspect that an Islamic government would offer up one of the best sources of financing, and reputed hero of during Afghanistan's fight against the Soviets, to America. If it was the participants on the "other" side of the Sudanese Civil War, did they ever really have bin Laden?

> In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

I like what Mel said here:

"The paragraph could easily read:

"In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has decimated two countries, emboldened the Taliban, bungled their intelligence regarding al-Qaida, and spent $50 billion/month on a war that has fledging public support and overseen 2 recessions.

"Not saying either is correct, but let's not pretend that this thing is over. Iraq certainly has not 'been taken'."

For my part, I'd like to remind the audience that life Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly in Iraq, has been reduced to that of Hadean nightmare. The Taliban yet moves against coalition forces and is not, therefore, crushed. It has certainly been unseated. In both countries, sewage fills the streets of Baghdad, people subsist on less than $1/day, there is the constant threat of being swept up from multiple sides in violence, and government is completely ineffectual, far from representing the people or their concerns. "What price freedom?" Everything, it seems.

As for capturing a "terrorist," Saddam Hussein, for better or for worse, was president of Iraq. He, supported by the US for more than a decade, was turned into an enemy only when America could no longer control him. Whether or not he slaughtered 300 000 of his own people is no longer a matter of history but a matter of policy. On the other hand, America simply imprisons those that would be killed (now 1% of the adult population) and executes those that twelve or fourteen "reasonable" people decide deserve to die. Hussein was executed for the deaths of about 148 people during a time when he was supported by the US.

And, as for how long the war is taking, I might, at this juncture refer to Nineteen Eighty-Four. The war on terror IS the war that can never be won. The Global War on Terror is a war against ideas, against Thoughtcrimes, against dissent in all of its forms. It is the Orwellian Constant Emergency.

This is the war that America chooses to fight, to support without question, without remorse, and, most importantly, without review?

> But Wait, There's more!

Please, don't quote infomercials.

> It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT)
> to take the Branch Davidian compound.
> That was a 51-day operation..

America has finished "tak[ing]" Iraq? It's been, as of this writing, 1880 days. See: "No End in Sight"

> We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (DEMOCRAT) to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

Still looking for stuff America put there in the first place? Or is it stuff that's just not there?

> It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

Is this the most obscure reference ever? That last one was pretty obscure, but this...

> It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !!!

Again, Iraq has been "take[n]"? I'm still pretty sure that ALL the votes in Florida weren't counted.

> Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!

I think that Bush is Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, not of the general American population. If he is Commander-In-Chief of the American population, America is no longer a democratic state, it is a Military state. Like Burma, or North Korea.

> The Military morale is high!

Except for all those Afghanistan and Iraq veterans committing suicide at unprecedented levels. The latest info pegs that at 18 veteran suicides per day.

> The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts

Or, is that fakts? (Loving the obscure references)

> But Wait
>
> There's more!

Please, please stop quoting infomercials.

What follows is not what it is cast as in the email; an exchange between Senators on the Senate floor. This is, in fact, an exchange between two Democratic (think Obama vs. Hilary) candidates for the Senate during a debate in 1974.

> Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
>
> This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.
>
> Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn): 'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'

What Metzenbaum actually said is unrecorded and predates the debate. The words "never held a real job" are fictional. What he actually said, in keeping with his campaign strategy of undermining Glenn's lack of civilian leadership experience, is that he "had never met a payroll." Would a candidate for the Senate politically shoot himself in the foot like this, accusing as historic a military person as John Glenn -- the first US astronaut -- of never having held a job?

> Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): 'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.'
>
> 'I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men ... with their mangled bodies . in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!
>
> You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DAD'S didn't hold a job.
>
> You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery , where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you have the gall to tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
>
> What about Metzenbaum?'
>
> For those who don't remember During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA
>
> Now he's a Senator!

Metzenbaum is not presently a Senator. Presently, he is dead. This might change, but I don't think it will.

> If you can read this, thank a teacher.
> If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

This is the most saddening part of this entire email. Of course all of the people reading it will read it in English. But, to continue tying the influence of the English language to military supremacy of English-speaking countries expresses a blatant colonial attitude. Yes, military conquest has led to open-markets and open-markets requires a lingua franca, which, at this point, is English. So, English-speaking people can travel the world. However, the assertion; "[i]f you are reading it in English thank a Veteran" does disservice to the relationships that people must build within open-markets. There will always be a great deal that is alien to us as foreigners, but to adopt a stance that our way is better is no different than that of the colonial powers that the 20th century was spent dismantling. It is cultural relativism.

Steal This Film II

2008-02-28T12:32:00.000-05:00

http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/

Confronting those who would confront piracy. Problem is that sharing ideas is intellectual copyright infringement -- to put the point of this film in even more succinct terms. Copying is the same as breathing, it is the only way we learn, we only way we communicate, and the only way we can live.

For those who would hang the pirates, those who would rather pay $19 for a CD or $30 for a DVD to "support the artists" -- note: large and multinational distribution/production companies and other labels gobble up 50 to 99% of the income leaving scraps for the artist -- consider this: in a future without copyright people enjoy media by sharing. That is, by producing it oneself on the one hand and consuming ONLY what one WANTS for FREE on the other. Expression and contribution for those who want, mindless consumption for those who don't. And, there is a virtual end to celebrity idolatry but for those who are deserving.

Perhaps, for a time, production values go down and everything popular looks like it belongs on YouTube; but, at the same time, it opens doors for innovation, cost reduction, and expansion to new producers and support staff. It broadens the media landscape. More, better, and truer stories can be told. Meanwhile, corporate control of human experience is dispelled and (God forbid!) people can start to think for themselves again.

Sure, you still have to work for a living, maybe. On top of this, you have to LEARN (blasted mental exercise) how to create music and video instead of contributing only to the glut of criticism. However, you won't have to worry about spending $19 on a CD or $30 on a DVD. You will probably consume less of everything else too; thus saving money for the important things like food, clothing and shelter. No need to mortgage your future for a plasma TV if you're working in that artists collective in your neighbourhood six nights a week on a dance project you love. You probably won't even miss the rerun of "Lost" if you're reading two hundred pages a night of your favorite author -- with whom you'll spend the next six months discussing his latest work.

How illusory it is that the arts and other media is not work. One must fail, constantly, and learn, constantly, to achieve in the arts and associated media. If you want a pat on the head and a "Good job!" at the end of the day, and a success ratio of greater than 30%, get a "real" job. Count some beans, make clock radios, perform open-heart surgery, whatever.

Artists aren't slaves to the dollar, people are. Artists create by compulsion and are rarely, if ever, compensated. Those who are granted celebrity are living the dream, superheroes of the Dream Machine. Those who aren't are merely human. If payment follows for an artist, it is only a sign that their art is consumable. Sometimes, this means that the true artists are in the marketing department. For the sake of honesty, clarity, justice -- pirate.

Support the fight against corporate media ownership.
Support the Media Carta Campaign

One Question for the Candidates

2008-02-25T12:07:00.000-05:00

As this is the most intensely watched, hotly debated, and historically significant election in the history of America, it seems only appropriate that an intense, hot, and historically significant question be asked of the candidates.

As a generation looks for guidance not from their elders as they would have in times past but from electronic resources and historical artefacts online, a name that keeps cropping up in the discussion of the identity of America and the conduct of modern America is that of Noam Chomsky. He, being the opinionated and celebrated educator from MIT can be quoted, "if the standards of the Nuremberg trials were applied, then every post-World War II American President," including your husband, Senator Clinton, and the sometime archetype for your Presidential bid, JFK, Senator Obama, [and the people who held you as a prisoner of war, Senator McCain,] "would have been hanged as a war criminal." The crimes for which the Nuremberg "war crimes" statues are applied are a matter of historical record and can be repeated if necessary. The crimes for which the current administration might be held accountable is also repeatable, should that be requested. Here, I don't seek debate about the requirements of the position of the presidency. It is an unenviable position on many occasions. Nor do I seek a political parrying or pillorying of the idea that tough decisions, viewed from a distance, constitute war crimes. What I seek is an answer to a question that will resonate for generations in the eyes of those that will live in the aftermath of America being called to task about its conduct overseas.

The question at hand is one that ought to have been asked by an intrepid individual in 2004. Certainly there are no two words that sunk the John Kerry's bid for the Presidency faster than "global test," in response to a question about engaging in a pre-emptive war. This was just before we were really, really sure that the Iraq war was a really, really big lie. Yet, a notion remains, that the conduct of America, as a citizen in a global community and as an extension of the powers held by the office of the President of the United States, is as much an element in the practice of national security and the war on Terror as is the maintenance of America's interests. A President behaving as a war criminal, thus, invites or incites or exacerbates terrorism -- a tool of desperation, lest we forget -- in the homeland.

My question is this: Can four generations of Americans, and the myriad people of the world, look to any of you to uphold international agreements and not to commit war crimes in the course of your Presidency?

CRANKing the Economy

2008-02-03T12:31:00.001-05:00

Crank is a gritty, crime-ridden, action-packed story of a man, poisoned, who must track down those responsible for his waking state of death before he meets his inevitable and imminent end. The only way for him to stay alive, however, is to continuously stimulate his heart to keep beating. Using one stimulant or another -- from cocaine, to adrenaline, to defibrillator pads -- to delay the effect of the poison. So it is that a man, dead already, is kept alive by adequate stimulation.

This story of the US economy -- and, consequently, the US-backed global economy -- is strikingly similar. Fundamentally poisoned -- and, incidentally, poisonous -- America looks for yet another way to stimulate its dying enterprise of rampant capitalism. The nations "leaders" now speak of the necessity of economic stimulus for the survival of the American economy. This cash infusion is to counter-balance an age of debt-promotion, deficit spending, and the mortgaging of every aspect of the future. "Why pay today what can be put off until tomorrow?" has been the constant credo.

Is it poetic justice that millions of Americans, living beyond their sustainable means, are being thrown out of their homes? Is it fitting that a housing industry, run amok, and a banking/lending industry, also run amok, now have people caught between the horns of debt and homelessness? Well, let's examine, briefly.

The American dream hinges on obtaining everything you ever want while paying very little in personal cost to get it. As such, lending institutions found it very lucrative, stimulating, to support the dreams of Americans everywhere by financing them. Such financing came at ever lower rates and with ever more promises of future financial security. Even those people who had equity in their homes -- ownership of their homes, really -- began to borrow money against their property to exercise the "right" to live the dream. Unfortunately, time has caught up with many of these people.

The belief that other variables in life would not vary, such as cheap and plentiful sources of energy, is a fundamental flaw -- poison -- in the design. As such, some of those that had borrowed to live the dream were then caught financing the dream. Many of these, having not accounted for the hidden costs of their cars, houses, businesses, and -- yes -- children, found themselves incapabable of remaining financially solvent. It used to be that there was only enough loose credit for the extra TV or an new living room set. You remember the commercials screaming, "no money down, no interest, no payments until 2000!". Soon enough the same was being said for cars. A torrent of 0% financing options hit the industry to keep it afloat. Then, it was time. Houses could be bought with a high-ratio mortgage and no money was required at the time of signing. And, AND, the builder was throwing in five appliances. It was time, people thought, I can finally afford my own home, my dream home. The dream is alive.

Until now. The crunch is in full swing. We are catching up to the future. Whereas it used to be only couches and cars to be repossesed, now it is homes. Homes. The places where children are supposed to grow, trusting that they will always be there, are disappearing. What psychological effect this will have, considering the number of broken families it will generate and the number of unstable living situations will result, is of untold proportion.

Further, it is becoming impossible to sell a house because the markets wherein all of these forclosures are taking place are clustered. They are in suburbia. Now that it is being realized, slowly, that suburbia is an expensive way of living - not only in terms of property values but in terms of expense to the planet - it is also becoming less difficult to find a niche in the city. Could it be, then, that within a single generation humankind will witness both the exodus from, and return to, city life? Should this happen, every city in several western countries wil be surrounded by disconnected slums populated by disenfranchised minorities. Ironically - an ultimate irony, here - it will be the white, middle class that suffers on the periphery if, and only if, the the change is as rapid as could be estimated.

It is not only the homes of our families that have been mortgaged off. It is the entirety of the future. To again mention poetic justice, isn't it fitting that the mortgage taken by industrial and economic enterprise has been postponed so long that it cannot be paid? These enterprises have been operating beyond sustainability for much longer than American families. As such, corporations, banks, and industries stand to be evicted from the Earth as immediately as the overspent American family. The threat, however, is that the collapse of industry and economy necessarily takes humanity with it. With environmental pillage taking center stage as it never has before, more people must come to realize that the final home humanity can be cast from is the planet. The debt humanity owes the planet dwarves any conceivable scale of debt generated by banks and other lenders. Truly, any such debt scale only contributes to that which is owed the planet.

For all these reasons: changes in the environment, faltering international relationships, faltering family relationships, waning supplies of natural resources, more virulent diseases, and so on; the decisions made so long ago must be faced. That, instead of perpetuating the practices of the economy that have made it both strong and poisonous, we ought to undertake to make the economy sustainable and healthy. Doing so would, certainly, require we promote some different dreams. Dreams that promote gains for the future instead of the immediate. Dreams that benefit our children instead of us. Dreams that distribute wealth instead of concentrating it. Dreams that are not summed up with the phrase, "Whoever dies with the most toys, wins."

To be accurate, Crank is a remake of a much better 1940s film entitled Dead on Arrival, wherein the anti-hero must determine why he was poisoned before he dies. That film offered no reprieve to its central character, no stimulation to balance the effect of doom. With all of the realities that we must face up to, "emergently", dead on arrival may prove the more fitting of the two titles.

Boys and Toys

2008-01-12T13:41:00.000-05:00

Boys and their multi-billion dollar toys. That is the explanation to which I point the recent escalation of patrols in the shipping lanes bordering Iran. While the security of oil tankers passing through this region is of some discrete interest to America and the president is certainly permitted to entertain the paranoid fantasies of his choice, the whole thing certainly reeks of provokation.

I am not the one who is briefed regularly on the movements of Iranian or other smaller ships in the region. Certainly, any of these "threats" to the security of the American energy supply should be held at bay by the biggest possible armaments. However, in light of recent developments and in consideration of the desire -- at least in principle -- for security, perhaps the idea to send a heavily armed ship into an international shipping lane to defend a convoy against no clear threat could be seen as very provocative. Especially considering that fighters could be scrambled from any of three locations to respond to the same type of threat that the escort would face. If the convoy was to be attacked by a suicide bomber, the eye-witness accounts of the remainder of the convoy would be no different than those of the escort.

The escapade of the past week, wherein the US Navy alleged that it was threatened by Iranian vessels, is an example of how the escort can do more harm than good for relations. The escort boat was approached by several small speed boats. These speed boats, each less than one tenth the size of the armoured escort vessel, passed close enough for the commander to threaten then use of deadly force.

As an insult to the intelligence of the American people, a video of the encounter was released widely into the US media engine. This video carries an eerie voice-over that says, "you will explode in a few minutes." this incident happened on Monday, the video was released on Tuesday. It was not until Thursday that Naval Intelligence admitted that the voice-over may have been from another source - perhaps ashore rather than aboard one of the vessels. This news has not been disseminated as widely as the shocking footage of a near attack.

So, what is there to learn from this escapade? First, that any action taken in the vicinity of a paranoid superpower warrants characterization as a threat. The legitimacy of the action or the threat is inconsequential. Second, any such action taken renews the drumbeat of war. Third, this being the latest news, that a simple prank can engage the imagination and energies of media outlets everywhere to ratchet up fears and to erode steps toward peaceful relations. Fourth, the intelligence gathering resources of the worlds greatest war machine is no better at filtering reality from crap now than it was four years ago, but it is just as good at getting the bad news out.

Here, Kurt Vonnegut would say, so it goes.

Leader of the Free World

2007-12-29T12:30:00.000-05:00

Benazir Bhutto was a leader of the free world. In my opinion, for her time, she was THE leader of the free world. She spoke against tyrannic rule. She was a front-line commander of a population opposed to rule by militarized government. The leader of a movement to -- democratically -- remove a president seated atop a military coup and wielding command of both the military and the government. To the free people of the world, those that support transparent democratic systems, she had the capacity to achieve the kind of non-violent change that has become exceedingly rare. This decision of hers, to motivate and hopefully achieve such change, was undertaken from a position of authority. As a former prime-minister of Pakistan, she knew, precisely, the plight of her nation. It was for this reason she pushed, at the cost of her own life, for political change in Pakistan.

Her death is not a sacrifice. She, as yet, is not a martyr to any cause except that of dissent against the empowered. That al-Qaeda is blamed for her assassination has made her death less and act internal politics and more an act of international terrorism. The effect of this act will, in keeping with history's tide, be the product of politics, posturing, and power. All parties interested, from Pervez Musharraf, to George Bush, to the remainder of the PPP, to al-Qaeda, will have a hand in the shaping of this act.

It is widely believed that the alliance between Pakistan and America is becoming increasingly tenuous. The disappearance of Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan into the mountainous region bordering Pakistan, was the first loss of confidence suffered by Pakistan, in the eyes of the world. If Pakistan was such a staunch ally of America, believing wholly in the foreign policy adopted, certainly they would root out the cancerous threat themselves or would permit America to chase him down. Unaccounted for was the sympathy that tribal elders and other traditional Muslims in Northern Pakistan would feel for the fallen Taliban government. They, consequently, rebuffed Karachi and Washington, denying them their manhunt. Fearing a rise in instability spreading to Pakistan; when there were other, higher value targets in sight; Washington accepted a stalemate. For a year, this stalemate was the nexus of conflict about the allies of the war on terror, but, as America geared up for a war in Iraq, using a living Osama bin Laden and an operational terrorist network as elements of their pretext, the focus was shifted and the stalemate, forgotten.

As time wore on and the imbalances within Pakistan were shifted again and again to prop up the Presidency of Pervez Musharraf, culminating in his suspension of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- an event which spurned Bhutto's return from exile -- then, the dissolution of the top court altogether, and the declaration of a national state of emergency, it became easier for all to see that there was a growing problem within the nation. Musharraf was losing control of a sharply divided nation.

Since news of Bhutto's return began to surface and preparations were made, others prepared to kill her. On the day of her return, a massive explosion killed more than 140 of her supporters. This was just in advance of the declaration of national emergency. She would not be deterred. Two further attempts were made to kill her, the third one successful. No doubt she knew that elements within Pakistan would have her due. She knew this even as she contemplated her return. Yet, an exercise of her freedom to choose and her freedom to act in the world; despite the threat others posed to her life, she stood to contest what she knew had to be changed.

Control of the elements of Pakistani society are difficult, near impossible. Exampled by the flight of the Taliban into Pakistan and their establishment of new resistance to international forces and carried by the contemporary issues within Islam, widely divergent beliefs about the future of Pakistan are a constant powderkeg. To his credit, the embattled President Musharraf had attempted to protect Bhutto, his political rival. He had done so, however, by force of arms, confining her under house arrest. Perhaps he was right, perhaps this was the only way of saving her life. However, she did not want to be so protected, to be give shelter by the paternalistic decisions of an armed commander. It was not politically viable as she could not campaign and rally her nation from confinement. It was not politically viable for a progressive, western-educated, outspoken critic of the government to accept safe harbour from that same government. At the very base, it was not politically viable for her, as a progressive Muslim woman, to accept protection from a man -- especially one who is not her husband. Thus, she died as she lived, as she would have all people live, an example of freedom and the cost it can bear when there is when so much is at stake.

Her political legacy is to be an unsolved riddle. It is said that she ruled her party with an iron fist, even from her self-imposed exile in England. It is said that the governments she led in 1988 and 1996 were corrupt and that her husband embezzeled over a billion dollars from Pakistan. It is said that she is not a proper leader for a Islamic nation in an era of Islamic militancy because she was educated abroad, because she has strong cultural and idealistic ties to Western nations, and because she is a woman. For any of these reasons, in the age of a global war on terror, al-Qaeda would deem her dangerous and counter-revolutionary. For any of these reasons, she could be killed. Others, too, could apply the same logic, taking matters into their own hands, and lend assistance to creation of chaos -- possibly, probably -- profitting by it. Is this not the nature of assassination?

Had her return been for her own benefit, for greed -- political or monetary -- she had certainly decided that her life was some small payment for it. No person who is driven by greed willingly faces death. Those seeking justice do. Even if her mission was to atone for the past, would the cost of her life be enough to balance it?

What is to be done? Well, the talk now encircles the elections. However, justice must be served. Almost too quickly, al-Qaeda has been implicated. Whether or not this is true is for al-Qaeda to deal with. As I've said before, elsewhere, it is no longer a matter of truth it is a matter of politics.

Soon enough, America will have to bow to the pressure to act as, even though it transpired in another nation, a terrorist attack has happened and al-Qaeda is implicated. With recent Turkish raids of Northern Iraq and the demands of the US Marines to redeploy to Afghanistan, will a weaker President Bush and an even weaker President Musharraf, both seeking favourable outcomes in their respective elections, act in defiance of the forgotten stalemate between the tribal leaders of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and favor of the interests of the global war on terror. Probably not. Pakistan is the poorest nation on Earth in possession of nuclear weapons. A single series of disaffected commanders and Islamic fundamentalists funnels one of these devices into the hands of a suicide bomber. The ultimatum issued from Washington to Karachi over six years ago was either you're 100% with us or 100% against us. I would ask, does the knife cut both ways? Maybe the time has come to co-opt Pakistan while it wrestles with political turmoil. Its lightning rod of freedom and progressive values now dead, perhaps only America remains. If so, can the threat posed by Pakistan's nuclear arsenal be contained? Can it be done without a President that simultaneously commands the military? This is, certainly, an anti-democratic situation. If, on the other hand, a Pakistani warhead is detonated in a Western capital, there will be no end to the misery that will be wrought.

At the outset, I spoke of Benazir Bhutto in terms of her leadership and her desire to bring democracy and freedom to the people of Pakistan. This effort is mirrored elsewhere in the world. The effort has, however, become an enterprise requiring more than strong leadership by democratic means. The dream once realized by people such as Ghandi and Mandela was sought out by Benazir Bhutto, but the world -- itself -- has changed since these men held sway. Now, the forces of arms and economy rule nations in tyranny and their people in fear. The face of this tyranny is sometimes explicit, as it is in Myanmar/Burma, and sometimes false, as it is in some western-style plutocracies. Change, in response to this degree of control, is deemed dependent only on the force of improvised explosives rending life from limb and sowing fear in civilians -- those who pray for peace and security the most. Those that believe in the dreams that freedom and democracy offer search for people such as Benazir Bhutto to lead fearlessly. It is this kind of leadership that the world has lost.

Post-amble(?)

This is a biased and incompletely informed view. Though, I suppose, I am entitled to the view that I have, it is, nonetheless, only the product of the information I have now and, further, it is the product of my views on what freedom is and who, in fact, is free in this world. I suppose, again, that the same can be said of any who write anything in this world, an assumption that should be taken for granted, but, with the bourgeoning population of those who would call themselves authorities of this world, I wish to make clear that I am no authority but that I hold an opinion. Sometimes it just needs to be said.

22 November 1963

2007-11-22T12:27:00.000-05:00

There's always more money to be made and there's always more people to kill. Any who might upset the apple cart, woe to them. Dwight Eisenhower warned of the influence of the Military Industrial Complex. John Kennedy thought to interrupt its erstwhile march. What'd he get? Head shot.

I never believed in the magic bullet, the Warren Commission's official explanation of the events leading up to and including 22 November 1963. It's like the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Reassuring, but thoroughly irrational. In 1963, there was a single cameraman in Dallas that captured that radical shift in American history that was the moment Kennedy was shot. Assassination? Surely. Conspiracy? Certainly. Cubans and other Red Menaces? Hmm... not so clear cut. Crazed lone gunman? Sure, why not.

I never believed in the 9|11 Commission's official story either. Again, like the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, it's reassuring, but thoroughly irrational. In 44 years, nothing has changed. In 2001 there was a single cameraman that captured that radical shift in American history that was the moment that WTC2 was struck. Intentional strike on America? Surely. Conspiracy? Certainly. Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and other international terrorist menaces? Hmm... not so clear cut. Crazed 19 hijackers with box cutters? Sure, why not (I heard that at least seven of them are still alive).

There were those that never believed that the Reichstag fire was set by Communists. They were crushed in the rush for homeland security and other Fascist ideals. Is it any different now? Is it any different when the concept of withdrawal from Vietnam led to a Presidential assassination? Is the fear of withdrawal pitted against the fear of assassination by weapons manufacturers, oil companies, the federal reserve, the US military, and other war profiteers what is really driving G.W. Bush's administration? Sure, why not.

Remember John F. Kennedy today. There has been no force at the helm of America since him that stood against the darkest fears held by Eisenhower -- that economy and the men with guns could supersede "the pursuit of life, liberty, and justice for all." Except, maybe, Jimmy Carter. Certainly, all presidents have made the best of bad situations. Some have made better than others. Some have pimped the nation for all its worth.

There's less than a year until a new helmsman is chosen, and a little more than a year until he or she takes office, watch closely. Be informed. And, don't buy anything on Black Friday.

Afghanistan, 11 November

2007-11-09T12:21:00.001-05:00

I remember the atrocities of war by recognizing that they are STILL happening. I don't split hairs just because Afghanistan doesn't fit my neat picture of the poppy. I admit, freely and openly, that warfare and the poppy are as inextricably linked in 2007 as in 1918. The generational gap that exists between then and now tells as much the story of warfare as it does the role of the poppy.

Warfare was once conducted as a conflict between great powers, as it was in the First World War. Men went to war to serve their country. Flags flew and each side knew precisely the conflict at hand. Now, warfare is multifaceted, privately contracted, and much less tidy an affair. Warfare has evolved. It is an old concept to consider only one side of a conflict as, with increasing frequency, the fallen are not warriors but civilians. They are people, like me, simply trying to live life and to accommodate realities as forced upon them.

I remember the fallen soldiers of my nation by recognizing those that are currently engaged in Afghanistan; where poppies are at the crux of the conflict. The man pictured, presumably a poppy farmer, bears no ill will to anyone. He does not grow poppies to buy arms. His ends are not to supply an insurgency or an oppressive regime or any international terrorist organization. He grows poppies to eat, to feed his family, and to keep the Taliban and tribal warlords at bay. He wants a safe place to live. The only way he CAN do this is by farming poppies.

Consider that poppies are the ONLY cash crop available to Afghan farmers. If they don't grow the poppies, or grow anything else, they die of starvation, as there is no market for their product, or are killed by the Taliban/Warlords for their defiance. When was the last time you saw "Product of Afghanistan" on your purchase? If they do grow the poppies; they face the double threat of crop destruction by the Allied Forces and crushing force of the Taliban/Warlord complex.

If, for example, the poppy crop was bought for legitimate purposes (Morphine or other opiates), or -- better yet -- if heroin was decriminalized, its illicit market value would, conceivably, decline. Then, the Taliban/Warlords would not have as lucrative a product and could not perpetuate warfare as effectively as the current situation permits.

That the poppies fund the Taliban/Warlords is, in fact, incidental. That they are grown in a 30 year-old warzone is not. That Canada is engaged in a deadly conflict in Afghanistan is not. I remember. We went to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda, to support the US, and to reach out to a subjugated nation. Now, we are fighting the Taliban, holding the Alamo in place of the Americans, and are rebuilding a nation that has known nothing but war for thirty years. To deny a parallel between Flanders Fields and the fields of Afghanistan is a disservice to our current Canadian Armed Forces. It is as severe a disservice as the "mission" under the pretense of the "global War on Terror" that being conducted at present. It is as severe a disservice as remembering wars' conduct at Remembrance Day, Memorial Day, Armistice Day, D-Day, Hiroshima Day, Pearl Harbor Day, or -- recently -- on 11 September 2001.

Yes. The poppy is a symbol of remembering the atrocities of war. The poppy is a symbol of those fallen in warfare. And, yes. The poppy is used to fund the Taliban insurgency against the occupation of Afghanistan. Funds generated by the poppy are used to commit acts of violence against my countrymen. But, that is precisely the point. It is STILL happening. People are still dying in armed conflicts the world over. In 1918, "the war to end all wars" had ended and the Great generation asserted "never again." Never again would the scourge of warfare cost the lives of so many. It is this that is marked on 11 November of each year. And yet, it continues. Some call it human nature. Some call it business as usual. The more that things change, the more they remain the same. The notion of the poppy, here, has changed in my mind. I can only hope that it has changed in yours. Perhaps, then, the changes that must happen -- the most difficult and painful changes -- might begin.

End of Force

2007-08-12T12:20:00.000-04:00

The evolution of war has culminated in a tragic cycle. Warfare is no longer the cessation of discussion or diplomacy but an exercise in force. War saves face, it promotes national interests, and it is now the cornerstone of foreign policy for the global superpower. New war is an industrial application. Essentially, war and armed conflicts, have transformed from honourable battles into traumatic experience for any it reaches.

Nations with the most international power and the largest military forces are, generally, richer, fatter, more decadent, and more reliant on technology for daily life. Technology defends, preoccupies, and controls the population. As a consequence, these people are less fit to survive without this technology. This reduced fitness is the hallmark of an age in which technology supercedes humanity. Humans, thus, serve the technology and its interests unquestionably.

The subordination of humanity and the evolution of warfare began with the industrialization of death and the Great War. Armoured vehicles, machine guns, massive artillery, and mustard gas were some of these early "innovations." Consequent to this leap forward in death engineering, people began to suffer post-traumatic stress, then called shellshock, as a testament to the devastating new forces of war.

The evolution of war continued throughout World War Two. This was achieved both in the air, with fighting aircraft, and on the air, with communications media such as radio. On the ground, it was achieved in armour and armament. This war was the most pervasive in history. It was a battle for land, for minds, and for ideals. Each side pushed for their own brand of justice. Fascist justice involved genocide, destruction, and an ethos and politics of superiority. Allied justice followed an ethos of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. How tragic and traumatic, that sixty years later, these same ideals would be subverted for so fascist a path.

On the Eastern front of this same war, advances in aerial warfare, mass communication, and armaments gave Allied forces a distinct advantage. Later, as the home islands of the Japanese empire burned with both conventional and atomic fire, it became clear the type of war that this had been. In contrast to the European theatre, the Pacific theatre of war was much more sterile. The war fought against Japan was one, not for ideals, but for punishment. American forces avoided integrating responsibility for actions during the war. Consequently, and in contrast to the experiences of the European powers, America has denied the pervasive trauma that comes with taking responsibility and maintained the rate of evolution of warfare that the rest of the world has declined.

The evolution of warfare throughout the post-1945 period is easily characterized by the growth of the American empire. America was given a head start on militarization, mechanization, and the advances of a post-industrial revolution. This was the virtue of being the only powerful nation not destroyed, in whole or in part, by World War Two. America engaged in military police actions, state interventions, conflicts, and secret wars. Each one was a meticulous example in denial, sparing the American people the trauma of the cost of their freedoms. The few realities that did surface in the public mind -- the Vietnam conflict, the Cuban missile crisis, and the Korean War -- were, simply, the largest instances of engagement. All of the others are not classed as "wars" by America, especially because the fight was against a "much weaker enemy." This pacified any latent sentiment for other humans in other places. The American Goliath could have no sentiment for David.

Further, the American empire exported the trauma of the experience abroad. Abroad, where all American fights have taken place, the next generation of weapons was employed: jet fighters, heavily armed helicopters, new chemical agents, and wireless communications systems. Powerful corporate forces used television to support the ends of the empire, manipulating television coverage of each conflict. The heavy trauma inflicted on the world as a result of the blind exportation of such violence only served to harden the world and to root an anti-American sentiment that, then as now, served as yet another threat.

The Vietnamese taught all who followed them that, to contest an overwhelming force, one must be willing to sacrifice all. It is in this sense of desperation that the tactics of contemporary guerilla warfare and modern terrorism were born. Massive forces could not be mounted for a frontal conflict. Warfare had to be conducted from within the subversive element. The "battle for hearts and minds" formed a new front.

The physical trauma remained abroad and, with a battle for hearts and minds, psychological warfare -- a cornerstone of the fascist doctrine -- had begun in earnest. With the realization that global anti-American sentiment was credible and veritable, the war machine started to lose its moral authority. Warfare began to take on its current guise, that of a private enterprise and conducted for profit.

Private security contracts and the militarization of the security sector are signs of a definite shift in the conduct of business. Big business, profitability, and private warfare have battle lines that are as blurred as those between corporate interests and national interests. If flags were still flown on battlefields it would only be fitting for them to near the logos of the corporate sponsors. The interests of warfare have changed. This is the new, modern face of warfare.

The greatest trauma of the evolution of warfare is the sacrifice of trust. Treaties, agreements, and the needs and desires of smaller members of the international community are constantly crushed by bean counters of heavyweight multinational corporations. Primarily, the international means of trust is vested in currency. Sacrifice of happiness, security, justice and other intangible values is a fiscally responsible thing to do. Humans are a second class to dollars.

To secure the illusion of supremacy, national security/corporate interests have combined with morally ambiguous authorities to engage a series of “much weaker enemies” in warfare. These interventions, battles, conflicts, or police actions -- entitled wars when serving a discrete purpose – are, now, political tools and economic necessities. Propaganda-laden media outlets sedate and spare the public. Above all, there is a paradoxical belief that the tools of war, now deadlier than ever, can protect us; this, at a time when explosives are standard issue weapons. The final analysis, the trauma experienced by a warrior in 2007 is exponentially greater than the warrior of 1914: physically, psychologically, socio-politically, morally, economically, and in the eyes of history. This trauma is spread to all humans, everywhere, as every person is touched by the consequence of warfare.

There are blessed few places in this world that are spared the trauma of contemporary warfare. Many of these places are veiled in the illusion of technological or geographic security. The occluded truth is that ANY determined individual, anywhere, can kill thousands at any moment. It is this that the war on terror seeks to win using war and trauma; the battle for every heart and mind on the planet, quashing dissent once and for all. As one alternative, humans might outlaw warfare and undertake a different sort of struggle, the one to sustain what fragile life there is.

Social Perspective

2007-07-24T12:18:00.000-04:00

Let me see if I can get this straight, even for a minute.

We are living beings; supposedly the most intelligent on the planet. We have built for ourselves the most elaborate and complex of worlds, one of social, political, economic, and other untold numbers of dimensions. Each of these aspects inter-plays with one another with emergent qualities: the media, the market, the military, management structures, institutions, nations, societies, religions, and so on. Humanity is subdivided, fragmented, and categorized by as many dimensions as we find it possible to dream up. Every time there is a new idea and every time that new idea is put forward to a bunch of "smart" people a new category is born. Yet, beneath all of this complexity, there remain only a few rank necessities for us to continue to survive. The most fundamental of these; sustenance and secure shelter are enjoyed only by a small subset of the human population, perhaps 20%. Much of the remaining 80% of the world has neither of the two.

Humans, in our infinite wisdom, bear the capacity to reflect somewhat clearly on history. Each fragment of the human population, certainly each person, would have a different story to tell. Any individual, given the responsibility of acting as compendium of all human knowledge, could tell only one side of the story. Perspective is a dangerous but necessary aspect to our experience. Yet, the notion that every person is an individual is roundly rejected in favor of a sense of belonging. Whether membership is in a political party or a national identity or a religious group, or any discrete combination of these groups, the result is identity, a means of maintaining predictability. Maintaining predictability, another form of security, is a primary responsibility of the wise, for, prediction of the future is the most hallowed of responsibilities in society.

As such, all aspects of amassed power and authority have funneled their enterprise to make all things as predictable as possible. Antiquated notions of nationality in a physical world are maintained when a virtual cyberspace exists. Antiquated notions of proper behaviour are maintained within societies when there has never been a time when human populations have been less homogeneous. International travel and immigration/emigration patterns have spread people across the globe. Despite the spread of ideas and the shrinking of the global community, there still exists a mandate in power centers, within governments and other such bodies, to maintain tight controls over people and their ideas. Recent observations, though cast as speculative paranoia, suggest that captivation by media outlets pushes the agenda of pacifying the population; that technology has enabled governments to suppress dissent with massive monitoring and propaganda. In so doing, the enterprise of humanity has sought only to secure its place in existence against the clear and present need for change. The mandate for change, according to conservative wisdom, is unwise.

Once, a much longer time past that anyone cares to mention, humanity was in possession of a simple freedom. That freedom came with a price, it was for each member of the society to hold adequate trust in others. Since that time, humanity has begun to overlay society with disingenuous superstructures that, each in turn, can be manipulated by those with the right information or resources. Laws were enacted, governments formed, coalitions with neighboring territories were forged with trade agreements, intermarriage between out-groups occurred, religious rites were performed, armies raised and wars fought, economies established, empires rose and fell. With each successive turn humanity spiraled farther from its center. History taught hard lessons, there were bitter pills to swallow, but, each added sophistication became incorporated. Rarely, if ever, was a solution adopted that made a society less sophisticated. Every day, technology is adopted to make life "simpler," but this really is euphemistic. Simple is undesirable; it is lower than the sophisticated. No one wants to return to living in caves, cooking by and open flame, or to foraging or hunting for food. It is beneath the dignity of humanity as we now know a "better" way.

For all of the information and perspective that humanity has amassed in the past six- to twelve-thousand years, it remains impossible to obtain the few key comforts of a global civilization. These imbalances are the folly of human stewardship of the world. There exists an immense imbalance between the supremely rich and the desperately poor. The poor people of rich nations remain incredibly wealthy if measured against the poverty stricken of the global community. The health and welfare of more than two-thirds of the people in the world, in both rich and poor nations, is neglected for political and economic reasons. More resources are spent on destruction of the world itself than are spent on investing in its health. All of these things are well known, well-documented, and plain to see for any who look. However, the trick to maintaining the status quo is to ensure that few people, if anyone, thinks this way. That this perspective, the one that admits a desire for wholesale change, does not gain force in the world. That ignorance of truths held self-evident is the new world order.

The level of sophistication that the world has presently achieved makes it a system that is virtually impossible to completely understand. I've tried. I will continue to try. From my perspective, the one that holds self-evident that humans cannot continue on our current path and expect to survive for more than the next century, change is not optional -- it is mandatory. Humans cannot continue to have industry and economy that is based on inexpensive fossil fuels. Humans cannot continue to pollute the planet with impunity. Economy can no longer be the fundamental value to which we ascribe policy. Military enterprises must cease as, presently, any motivated individual is easily capable of killing hundreds if not thousands of people. Essentially, all of the things we value must be re-evaluated. Blind enterprise has brought us to this point. I was born into a world run amok. It is time to simplify. To distill the best of human enterprise and remove the glut. To do this, priorities must change.

As usual, money confounds everything.

[A] Way Out: Part II of II

2007-07-13T12:15:00.000-04:00

A sickness is an imbalance in a living system. The human world, the political and social and economic systems that we rely upon, are experiencing a worsening sickness of imbalance. As it approaches a fixation this -- captial I -- Imbalance splits humans into castes, the upper echelon that controls virtually everything including ideas, justice, and freedom. The lower echelon, which grows in number by the daily, are merely subjects in this scenario. The subjects of the most terrible aspects of the Imbalance, civilian populations under occupation by overwhelming powers, find that their voice are heard only when the violations that meet them at their doorstep are met by violence. Lacking any semblance of power as defined by those above in the Imbalance, those on the lower end resort to the basest of tactics to effect change in their intolerable situation. They resort to maximizing the effects of their attacks in both the physical and psychological dimensions. They resort to meeting their terror with terror.

Certainly the best way to effect change is not in bombings or in killing or in violation of any basic human right or dignity. However, because, the majority of those on the higher end of the Imbalance slumber against the demand for change, acts that are taken to wake this mass from slumber are jarring, irregular, and impactful. The tragedy is that, on both sides of the Imbalance there is a firm belief in deterrence. It is believed that, in this manner, can change be made effectively. That, in ensuring that there is no means to return to the life lived before, an attack utilized to effect change be successful. That, in directly relating the pain and suffering that is visited upon "the other," can the one be caused to change. Terror has proven an effective means of resistance to overwhelming power in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon, and in other conflicts. The social, political, and economic aims of this same resistance have been met, however with disdain, discredit, and destruction. In resisting the resisters, the American government has engaged in some very questionable actions. In many respects American forces have become the enemies, past and present, they have fought. It is for this reason that, for the bidirectional terror to stop, and an effective solution to be attained, the "terrorists" must be granted some victory.

This assertion is based in three distinctions. The first must be that of terrorist. By definition, by reason and logic alone, a "terrorist" exists as manifestation of opposition the Imbalance. Both from above and from below, terror is an instrument of manipulation, a destabilizing force. On the lower end of the Imbalance, "the terrorists" are the unempowered, the destitute, who seek change by any means necessary. Their cause is not the subject of justice as they cannot set the agenda for justice. Terror then, is the only means to manipulate the agenda of those above who act with violence against them. Properly, it is asymmetrical warfare; but, warfare, being an enterprise of massive expense, is only symmetrical when great powers battle one another. Those that engage in terrorism beneath the Imbalance, an evolutionary element of guerilla warfare, cannot engage in symmetrical warfare in the contemporary world. Thus, the Imbalance is exposed.

On the upper end of the Imbalance, "terrorists" are the great military powers waging that is properly called asymmetrical warfare against "much weaker enemies." While, from a civilian point of view, these acts of invasion, warfare, military engagement, occupation, or simply military-backed corporate enterprise, are seen as acts of terrorism, they are not referred to as such in common language. These engagements are seen as 'business as usual.' Terrible acts, not "terrorism," are used to control and pacify foreign populations and to -- literally -- pave the way for enterprise. The agenda in foreign nations is, thus, manipulated. These acts are undertaken at massive expense and are direct descendants of the colonial and imperial enterprises of days long past. They are no more just now than they were then, however, because the asymmetry favors those higher in the Imbalance, it is accepted.

An imbalance of power is a clear element of many, or all, of the conflicts in world. Those who fight a deservingly to regulate the balance of power operate on a timetable in competition with the immediacy of other competing interests. The plight of the unempowered is constantly pushed aside in favour of more lucrative interests, therefore the unempowered are required to step forward to make their plight appear to be more immediate. The only means of achieving this, thus far, has been death and destruction. Those on the lower end of the Imbalance cannot make the military or social or political expenditures required; not in time and not in dollars. As such they are characterized as terrorists. This would not be a misnomer. Those above in the Imbalance, first, cannot understand their plight of those below. Second, those above in the Imbalance set the standard for what is good and just. Further, it is impossible for those above in the Imbalance comprehend the magnitude and effect of the Imbalance. So it is that the "terrorist" is, by definition, the enemy and against all that is good, and only attacks from beneath in the Imbalance.

The second definition of import is successful. Here, success relates to communication of a message. With any action, any undertaking of the human mind, there is a message be communicated. The message is often misinterpreted. A successful communication is one that is symbolic, delivering a message that is clear. The "official story," that America was attacked "because they hate US" is wavering in its veracity, credibility, and reality. Perhaps the architects of the "official story" got it wrong, like the many other messages similarly interpreted since that time. The message of the attack, over the course of nine days, was mis-/re-interpreted to fit an agenda, again, set from above in the Imbalance. As a result, the message, the reasons behind it and the changes sought by those who sacrificed their lives and those who were caught in the middle, were lost.

For example, the attacks of 9/11 could, easily have been carried out explicitly against the American people. Those fateful aircraft could have been hijacked the night before and directed at a baseball stadium, killing many more Americans than at the WTC or the Pentagon. Instead the attacks were carried out against the military and industrial centers of America, the airline industry being a "complex" that binds them together. In many parts of the world the WTC and the Pentagon do not symbolize free enterprise but the yoke of oppression. Further, it reduces the capacity for it to produce positive, effective change in the world; it reduces the capacity for the attack to be successful. No violent attack is undertaken for the sole purpose of that violent attack. Terrorists are not serial killers, though being maligned by many lenses, the groups that support them are characterized as such.

Discredit for the message is followed by discredit for the messenger. Manipulations of every order are made in favour of those self-same powers being attacked. So, successful communication of a message is defeated by the reinforced ignorance of those attacked, those for whom the message was intent. As long as the "victims" don't understand the reasons behind the attack, reactions taken are blind and, regardless of the effect, justified. Terrorist acts are lumped together as a cancerous mass of "enemies of freedom." The possibility of delivering credible, though opposite, messages to those in superior position is marginal. Finally, the message remains only with the messenger and the two parties are driven farther apart from understanding one another.

The final definition of import is effect. Previously, there was mention of a message in the conduct of a terrorist attack. The desired effect is that a message, if conveyed in a language that is universal, will cause a desired outcome. If the cause of change is an attack, it is proven effective if the outcome is not a violent response. David toppled Goliath; Goliath did not strike back. Terrorists on the lower end of the Imbalance are in the role of David. It is this sort of effect that opposition groups seek to achieve. The political, social, or economic aims of those on lower end of the Imbalance are meant to counter those of an overwhelming power. Without any means of equalization, only activism, guerilla warfare and, terror remain as options. The message is, but has not been, carried by the words of the participants and sometime victims. In these instances, especially where an overwhelming military power is involved and people are being oppressed and are dying, activism is abandoned in favor of a violent response to a violent situation.

There are many problems and conflicts to be broached in the world. The Imbalance is at the root of many, if not all, of them. The Imbalance of power and authority; the Imbalance of wealth, health, and resource; the Imbalance of cultural identity; and the Imbalance of basic dignity are examples. Terrorism, poverty, environmental destruction and warfare are manifestations of this Imbalance. There is no one outside the purview of the Imbalance; it affects all people everywhere. Some, however, benefit from it while many more are injured by it.

The cycle of cause and effect is vicious. With each effect – a bombing, an air strike, a hostage taking, a sanction – there is a cause. Humans react to the situations that they are placed in, often with righteous indignation, seeking to balance what is so imbalanced. To reduce the sickness felt at such imbalance. The path chosen, thus far, has been a predictable one within the cycle. There remains the path not taken, to concede a single victory to the hated enemy, before all are consumed.

[A] Way Out: Part I of II

2007-07-13T12:13:00.000-04:00

A certain reality touches home as I think of the events of the past days in relation to the past months and years. There seems to be a worsening sickness among the major actors in the social, political, and economic world. It is not getting any better. There must, in my mind, be a way to break this fever, but I can only think of one. The terrorists must win.

In the past few weeks the corruption of the neo-Conservative Bush Administration knows no absolute depth. The misuse of authority -- if not in fact, in the spirit of a democratic institution -- has ascended to the height of the OVP; wherein Dick Cheney asserts that he and the affairs of his office are beyond public scrutiny. Essentially, that the OVP is not a part of the executive branch of the government and, therefore, that the national archives have no right or authority to require his office to produce documentation for the actions taken in the past five years. Just what types of action have been taken by the OVP? More on this later.

Further still, the flagrant misuse of presidential power in the commuted sentence, a tacit pardon, of I. Lewis Libby only thickens the plot. Libby, a longtime associate of neo-Con interests and former chief of staff for the aforementioned VP, escaped a single minute of incarceration by divine ... er.. Presidential intervention. A decree from the President short-cut the due process of appeals and court-dates; a process to which so many disenfranchised Americans owe their time, effort, and life-savings. Why is this Libby so special? Glad you asked.

Libby, now a convicted criminal and one-time lawyer, offended the public trust by obstructing justice and committing perjury. He lied under oath to a Congressional panel that was investigating leaked information. The sentence that warranted, in the opinion of a federal judge, was thirty months incarceration. The crime of perjury is a long-standing and necessary component of the justice system as it prevents unscrupulous individuals from committing fraud on other individuals, groups, or, in this case, the people of the United States and the rest of the world. Here, the President has utilised his prerogative and excepted I. Lewis Libby from punishment.Obstruction of justice is a crime that speaks for itself -- a crime, I would say, the President committed in commuting his sentence. It is apparent that the President is not interested in justice.

Libby, being a close-confidant to the White House, became privy to many secrets. The notable secret here is the one he leaked: the identity of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame. The leak of her identity was, allegedly, the political price paid for contesting the desires of the President and the administration in the march to war from Afghanistan to Iraq. Libby, a good soldier to the Commander-in-Chief, was, ostensibly, only following orders. It has all come back around again, and again, and again. The Iraq War was only the beginning.

Having a world view, whether your vantage point is the OVP or simply a concerned citizen, in a war-torn, cloak-and-dagger world, one would suspect that leaking the name of a spy, active or not, is a bad idea. It is especially interesting that Valerie Plame is married to Joseph Wilson, a former US-ambassador. Joseph Wilson was engaged to report from Niger whether Iraq and, then president, Saddam Hussein sought nuclear materials from Niger. During the 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush clearly and concisely uttered the "sixteen words" that would make the Iraq War happen. Colin Powell's stop at the UN thereafter, making a case for war in front of the world, was a mere formality.

The war started on 17 March 2003, Baghdad was 'captured' in a mere fifty days, leading the President to dramatically -- really dramatically -- declare Mission:Accomplished on 6 May. The story is still only beginning. By the first week of July, the lies were becoming clearer. There were no weapons of mass destruction found. No labs with chemical or biological weapons. No 500 tons of nuclear material. Nothing. Perhaps, it was at this point that I. Lewis Libby blinked. Then the insurgency started. The Iraqis wanted the Americans out. But they just wouldn't, they couldn't, leave.

The lies would come to light in the months and years thereafter. There were indictments of Congressmen, scandals, revelations. Worse, there were questions. What had the PATRIOT ACT actually said? Were Americans being spied on? What of Gunatanamo Bay? Or Abu Ghraib? Or the secret CIA prisons overseas? What is extraordinary rendition? American foreign policies began filtering toward the daylight and out of the dark recesses of the Administration. The actions of the CIA are reported directly to the OVP. The lies began to unravel in the daylight.

America has done, and is doing, some very un-American things to non-Americans in the name of American freedom. There are warrantless wire-taps to be explained. There is faulty intelligence to be explained. There is a video on the Internet that says that 9/11 could not have happened the way the official story read. It says that there are too many inconsistencies. The film aligns -- or maligns -- the 'official story on 9/11' with another official story of note; the 'Magic bullet theory.' The 9/11 Commission report, completed five years after the event, cannot contest the authority of two kids with editing software in the public eye.

Oil and other energy prices are on the rise. The American dollar is falling. All the while the war in Iraq just won't die. American soldiers are dying, though. So are Iraqi militants, Iraqi civilians, andIraqi children. There are whispers of massacre, of war crimes, of civilian deaths at the hands of American troops; whispers of America destroying the nation they are acting to save. The clear message is, "we have to fight terror abroad so we don't fight it at home." Everything is justifiable as long as America is and remains untouched.

A report released by a reputable medical journals, the Lancet, claims that the death toll in Iraq, attributable to the invasion, war, and endless insurgency, is nearing genocide. 655 000 dead. "Impossible," they thought, "we are saving them from terror." Aren't we? The report is spun and discredited in America.

The war rages on. It is false but it is happening. Other things are happening too. More indictments of government officials; I. Lewis Libby among them. The Democrats regain authority in the halls of Congress. A woman ascends the seat of Speaker of the House for the first time. She openly challenges the neo-Cons and the Bush camp. More questions emerge about conduct in the Administration and the Iraq war. What was Jack Abramoff doing? What is happening in the OVP? Why were those US attorneys fired? Is Iraq the Vietnam war of this generation?

The spiral dives downward. Guarding against the possibility of damaging testimony, Libby is silenced with quickie commutation of sentence. The stiffest upper lip in politics belongs to Dick Cheney and he isn't going to change his tack despite what the constitution says. The Vice-President, the President and all those who surround him are above the law, above the checks and balances of the vaunted democracy, and beyond the reach of Congress; though Congress inches closer to restraint of the Administration with each passing day.

One day in September, not too long ago, a singular event set the United States -- and much of the rest of the world in various reactions -- on this course. Within America 9/11 defines an age and it's ramifications continue to be felt in daily conduct. To some of the rest of the world, the attack on America is no different than the Madrid bombings of 2003 or the 7 July bombings of 2005, tantrums of an established terrorist organization. To others it is another in a daisy-chain of events that stretches across time from the second World War to the present; an attack of the weak against the mighty.

What, then, causes me to believe that the fever pitch of conflict can only be undone by permitting the terrorists a victory? It is the unthinkable, but, what remains is this: the American government is proving itself, almost daily now, to be a loathsome enemy. Further, the American government leads the world in military operations world wide, leads the world in economic enterprise throughout the world, thus is the single leading oppressor in the world.

It is for these reasons that the singular event of a September six years past occurred.

The strike against America would not have led to massive bloodshed abroad if, and only if, America had stood and taken responsibility for the root causes of the attack; a severe imbalance in the authority and practice of political, social, and economic institutions. America may have freed their slaves in 1865, but America has, since 1945, economically enslaved the rest of the world. Only in a successful, symbolic, and galvanizing defeat of America, one that does not result on the rain of hellfire over foreign cities, will the prospect of peace present itself again.

This, the path not taken, may yet be the path of salvation. Lies, deceptions, an approach of Orwellian horror, has not produced any increase in security. Perhaps, if the stick lies broken on the ground, instead of reaching for another, the proverbial carrot may be employed instead.

All Things

2007-07-07T09:44:00.000-04:00

I refuse to believe that nothing changed that day. That everything could remain the same or that they would be the same but better after that day. Everything had to change. More people had to be awake, jarred from their coma by the event. More people had to realized that all of their assumptions, their comforts, and their securities are for naught. Further, that the government and the security that it promises in the homeland is vulnerable to the simplest of plans. Since that day, all bets were off.

Of course, the day I'm speaking of is the day of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. At 9:02 am, Timothy Mc Veigh solemnly demonstrated that the American homeland is susceptible to attack by a small, yet disciplined force. Several school shootings, office shootings, and other such terrible non-terrorist attacks later, the vulnerability of the American homeland was rocked again at the foundation by 19 men armed with box-cutters.

Six years, and three American military engagements, later the crucial impetus that emerged from that time has fallen apart. "They hate US and our freedoms." It is on this basis that America TM undertook to expand, diversify, and secure its interests.

Any who sought dissent or expressed reservations about the new righteous path were, initially marginalized. Now, the dissident voice is much more the mainstream, even in the face of a lack of divergence in the centres of power and authority. The mass is turning against the leadership, the proletariat against their betters, and, despite the police checks and gross imbalances, the revolution that was promised in 1964 may come to pass in 2009.

What has changed? Oh, its the little things. The expansion of executive authority, the corruption of justice, the demise of constitutional rights and freedoms, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, warrantless wiretaps, extensive monitoring of internet traffic, war profiteering and the privitization of military intelligence, puppet governments and client states upholding corporate interests, and the use of deadly force against alleged terrorists -- you know, the little things.

Since terrorism became an American reality in 1919, and a recognizable one in 1993, precious little was done to combat it until after 2001 when there were enough people in enough of the "right" places to make profitable decisions from it. Nothing preventative was undertaken to ensure that the forces that culminated in any of the past attacks would result in a future attack. And, now that these forces are better understood and prove even more concrete examples of the, pardon the pun, bases for terrorist attacks, what changes will be made.

The message from on high remains the same. None. Nothing will change. The world itself will continue to be exploited. The people in the world will continue to be impoverished and offered only a fragment of freedom. Justice will follow only the mighty. The purposes of life will be commerce, consumption, and capital.

The battle lines are drawn.

Terrorist Takes Refuge in America

2007-06-10T13:29:00.000-04:00

Another interesting instance of DoubleSpeak/DoubleThink here: The Bush Administration has made no move to detain a known terrorist, and former CIA operative, Luis Posada Carriles. He has been connected to the bombing of a Cuban jetliner, killing more than 70 people in 1976. However, because he operated from Venezuela and attacked Cuba -- both "enemies" in the contemporary frame -- perhaps the Administration is being decidedly political here. To me, this reads as: "He's one of OUR terrorists. He can stay."

Read an article here: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_5891605?nclick_check=1

Or just this excerpt: "So for now, Posada's a free man - even though the administration has sufficient evidence to arrest him for his role in either the 1976 airliner bombing or the 1997 Havana bombings. For that matter, Posada easily could be detained under Section 412 of the Patriot Act, which calls for the mandatory detention of aliens suspected of terrorism."

--- Since when does the Administration decide against enacting the PATRIOT ACT?

"The administration's approach to Posada contrasts jarringly with its approach to suspected Al-Qaida terrorists. With the latter, the administration wastes no time on legal niceties. Foreign nationals have been illegally "rendered" to countries where they faced torture, interrogated in secret CIA prisons and sent to languish at Guantanamo, sometimes on the flimsiest of evidence. Even U.S. citizens suspected of terrorist activities have been dubbed "unlawful enemy combatants" and deprived of their constitutional rights. So why is the administration dragging its feet on arresting and charging Posada?

--- I guess the hate of Cuba and Castro outweighs the Global War on Terror.

"It's not as if the evidence against Posada is seriously in dispute. In 1998, for instance, he "proudly admitted authorship of the hotel bomb attacks" to the New York Times, describing them "as acts of war intended to cripple a totalitarian regime[."]"

--- Which totalitarian regime is worse? That of Castro, or that of Bush... If "acts of war intended to cripple totalitarian regime" are warranted in some cases and not others, who gets to decide? Right, the guys with the most guns.

Broken

2007-06-07T09:40:00.000-04:00

The world is broken. It has not been broken by accident, really, it has been broken on purpose. It has been broken by those who would rather see it come undone than operate within its natural, logical, and ethical bounds. It is being reformed, constantly reestablishing new designs that favour the designers, to the detriment of those that believe the old world, recently pushed into obsolescence, still exists. Without reporting that the world order has changed, and without permitting participation in the establishment of this order, the few and the elite will enjoy further exploitation of the underclass. Of course, they don't see a problem with that.

This broken world is the one that bears most of the desires of the participants. However, whether these designs are of induced desire or of actual desire, the distinction is virtually ignored. What the participants in a World want is often very different that what their desires and appetites tell them that they want.

This broken world is the one that requires the least effort to live in. It is manifest of the minimum amount of responsibility and a minimum amount of knowledge. In so doing it absolves humanity of any wrongdoing. It cannot be helped, the things that we do, it is in our nature.

In identifying the tree of knowledge with original sin, it exalts the value of ignorance; which, though blissful, yet remains ignorant. Sloughing off responsibility on God, hoping to debt that humans have any culpability for actions in the universe is the worst of the offenses of religion.

Desires fulfilled and responsibility lacking, the world promotes a child-like perspective. Every action is self-justifying and requires no sacrifice. Further, as more children are born into a world that reinforces a peter pan syndrome, the beliefs and expectations held for each other and the world are pushed more toward an unattainable ideal.

The conclusion of this process of aggressive regression is humanity as less than a child-species, it is humanity as a fetal species. Adults will return to the womb, having every concern removed and every requirement for knowledge undone. The living state of the adult human will be that of a comatose person, as asleep to the passage of events, of time, and of life as a sleeping child. "Living" will be an exercise only of the mind; at that, it will be of little exercise.

PATRIOT Act

2007-06-03T14:43:00.000-04:00

I don't believe that we can put the issue of "terrorist" to bed quite yet. Speaking about the PATRIOT ACT requires discussion of the enemy to whom it pertains, "the terrorists." We may have to come to an understanding about the use of the word. Elsewhere, elsewhen. For now, I have to lay out some words on the PATRIOT ACT, and I try to choose my words clearly.

First, as was stated in Fahrenheit 9/11 (which, I might add, I was less than happy with) legislators rarely read all of the content in the bills they pass. In the case of the PATRIOT ACT, from inception to signing into law, the bill was virtually unread and passed in three days. Herein lies the DoubleSpeak: It was not responsible legislation, it was a decree from King Bush and his court. As a result of this act, the President and many government agencies -- FBI, CIA, were granted extraordinary powers and given massive funding to undermine the essence of America and threaten peaceful relations with the rest of the world. This is the first failure in critical thinking.

Second, the purpose of the Act is to "deter and punish American terrorists in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes." Consequently, it is an American law that can be -- and is -- applied to non-Americans OUTSIDE of America. Each country makes its own laws and enforces those laws within its borders. For the events and circumstances that transcend international borders there are international laws and treaties. There are international organizations that enforce these laws and treaties; the UN and NATO are the two most prominent. Think critically now, if a law was passed in North Korea that could be enforced on Americans, would America accept it? Keep in mind, America does not live up to its obligations under many of the treaties, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, it has signed at the UN. America also refuses to extradite any American to the World Court. Essentially it means, to me, that America does a lot of shit in the world it can't and won't justify to anyone. That may, in fact, be the American way and the American culture in a nutshell.

There are several further problems in the text and application of the PATRIOT ACT

Despite the protections against discrimination stated in Title I of the PATRIOT ACT, when put into practices the statement is meaningless. "Terrorists" are being made out of Islamic people the world over. As a result, law enforcement agencies must discriminate, targeting Arabs and Muslims, to achieve their objectives. DoubleSpeak.

Warrantless wiretapping, electronic eavesdropping, information filtering, and so on; every available resource is being used to combat "the terrorists." The implication is that you too, an innocent, may be investigated without the standard of prima facie evidence or probable cause. Done as a threat assessment, all of these acts are simple and possible.

Non-citizens, traveling in or through the US, can be detained without charge and held indefinitely once charged. That means, as a hub of global travel, America grants itself the right to detain whomever they choose for whatever reasons they choose. And, as in the case of Maher Arar, to deport international travelers to any destination they see fit.

There's a great website that breaks down the problems with the ACT here: http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/

It is a paranoid means of behavioural control, paternalism at its worst, very reminiscent of 1984. And, now, perfectly legal. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear, right? Maybe. You never know when one of your sentiments may be deemed a threat to national security. One further note, a recent audit of warrantless FBI wiretaps, searches, and surveillance requests under the PATRIOT ACT have determined that the FBI is currently abusing their new investigative powers.

World Power II

2007-06-01T14:26:00.001-04:00

America will destroy itself and the American people, the ones without any power will be caught in the middle. There will be a meltdown of the economic -- and therefore political -- relationships that America has with the rest of the world, and then there will be the collapse from within of the social, political, and economic relationships within the nation. The country may fragment, a group of very powerful rogue states struggling for resources. America's image, mainly supported by an immense media storm, is already beginning to crumble. There is too much inertia in the country for a radical change, too many people set in their ways, don't you think?

The type of change required would go hand-in-hand with revolution. If that is true, the American people will be required to overcome all of the "national security" safeguards that protect the country from revolution or coups d'etat or other subversive actions. The police actions of the 1960s against the Black Panthers exemplify this. Current homeland security measures, even more so. Any threat to the government or the "American way" (which depends on who is defining it) is deemed a terrorist act and will receive the response of every level of law enforcement.

So, to effect revolutionary change, someone with power would have to act against his/her own interest and support the interests of the American people and lead a revolution, or the American people will have to overcome the world power they have helped to create.

"... would it have to be someone that already had power? Couldn't a revolutionary rise to power whilst benefiting themselves because, to put it simply, they want exactly what the people want?

"...my opinion still remains the same, that America will not "sink far enough" to need a revolution. The soon-to-be-elected Democrats will change some of the current problems, and America will soon start it's imminent decline from "World Power" status." (A. Nesmith-Beck; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 28 May 2007).

There is so little space for those not empowered to act. Grass-roots organizations exist all over the place but no one of them has the organizing power to attract any or all of the others. A lightning rod is needed and, often in Western culture, that lightning rod is a celebrity. Any celebrity that would want to align people for a revolution against the powers-that-be would be, in a de facto fashion, acting against big media -- against their celebrity status. If, on the other hand, the empowered individual was an academic, or a captain of industry, or ex-military, or ex-government, all of these people, are acting against their own interest. I maintain that the person would have to be empowered, If, as you ask, the revolution is in line with the interest of the individual and, thus, is empowering, I question the ability for that revolution to overcome the safeguards in place. The empire can only collapse from within. Weakened by its own largesse, a revolutionary move is the bare minimum requirement.

Keep in mind that the Democrats still have to keep the war-profiteers, uh... er... industries such as weapons manufacture, oil and gas, automakers, and aerospace companies, happy. As long as corporations can contribute to political campaigns, "thy will be done." It would be revolutionary if the Democrats would, after attaining office, remove that capacity, but, again, they would be the empowered taking revolutionary action. I don't see it AS happening. Would a political party shoot itself in the foot like that?

As far as other potential changes that the democrats could institute, any change large enough to shift or change America would be revolutionary. I consider America a Juggernaut in the truest sense of the word. Immense. Powerful. Armed to the teeth. Heavy. Moving at a pace that makes it an unstoppable force. The only immovable objects America faces are the Second American Revolution or the immovable object that is Peak Oil, or Economic Collapse, World War III (which is already, mostly, happening).

America and Britain are in a fix. They, two of the G7/8 invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq (under false pretenses). All of the West owes a lot to China for its cheap consumer products, the lifeblood of a Western economy, and both China and Russia get oil from Iran, neighbours and associates of Iraq on the "Axis of Evil." Both America and the UK, sometimes (like Y) Canada, are heavily dependent on the success of the War on Terror being fought to secure their meal tickets. Ignoring the warnings put out by Kyoto Protocols and the Doomsday Clock and the recent Stern Report, the consumption of fossil fuels proceeds apace, which, in turn, continues the widening of the gap between rich and poor. All of this under the pretense of securing freedom for everyone, while greedom reigns supreme. Freedom is for those who accept what freedom is permitted to them.

Now, the war is against "the Terrorists." This is merely a preamble. Eventually, the war will be against the dissenters, or the shit disturbers, or the anti-globalisation nuts... anyone who says "NO." It is in this respect that I say that WWIII, not a clash of ideals (as in WWII) and not a clash of world powers (as in WWI), but a clash of circumstance, of powers and ideals.

What is the break point? WWIII will only be recognized when the disenfranchised of every nation take up arms and fight their oppressors -- both within and without. It is the war of the Rich against the Poor. It is the most devastating series of wars imaginable, civil and international wars with simultaneous ends.

Revolution is preferable.

There are currently talks of a neo-Cold War. Russia is pissed with the West. China is looking to take top spot from the US: economically, militarily, socially. They do have the Olympics this year... And, what of the spread of anti-American sentiment -- not that it is undeserved -- across the globe. Military power is being proven ineffectual daily in Iraq. It was proven ineffectual in Lebanon last summer. Despite the power of guns, ideas reign supreme. So, choose. War -- WWIII -- or Revolution.

"Alright, all of this probably will happen, but will it really happen soon? I can see the world plodding on for about another twenty five years..." (A. Nesmith-Beck; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 31 May 2007).

No. Sooner. Don't forget the history you, yourself, have witnessed. American foreign policy did not change between the "election" of Bush in November 2000 and 11 September 01. He was then re-elected November '04, and there were bombings in London 7 July 05. The way I see it, after the election in '08, without a troop withdrawal from Iraq and some compromise on the nuclear issue and more amiable economic relations the world over AND some movement on environmental and human rights issues, 2009 will be a tough year.

Beyond this...

Russia is PISSED about Iran. Read the news. Putin, indirectly, but openly, compared US foreign policy and military power to that of Fascist Germany. The Soviets didn't declare war on Germany until late in 1944, but they resisted the advance of the Nazis for years at Stalingrad. So, Putin's statement, in concert with Russian history, shows that Russia will resist the type of power they perceive coming out of Washington.

One further note on the attacks of 9|11 and 7|7. It is reasonable to believe that some empowered person within, to further certain political or economic ends, permitted or assisted in the execution of these attacks. Often, I have called this "playing both sides against the middle."

Many among the power elite benefited from the 9|11 attacks: gold commodity values went through the roof, shorted shares for each airline involved paid off, the insurance policies on WTC1 and 2 and 7 all paid out to one person. The timing of the attacks, in relation to two American elections and the G8 Summit at Gleneagles, Scotland in 2005, further supports the theory that someone is pushing an agenda. Something happens in some rotten corner of the world, requiring a distraction inside the G8 that permits a correction to go unnoticed, or, it acts as a pretext for "strong, decisive action."

Remember the British sailors captured off of the Iraqi/Iranan coast? They were returned at Easter as a show of good faith. Had they not been returned, it was a potential pretext for war. The same pretext used by Israel in attacking Lebanon in 2006. The notion that Downing Street and Pennsylvania Ave. had conspired together in this gambit was discussed. Apparently the President of an "evil" nation managed to steal the moral high ground.

Whether such an agenda is engagement in Iraq for war profiteering or for oil revenues or simply to tip the scales in favor of one unnamed power centre over another (I'm thinking the Stonecutters or the Freemasons, or the Illuminati here), it doesn't matter. In the final analysis, change still requires a strength that simply does not exist in the world. At least not yet. When peace is profitable, when an even distribution of wealth is profitable, there might be change.

Remember, and I keep saying it, America is NOT the WORLD. It is the things that America does elsewhere that brings the shitstorm home. It is not the shit that happens in America that makes things go bad for the world.

World Power

2007-05-14T14:11:00.000-04:00

A discussion. Again, from Facebook. Infernal device.

That's the thing. As a soft power, Canada NEVER demands anything without the support of the international community, not just the US. Hell, our country IS the international community. As a result, if we are looking to achieve something, it is in the interest of a greater portion of the global population. We all know what happened when John Kerry mentioned a "global test" during a debate with Bush. He was marginalized, then not elected. Canada, however, places great faith in the power of the many. This is a position much of the world wishes that the SUPERpower would adopt. Unilateralism, I suspect, is not long for this Earth.

"Right, but America won't place any faith in the power of the many, until they're no longer the world superpower and they don't need to. For now, they can just go it alone even if no one agrees." (A. Nesmith-Beck; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 13-14 May 2007).

And where/what has that gotten America? Why can America not place any faith in the many? It is WORLD power we're talking about after all...

"That's gotten America to be hated by pretty much every other country in the world, but they are so powerful that it doesn't matter what other countries think. Most Americans believe that their country is and always will be the WORLD power that we're talking about. They don't think the balance of power will ever change, or move to the other side of the scale. America will always be strong, proud, and free to do whatever it wants to the rest of the world, with no consequence." (ibid.)

Didn't exactly work out for Germany in 1939 did it? If other countries can countermand the Ultimate Equalizer...

Most Americans, according to some surveys, believe that the world will end in "the Rapture" within their lifetimes and that "global warming" (aka environmental destruction) is not a pressing issue. Most Americans believe that WWII started 7 December 1941. Most Americans believe that Canadians live in igloos and ride polar bears. Basically, the stuff that most Americans believe is wrong.

The question I have is can anyone take away the keys from a nation that is in a drunken stupor AND at the helm of the world? There will be consequences if no one does...

"... was Germany really as powerful then as America is now?... to answer your question, my opinion is that no country will take the keys from America, they will eventually become so drunk that they lose them, without any pressure from the outside world. But will it be soon enough to avoid those consequences? Only time can tell." (ibid.)

Germany certainly thought it was powerful enough to conquer Europe and Russia (aka the Old World). Their mighty industrial power, less than half a century after the start of the Industrial Revolution, had caught and surpassed most of Europe. Therefore, they believed that they could conquer it. America's industries, once engaged at warfare and under the Roosevelt's New Deal, caught and surpassed Germany. Essentially, America used Germany's corporate (i.e. Fascist) industrial model, amplified it, and successfully outproduced armaments. The fever pitch of military industry remains unabated. Of course, after the Trinity test and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the arms race shifted and has never been the same. Forget Germany, no one has ever had that kind of power. And, due to the "schoolyard bully" force that America has applied to the world since 1945, no one ever will.

Do you not believe that the proof is in the pudding now that the Administration now is completely, excuse the pun, bombed?

Look at the evidence:
:: The Attorney-General is called before Congress, twice, in a scandal that, allegedly, fired State Attorneys for political ends.
:: There are indictments against Congressmen, a conviction of the aide to the Vice-President, and serious questions about the aide to the President.
:: Every year the Administration has been in power, the US has been more at odds with international consensus, more at odds with its own population, and diving into national debt.
:: Pressure from the outside world and within America has been fast and furious, but totally ignored by the Administration. Former Generals deploring the war, 10 million people worldwide protesting it before the first bomb was dropped, protests of US and G8-led globalization efforts, protests of privatization efforts led by US corporations like the IMF and World Bank, and so on..

America IS drunk with power. Not the American people, because they have no real power, but the power elite who have all the power. Do they give two ishts about what the consequences are? Obviously not. Are the consequences evident? Yes. Are the keys being given up or are the methods changing? No.

The Plight of Scooter Libby

2007-05-05T09:35:00.000-04:00

It may be true that justice, where the power elite is concerned will never be done. The degree of corruption with the elite class is becoming increasingly apparent. The damage inflicted by the current American political administration faces final judgement this month as the appeals process for I. Lewis Libby comes to a close. Will the President pardon a perjurer? Would this not be a tacit admission of corruption within the ranks?

On the street, not that I would know anything of the street life, but, on the street, one must be willing to face prison time to protect those to whom you remain loyal. In politics, it is only up until you know that you are headed to prison, and facing a no pardon situation, that your loyalty matters. Does Libby know anything that could irrevocably damage the administration? Will he be sacrificed despite the threat of his rolling over?

Certainly, by this time, the administration has insulated itself against such a threat. The implications of the Valerie Plame affair reach deep into the causes for the Iraq war, but, it must be stayed that no causal link exists between the Libby perjury charge and the initiation of hostilities in Iraq. Essentially, all that an admission by Libby gains is the knowledge that the Administration plays dirty or is incompetent. There is much evidence to support both these claims.

Any further information is to be gained only by the capacity of Libby to cause a stir. If he can confirm a causal relationship, that is one thing. If he has information on other misdeeds of the Administration, that is another.

The courts have said that the penalty for perjury in this case is 30 months at Club Fed. If Libby is a true patriot, a supporter of his President and the administration, he will shut his mouth and do his time. The problem is, if he truly has something to fear from the administration, besides an end to any future career paths, the outcome would be the same.

If, on the other hand, Libby is a true capitalist, he will look for the best deal. Doing time may not be easy for him. By some estimations his political career is already over. A book deal will only get him so far before he must do something else. The myriad connections he has as a result of his position in the administration will surely net him some corporate office. The question is, can he squeeze. something more out of the President for his service? Something more like a pardon?

Gun Control After Virginia Tech Shooting

2007-05-01T09:02:00.000-04:00

This is in response to this

"The recent massacre at Virginia Tech brings to the forefront once again that psychopaths show respect for neither the laws of the land nor the lives in innocent people.

"Virginia Tech has a no-gun policy, meaning that anyone who carrys a gun could get expelled. Were it not for this policy, it would have been possible for a person to legally carry a concealed handgun and to have intervened as this shooter wandered campus for hours at will, killing to his heart's content.

"Criminals do not obey laws; that is the very definition of a criminal. Banning the carrying of guns on a campus may give the impression of safety, but only self-defense actually guarantees safety. A person who obeys the law and carries a gun legally shouldn't be denied the fundamental right to defend life simply because he or she steps over a line onto university property."

Well...

1. Psychopaths are psychopaths. Carrying a gun and being a psychopath only seems to happen in America, where the guns are (to a Canadian, anyway. I know, there are guns in Canada, but, they don't find their way, often, into the hands of psychopaths).

2. "psychopaths show respect for neither the laws of the land nor the lives in innocent people." Thank you for the definition of psychopath. What does this have to do with guns? If you want to stop psychopaths from killing people, or disrespecting the laws of the land, find a way to not generate psychopaths. This, also, seems to happen more often in America. Or, at least, the America that makes celebrities of psychopaths.

3. "Were it to have occurred at any other university in Virginia, it would have been possible for a person to legally carry a concealed handgun and to have intervened..." How do you figure? You know -- for a fact, of course -- that a person carrying a legally registered handgun would have been in that building on that day, and would have found and killed said psychopath?

4. "... as this shooter wandered campus for hours at will, killing to his heart's content." Way I read the story, he killed two people in a dorm room, then, went to a specific building somewhere else on campus, then killed a lot of people there -- in that one place. VT was that scene from "Elephant" not "Happiness."

5. "Criminals do not obey laws; that is the very definition of a criminal." Did you look that one up? 'Cause I got a bunch of silly laws here that anyone can break: http://www.filecabi.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-4233.html

6. OK, say it with me now: ONLY in a world WITHOUT GUNS "self-defense [sometimes] actually guarantees [everyones temporary] safety." In a world with guns, people get killed or injured at the flick of a switch. 'Nuff Said.

7. "A person who obeys the law and carries a gun legally shouldn't be denied the fundamental right to defend life simply because he or she steps over a line onto university property." Actually that's the definition of private property. The university decided to ban guns from ITS campus, just like I decided to ban guns from MY house. Virginia Tech is a corporate entity within and bearing the name of the state, but it operates independently of the state. It is given money by the state, but can choose to, for the most part, prevent things like the massacre from happening BY banning guns.

8. Guns in the "right" hands CAN make a difference. The only thing a gun recognizes is the power of another gun. Maybe that is the problem.

Schooled by Me

2007-04-27T13:05:00.002-04:00

Another transcript of a discussion had in the world of Facebook. This time, health care. I've cut most of the naive and patently untrue comments, leaving the thrust of the argument that I just HAD to put down. Edited for spelling.

"America's government probably does not pay for our health care system because our government holds us all responsible for our actions and for our health. Government, as I believe, is not designed to baby and minister to the people, ... I, as a future taxpayer, will not have to pay for the operation when I don't know, Timmy the crack dealer gets shot. I have to pay only for my medical expenses, and that is the way I like it to be. Absolute personal responsibility is a wonderful system because it frees the government from a foolish burden, i.e. shelling out tax dollars to pay for Timmy, and allows the people of America to positively govern ourselves.

"I also agree with Cody in that competition, in almost all industries, is a good thing because it does tend to weed out weaknesses in the system. ... Anyway, I agree that perhaps the system Canada uses for governing its people is good, I simply disagree about the seeming lack of personal obligation and responsibility in the system" (H. Clarke; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 24 April 2007).

More frequently than Timmy getting shot, there's a malnourished kid somewhere in middle America that needs a blood transfusion his parents can't afford because they're small business owners; or an elderly couple who need prescriptions but got bilked out of their Social Security by Enron; or the 24 year-old mother of two who is diagnosed with cancer and can't afford treatment because 36 years ago the nuclear power plant in her hometown cut costs by skipping the containment domes. Sure, survival of the fittest may work for young, healthy all-Americans -- there are fewer and fewer young, healthy all-Americans.

In the interest of competition and driving down costs, big businesses crush small ones, big businesses exploit their power over people, and big businesses cut corners to save costs. In health care, another big business, substandard care is given while costs skyrocket. Demand for care is the economic basis for rising costs -- even when demand is caused by "uncontrollable" factors such as environment. Basically, the system supports itself by making things worse for everyone but the system.

It's true, there's no good reason for a government to catch an individual every time he or she falls. Everyone must be responsible for him/herself. BUT, the greatest resource any nation has is its people, especially its children. The health of a nation is in the health of its people; both mentally and physically. Healthcare and education are the core values to maintaining national strength. Supporting these core values IS in the national interest and should be a national responsibility.

The "bad apples" justification for adopting a "survival of the fittest" stance holds about as little water here as it did when Bush was glossing over white-collar criminals at Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Andersen in 2002; and the entire administration covered for the defense department and torture techniques at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and countless secret prisons. Besides, if Timmy was dealing enough crack to get shot, he'd probably pay his own hospital bill in cash, skip out on reporting the shooting to the cops with a bribe, and be back on the street the next day. You wouldn't have to pay a cent.

Harry replied, "On Big Business. You are forgetting that Big Businesses compete with each other..."

And...

"... so what if freaking terrorists, [rhetoric] are being tortured in the best interest of the free world[?] [Lots more FOX-news-induced rhetoric] What happens if America falls? [Doomsayer-ing] SO next time you think a stupid terrorist is "suffering", think about how the rest of the world gets to sleep another night safely" (H. Clarke; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 27 April 2007).

Big businesses competing with each other is fiscal mutual masturbation. Economic policy, then, is "join the circle-jerk or get nothing." If you honestly believe that just because there are three choices instead of one that you're getting a good deal, you must need a refresher in freedom and democracy. Three IMMENSE corporations competing with each other closes the market to everyone else. Instead of an actual monopoly, there is a virtual one. Quoting myself: "In the interest of competition and driving down costs, big businesses crush small ones, big businesses exploit their power over people, and big businesses cut corners to save costs." Believing that you have a choice where, really, there is none is a sign that you've bought the doublespeak. True competition would permit new players into the arena and would present real challenges to the big players, real risks to their supremacy.

**

I know YOU don't care about the "terrorists" being held at Guantanmo Bay. I know many Americans don't care about them. In fact, MOST Americans would rather that they stay there and rot -- in a stress position in 130 degree heat -- until they die and go to a worse Hell than the one they're already in. Sound about right?

Problem is, for all your talk of democracy and freedom, you would choose those to whom you would deny the inalienable rights that you hold so dear. Not only that, but, you would do so without due process of law, placing yourself above the laws you seek to institute as justice. Furthermore, you exalt the fact that your tortures are justified because they are the convenient punching bags you have been searching the world for. And finally, you repeat the rhetoric of the FOX news types extraordinarily well; "enemies of democracy and freedom," "best interests of the free world." Are you so certain that these catch-phrases and talking points are so accurate?

Try it this way: (paraphrasing you)

So what if free-thinking individuals, enemies of our Brand America military-enforced democracy and our selective freedoms... are being tortured in the best interest of the parts of the free world we like. Those people are different than we are and want to destroy everything we love in America by making it slightly different, possibly more Canadian. [OUR MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!!!]

Any person who disagrees with America may, one day, be called a terrorist. Any person who thinks about actively contesting American military superiority, presently, IS called a Terrorist. It seems that ideas, themselves, are dangerous. Hence, massive surveillance and the USA PATRIOT ACT. Welcome to the age of Thoughtcrime.

A "terrorist" is not a Terrorist just because you say he is. Just like you're not an imbecile just because you write like one.

Harry wrote: "They are not little innocent victims, they are evil malignant turmors on the world who serve not purpose other than to disrupt, kill, torture, murder, and destroy everything we hold sacred. Secret prisons are used to protect America's security."

--- Check it out: What if what you hold sacred is a malignant tumour to everyone else in the world? What if America has proven its capacity to disrupt governments and nations? What if America kills, tortures, and murders (or at least recommends or promotes it)? What if America destroys everything that anyone who isn't in line with America holds sacred?

Harry wrote: "What happens if America falls? The world's economy will crash, millions will be unemployed, the world will fall into civic disorder, and millions will die."

--- Check it out: Hate to burst your bubble, but America isn't the World. If America falls, the world's economy MIGHT crash, but -- almost certainly -- it won't. Money knows no nationality. If America falls, the money will leave and settle in other markets.

--- America owes more money than it has -- that Iraq War is MY-TEE expensive -- so, the people to whom America owes money will take over. That's India, China, and faceless multinational corporations. Since India and China, combined, make up about 1/3 of the global population and incredible economic booms happening right now, all the power and money will shift away from America and move toward European and Asian markets, leaving America to rot. Africa and South America -- already in massive poverty -- will probably improve as more investment dollars freed for investment.

--- The upper crust of America will be OK, captains of industry and celebrities and other multi-multi-millionaires. They'll emigrate abroad, they'll buy citizenship in the New-New World, they'll forget America. Only middle and under-class America will suffer, the bottom 90%. Tens of millions of Americans will be unemployed; and a stupid fence won't separate America from looking like Mexico -- but whiter.

--- If you're even starting to think that America could win a war against China, let alone India and China combined, think again. If the world, or China alone, cuts America off -- no more money, no more cheap consumer goods, no more inexpensive electronics, and, most importantly no more cheap oil imports -- America would have only two choices: accept it and change or destroy the whole world. Short of the nuclear arsenal, this is the same position the empire of Japan was placed in, by America, between 1939 and 1941. Japan chose fight the world. Japan lost.

Critical Thinking in Dystopia

2007-04-22T12:48:00.000-04:00

Note: this was written on a discussion board in response to the following comment:

"Public education is NOT the foundation of society, because it is incompetant, and is detrimental to the future generations of this country, because of its lack of standards. Private education is much more efficient, and it is proven that private schools, which are based on the laissez-faire system of economics, provide a better standard of education in which children gain more oppurtunities from." (C. LeBlanc; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Message Board; 14 March 2007)

The incompetance of public education, at least in America, cannot be disputed by this point. The reasons for it can be found everywhere. Whether or not private schooling can correct this problem is up to parents, teachers, and students to decide for themselves, in either system. What I'd like to know is this: Can kids be taught, now, to think critically enough to avoid the pitfalls of pervasive DoubleSpeak in America? Are kids being taught to think critically, or are they being taught only to become active participants in brand "America?"

Think about all the advertising, all the political rhetoric, all of the media outlets, all of the information on the internet, all of the misinformation and disinformation pumped out to confuse (y)our "enemies." Is critical thinking being taught to kids?

If so, what happens when kids ask questions that can't/won't be answered?

"Lastly, from my experience at public school in America, students are not being taught to think critically. Public schools are too worried about how their test scores rank next to other public schools, and not worried about getting the students the best possible education. They are too self centered in their own rankings, as they often determine their funding and enrollment. This is primarily the main reason why I switched to private school, as they do not have mandatory state testing, and so are more focused on teaching us to think critically, as that is what will give us the most oppurtunity and will make a difference in the future." (C. LeBlanc; ibid; 22 April 2007)

Standardization is used in Canada only as a check and balance against systematic failure. A temperature check, if you will. Adjustments are made to the education system to determine its competency. However, tests are not annual, nor do they necessarily determine funding for, or enrollment in, any particular school. We are not necessarily forced to attend any one school, but, if you want to go to any other school besides the one to which your community/region/district/neighbourhood is assigned, you're on your own.

Critical thinking skills, as Aaron stated, are not really "taught." They are ingrained in us by our society. This is partially because of a great diversity of culture -- a great diversity of ideas and practices and foods and arts and identities -- in our nation.

Canada is, probably (I'm about 90% certain on this one), the most multicultural nation on Earth. We certainly have the single most culturally diverse city on Earth, Toronto, shaming cities like New York and London because of the amount of cultural integration there is. We were taught, as Canadian kids, that Canada is a cultural "tossed salad." You can see all of the different cultures expressed in Canada even though they are all mixed in to this one nation. One's culture is not destroyed and not covered up by in being Canadian.

On the other hand, and as Bush has recently stated with respect to American immigration policies, America is a "cultural melting pot." Ostensibly, this means that all cultures contribute to being American. But, and this is a BIG BUT, the prevailing aspects of "American culture"-- whatever that is -- always supersedes any other culture. What this means in terms of ideas and practices and foods and arts and identities is pretty clear to me; and, what I see, as close English-speaking neighbouring nation has changed recently, a LOT.

We can discuss what American culture is elsewhere -- like on another board (that'll I'll start in a couple of minutes). The consequence of America's "melting pot" is that, as a society, denies critical thinking and promotes acceptance of the status quo. Therefore, state mandated tests. Therefore, a focus on economy. Therefore, Americans are expected to fall in line. America denies difference or dissent or discussion. Those who think critically, they're troublemakers -- D-students.

On Iran...

2007-04-11T12:00:00.000-04:00

I don't think that the UK and the US would want to, at this point, open another theater of warfare. I could be wrong. Certainly, there is reason for it and there may yet be a battle for control of Iran. The West needs to control Iran to complete the trinity of states (the others are Afghanistan and Iraq) to pipe oil from the land-locked Caspian Sea, into the Black Sea, to be transported west. All this is to be done without stepping on the toes of the Russians, who, you'll remember, were the "other" superpower during the Cold War and were dismissed from Afghanistan; the result of a combination of US-backed Muhajadeen (later, Taleban) guerillas and crumbling Communism (in part the product of lack of resources, such as oil).

There are also trust Issues between Iran, Iraq, and America.

Iran already has reason to anticipate Western invasion. It happened once before. In 1953, the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran was overthrown. In his place, a (very) West-friendly monarch -- the Shah -- was installed and the oil began to flow again to the West from Iran. That is, until 1979. That's when the Iranian Revolution took place, deposing the Shah, instituting the Islamic State, and establishing the Iran we know today. America was involved in, read: paid for, the Iraqi response to the revolution. America's, then, good buddy Saddam Hussein was running the show. That war lasted eight, almost nine, years and ended in a stalemate. The rest is the history we've all heard a little more recently. Brutal suppression of Iraq's Shi'a (majority) population. Chemical warfare against Iraq's Kurdish population. But, it wasn't until the invasion of Kuwait that Hussein became a "bad guy." There was Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm and the Gulf War. And hen, there was another Gulf War. And then, there was 9|11. And then, there was an Iraq War (on false pretenses).

Iran has no reason to believe that America will stay out of their space. America has to entertain their paranoid fantasies about Iran building nuclear weapons because, if the Administration was Iran, they would be idiots not to build nuclear weapons with their nuclear enrichment facilities.

But, and this is pretty key here, look at the history.

After the British military personnel were captured, they were put on TV, and they were made to admit that they had transgressed Iranian territory. Whether they actually did is a matter, now, of politics not of fact. In the end, they were released, unharmed, as a sign of good faith and in the spirit of the Easter holiday; this despite sabre rattling of the past three years about the Iranian nuclear program. Isn't that nice?

In 1981, after being held for 444 days, the fledgling Islamic state of Iran released the 52 captive American embassy personnel unharmed; this, despite the charges of espionage laid against them. Isn't that nice?

Perhaps these lessons are the teachings of Islam. After all, Saladin spared many lives in his retaking of Jerusalem from the Frankish Crusaders in 1187 (I learned this from Kingdom of Heaven, and Wikipedia can't be trusted, so, maybe it's not true); this despite the massacre of Muslims in the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099. Isn't that nice?

And, Muhammed, prophet of Islam, spared the lives of many in his conquest of Mecca in 630. Isn't that nice?

Here and Now, Boys

So, maybe, all of the "Durka, Durka, Mohammed-Jihad" repetitions from sources such as FOX News and other members of Team America belie only the suspicions of paranoid Westerners, unable to understand why Islam forgives when Western culture forgets only when convenient. An eye for an eye is what the West anticipates. We've shit on them for years, why WOULD they let us get away with it? Expect the worst: "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" ("they're gonna build nukes and bomb the shit out of us"); and hope for the best: "Freedom is on the march... fight terrorism abroad" ("we'll hit 'em before they hit us").

If effort is undertaken to understand the perspectives and concerns and cultural sensibilities of the people we, in the West, subjugate, perhaps all of this posturing and political rhetoric will come to an end. If America was to find another way to feed it's big, fat economy with something other than 25% of the world's resources -- including 25% of all the oil -- maybe they wouldn't have to fight everyone for it.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Environmental Perspective

2007-04-02T12:03:00.000-04:00

or, "What I said to Stephen Harper"

I believe that it is the responsibility of our federal elected officials to shape the actions of Canada and to project the best the Canada has to offer. Canada cannot be content to follow the lead of other nations or interest groups. This information age, an age of ideas and ideologies, can be influenced by a people that firmly believe in an ideal. Here, I posit that Canada's international ideal be "the living Earth."

The living Earth is an idea. It marries human systems and processes to natural systems a processes. To some this is regarded as environmentalism, to others it is true-cost economics, to still others it is common sense. As cells live within a body, so too do living humans inhabit the Earth. Damage done to the body affects the cells within. Damage done to the Earth affects the humans within. Only a few types of cells can be employed to repair the body, but, all humans can assist in repairing the Earth. There is a caveat, we must slow or stop the damage being done.

As Canadians, we can promote that the benefits of a healthy environment is the first step in this repair process. Economics, often touted as the first victim of environmentalism, must simply adjust to the new demands of human respect for a living Earth.

Other considerations such as universal human rights; the abolition of warfare; an end to "kill-switch" weapons that are nuclear, chemical, biological, explosive, or projectile in nature; can be undertaken. They will not happen overnight, but, in a healthy mental and physical environment, such things can take shape.

A green revolution must take place in this country, one that sets an example to the rest of the world. Canada is, despite the misadventure in Afghanistan and our seat within the G8, respected in the international community. Canada boasts vast natural resources. Our population and economic might may be lesser than some of our peers, but, it makes us more flexible in exploration of a sustainable future. We are a hardy people, a young nation that appreciates the outdoors. Let us create the future that the world needs.

Occulting Aesop

2007-03-22T11:48:00.000-04:00

The Bald Man And The Fly by Aesop

A FLY bit the bare head of a Bald Man who, endeavoring to destroy it, gave himself a heavy slap. Escaping, the Fly said mockingly, "You who have wished to revenge, even with death, the Prick of a tiny insect, see what you have done to yourself to add insult to injury?' The Bald Man replied, "I can easily make peace with myself, because I know there was no intention to hurt. But you, an ill-favored and contemptible insect who delights in sucking human blood, I wish that I could have killed you even if I had incurred a heavier penalty."

America and Dissent

America, certainly the bald man, has given itself a heavy slap in the swatting of Afghanistan, in the invasion of Iraq, in the neglect of New Orleans, and in its disastrous foreign policy. Instead of destroying terrorism, or undermining dissent, or restoring faith in America - thus striking fear into the heart of the fly who represents any dissenting party to US policy - the spectre of terror has only shifted escaping to touch down on the America yet again. It is they who dissent –- Hezbollah, hackers, Al-Qaeda, artists, Palestinans, and peace-mongers –- that bellow in the direction of America, “You who have wished to revenge, even with death, the Prick of a tiny insect [!]” What is the impact of any violation against the belligerent machine that is the World? Naught can derail this machine and, certainly, there are few that guide its conduct. And, certainly, the many of us reside within it. The unfortunate mass, for the most part, are cast out -- clinging to it for life. Some tiny niches remain; wherein, a lucky few reside.

Bald America’s reply, with awesome ferocity: “I can easily make peace with myself [.]” Peace within is the imposed guideline. There is naught but internal harmony, harmony among those who are accepted; thus, only people that have accepted America and are accepted by America can live in peace. Further, “because I know there was no intention to hurt.” Does America, or any dominion, not intend the harm it irresponsibly and inevitably causes? Does America swat so ferociously because it realizes it chases only the irritation, not the root cause within? America is irritated because they cannot accept what they cannot understand. America is irritated by difference.

Still further, “[b]ut you, an ill-favored and contemptible insect who delights in sucking human blood,” can refer to the bloodletting of terrorist attacks and of economic and resource diversions. The bald man rails against anything taken from him like a spoiled child. The problem is that the bald man does not realize the extremity to which there is imbalance. To have a fly suck a little blood is nothing in comparison to the utter destruction of the fly, should he – the bald man – connect with accuracy. Certainly, the fabled bald man does not seek little bloodletting from the fly. Nor will he suck the blood of his quarry in return; there can be no reaction that is in parity with the incident act. He seeks the obliteration of an annoyance. Furthermore, the bald man makes many vice-laden distinctions; the fly is “ill-favored,” unlike man who is favored; “contemptible,” unlike the man who is without contempt; “an… insect,” therefore worthy of destruction; “delights in” what man finds inconceivable, “sucking human blood” – though, as proven by his action, bloodshed in response is acceptable.

The fly can be naught but a fly; its nature is fixed at birth. Man, however, is capable of thought otherwise. There are those men who would not injure a fly, regarding its life as valuable as that of man himself. Acting as such is more of a bother, less convenient, and requires much more understanding. The fact remains that the only species that kills insects without eating them is Homo sapiens. Some humans delight in bloodletting. The relationship between those above and those below the force of the swat are rarely any different, especially where humans kill one another. It is their methods that differ.

It is this that is the key difference: “I wish that I could have killed you even if I had incurred a heavier penalty [italics added]." The belligerence and self-righteousness of the bald man must be tempered. The heavier penalty is being incurred in megadeaths, even now, in Iraq. The heavier penalty is being incurred in parts per million, even now, in environmental devastation. The heavier penalty is being levied in social irresponsibility, even now, in New Orleans. The heavier penalty is being incurred on a reputation abroad, even now, at the UN, within the EU, and in the nations of the Middle East and Asia. It is also being incurred against the developing nations of the world. Wherever flies “an insect,” the man that would slap himself to destroy this quarry, saying “I wish that I could have killed you even if I had incurred a heavier penalty [italics added]" is engaged in dangerous enterprise; both belligerent and, in the end, self-destructive.

Tipping Point II

2007-03-14T13:49:00.001-04:00

This is a response I got from a reader on the message board.

"...I don't think that this will necessarily create a dystopian world, at least right away. The problem is that we are equipped to handle things physically, now more than ever, just not mentally...

"... our generation and the ones after it seems, will have nothing to fight for- and what I mean by that is that we have absolutely nothing animalistic, in America that needs to be obtained. ... we search and search and we begin to find more and more problems with the mind, with our spiritual selves, with the soul. And the worst part is, is that there is no real spiritual guidance to turn to. ... God, in some way has become dead. Other things have taken His place....money, fame, glory, etc. ... we know that something is missing and we need some sort of guidance, even though that guidance is dangerous. We need a hero.

"... Where did the focus on these things stem from?" (L.E. Thomas; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 8 February, 2007)

This is my response to her:

I worry about the impact of an extraordinarily slippery slope, though it is a problematic position to argue from, that once things start to go bad it will become -- overnight -- unmanageable, uncontrollable, unpredictable. Much of human "progress" has been footed in the capacity to create MORE predictable outcomes. The culmination of all of this predictability and simplification has led us to become, as Lauren states, ill prepared mentally to overcome the unpredictable.

I would contest Lauren, going so far as to say that, with the broadening problems of childhood and adult obesity in industrialized nations in concert with the malnutrition and broadening poverty in less-industrialized and impoverished nations, that humanity is becoming less capable of physical responses to unpredictable changes.

The lack of direction that is exhibited here by Lauren, felt by myself and many others of my generation and generations to follow is a product of this alienation. As soft comfort -- in true dystopian fashion -- media outlets, corporate identities, and powerful organizations of all shapes fill the void with a slough of ideas grandfathered from the past.

Warfare

If anyone still believes that the Global War on Terror bears any justice, take a look at the century-long "War on Drugs." The Cold War, a "War against Communism" only collapsed as the economies of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union fell to the manipulations of Western nations and their economic superiority. There was no moral victory in the Cold War, the warriors could no longer be fed the lies. Fighting a war against peoples individual ideas and/or actions is as silly now as it was then. Terrorism, though a serious threat in Europe throughout the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, was essentially undone in the 1990s with open, honest dialogues (Looking specifically at the conflict between Britain and Northern Ireland, here, and the progress that had been made in Sri Lanka before the tsunami). Terrorism became the most important battle in America's history just as the rest of the world had just about put that baby to bed. Now that the rules and enemies have shifted, the rules are being re-written. Warfare is approaching that fearsome state of "Constant Emergency" predicted by Orwell.

Religion/Spirituality

I appreciate Lauren's points about the waning spirituality of we, the inhabitants of the Industrial World. Certainly, the greatest "religious" movements among us may have been socialism in the form of organizations, worker's unions, the IWW. The common beliefs of the supreme importance of the little guy, the worker, the labourer, the ones who lack power, sought to shake all of the beliefs of past centuries. This is the fear of the powerful, of corporations, of governments. The Cold War was a war of ideas; the targets were not only communist nations, but any sense of socialist ideals that may emerge within the corporatist ranks. The rise of the religious Right is not co-incidentally linked with the end of the Cold War. American Neo-Conservative ideals exploited the lack of direction left in the wake of the Vietnam conflict and the profound public outcry against Uncle Sam's abuse of power. 1968 or 1975 could have culminated in another American Revolution, but, each political movement was scripted and spun to achieve specific objectives. Once Reagan -- an actor! -- assumed the Presidency, the Neo-Cons had perfected their means of maintaining control. People, true BELIEVERS all, were willing to return to being exploited; supreme importance returned, finally to the seats of power in all corporate entities. The 1980s, the "Me Decade," trumped spirituality with greed. What, then, is to be said of the children growing up at this time? More desperately, the children of today -- being spoon-fed Disney, Dora, and American Idol -- false idols that reinforce the established order.

Freedom

There has been no greater misuse of the term "freedom" than when it is "on the march." The brand of freedom that is presented by power does not admit that people have the capacity to overcome their betters. Stability demands that the mob be kept in check. It is this battle that is currently being fought; the front-lines are in the living rooms of America, of other industrialized nations. In the minds of the subjects of occupation in Baghdad, Gaza, and Kabul. In the minds of the opposition to global power in Tehran, Beijing, P'yong Yang, and Havana. In the policies of the non-aligned nations, in Caracas, in Tripoli, in Mumbai. What is freedom? To what extent am I willing to go to achieve freedom?

One World

Furthermore, a more global perspective is needed. America, as Lauren states, has "nothing to fight for... nothing animalistic, in America that needs to be obtained." Northern North America (the US and Canada), generally, rest in the good graces of the sociopolitical and economic scales. However, no nation, no corporation, no individual can alienate oneself from the rest of the world. The differences between nations do not exalt or celebrate the similarities between people. We are all human, we all require food, clothing, and shelter. We all pray for security, for success, for providence. We all will die. Still, apparently, this is not enough to understand one another.

As long as we believe ourselves -- each individually -- to be on the TRUE path, though we have no idea where it is leading, there will be conflict with the rest of the world.

There is something to be fought for, certainly, but that fight is averted at all costs. The struggle to know ourselves, to master ourselves, to make a more complete world for ourselves. The struggle to deny the necessity of subservience, selling our efforts for dollars, for rupees, for bhat, for yuan, for pesos.

In the old world, one could submit oneself to a discipline, usually in a monastery or convent, sharing in the efforts of all to achieve a higher purpose bound by common beliefs. Across the world, the beliefs were of many forms and took many shapes. Here, now, in this Brave New World, the only common beliefs are currency and power. How far are we from being singularly controlled? What more must come to pass before all people willingly relinquish all freedom for security? Alternatively, unable to cope with change, what will come to pass before anarchy reigns?

Tipping Point

2007-02-07T13:45:00.000-05:00

In 2001, the first year of a new millennium, all kids born in 1984 turned 17. Five years later, all of these kids are beyond the age of majority in every jurisdiction in the world.

The world has become a very complex, grossly imbalanced system. Is the contemporary world, in your estimation, headed for one dystopia or another? How is the world equipping children -- ages 0 to 21 -- to cope with, or to change, this situation?

Simply put, would YOU hand the keys to the world over to the next generation?

**

As a result of the standards, practices, expectations, and guidance of contemporary generations in command -- the Greatest Generation (1910 - 1924), the Silent Generation (I'd say the Cold War generation, 1925 - 1945), the baby boomers (1946 - 1964), and, to an extent, Generation X (1965 - 1975) -- the world has arrived at this state. The generations to follow will, presumably to survive, be required to clean up the act a little... or a LOT.

I look at modern western civilization and, day by day, I see it creeping toward the culmination of the dystopian fantasies[.] I see more of a movement toward a police state in anti-terror laws and security practices. I see more medications to heal ailments that are created by the world humans have created for themselves; treatments for depression, anxiety, restless legs, etc. I see more of the world being paved over. I see blue skies turning brown. I see blue seas turning green or white or gray. I see more of the world coming under the control of consumerism and commerce, industry, and corporate "goods" rather than common goods. I see a widening gap between rich and poor. I see induced desires surmounting basic necessities. I see technological communication as driving a wedge between people rather than unifying people; ensuring that people go home, lock their doors, and "interact" online, rather that meeting, combining resources, and achieving recognizable changes. I see that the empowered will do anything to prevent the same types of Revolutions that granted people their freedom in the first place.

I look at modern non-Western civilizations; Eastern European, Middle-Eastern, and South Asian nations, as well as the nations of the Caribbean, South America, Africa, and Oceania; and see them in crisis. There is an exterior push for them to become industrialized, to keep pace with the rest of the world. There is an internal desire for cultural independence and distinctiveness to be asserted in the face of the exterior influence. There exists a crisis of faith. Religious militancy confronts religious moderation. Both confront secularism. Secularism confronts economy. Economy confronts globalization. Globalization, seemingly, promotes poverty; thus, it is confronted with anti-globalization and nationalism. All claim to be patriots. As long as all of these issues rage, each confronting all the others, no stability can be achieved; no coherence can be achieved. And, furthermore, non-Western civilizations are exploited and suppressed by Western power and authority.

I see all of this, yet, there is no coherent call for change within the seats of power -- for example, within G8 nations or the permanent member nations of the UN Security Council -- because stability and security of these powers is more important. The overwhelming power of few nations, Canada, China, the EU, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK, and the US must, under no circumstances, come undone. A juggernaut guided by interests of economy, treaties, and influence remains undeterred. Secrets abound.

If this is all true, then what is to become of the future? Is this, now the tipping point, where this world is as good as it's going to get? Is this the utopia, the grand vision of perfection that certainly foretells of a dystopian future?

I believe that the unchallenged authority is no authority at all.

A generation (GenNext) is being raised to believe that convenience and credit cards are core values. A generation whose parents are specialized to no end, culminating in a management society -- according to Thomas Homer-Dixon -- wherein no-one knows the entire story. This world has become complex beyond reckoning. Small changes here can have devastating consequences there.

Is GenNext equipped to cope and, if necessary, change? If equipped only to stay the course, will humanity decline or overcome?

Warlead

2007-01-15T09:31:00.001-05:00

Perhaps a paradigm shift is in order. Without change, there is no hope for a better future.

There have only been changes for the worse in Iraq since the invasion of 2003. Resistance by the Iraqi military loyal to the Hussein regime was quelled only to beget an insurgency. The insurgency quickly became inter-sectarian violence. Both sides, Sunni and Shi'a opposed the US occupation, but divisions along sectarian lines and 30+ years of violent oppression, Sunni minority suppressing Shi'a majority, created the conditions for a generation of Iraqis to release their frustration and anger. Each side; Americans, Sunni Iraqis, and Shi'a Iraqis battled each other on two fronts. For the Iraqis, two fronts became three as intra-sectarian violence, Sunni on Sunni and Shi'a on Shi'a, began. The chaos has only led to intra-sectarian violence and a full-blown civil war. The reason for all of this was the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq under false pretenses.

President Bush II of the united states announced recently that he will be increasing troop deployment in the four year old war with Iraq, a war that is increasingly unpopular among Americans and their elected representatives. This so-called "surge" of personnel has the task of securing Baghdad, the capital city. Despite the failure of 130 000 troops to achieve the same task, the commander-in- chief of the US believes that his new approach, complete with new rules of engagement, will get the job done.

In the same speech that announced an increase in troop deployment, the President called out two other nations, Iran and Syria, implying that their support of their ethnic compatriots must stop, or else. When questioned the following day by Senators on the foreign relations committee, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice was "evasive" in responding to questions about the will of the President and his administration to cross the borders between Iraq and Syria, and Iraq and Iran. Such transgressions clearly hearken back to the "secret wars" in 1970s Indochina, carried out by presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, administrations that lied to the American people about crossing international borders to achieve military objectives.

Engagement with Iran raises the spectre of a nuclear arms race. Iran has, for years now sought the development of a peaceful, energy-focused nuclear program. This quest has been blocked at every turn by the US and the influence they have on the UN security council. Now, the US having fomented a Hadean nightmare within Iraq for the Shi'a majority, which ethnically mirrors Iran, Iranian military planners cannot help but consider a nuclear deterrent to American influence, nor can they deny the call of their Shi'a cousins in the bloody civil war.

Chasing down the sources of support for the Iraqi insurgent forces has led to the frontiers of Iraq, as it certainly would. Whether or not the pursuit of these sources will lead across these borders is a call for the President to make. However, should these transgression require - or culminate in - a declaration of war against Iran and/or Syria, then the president must seek the blessing of Congress and the American people.

The mandate to fight the war on terror - a war declared by the Bush administration in the tradition of the Reagan administration - is a phantom battle. It begins with the identification of a perceived threat, that of terrorism, as a tangible and defeatable enemy. Now that the war on terror has advanced into its sixth year, the inference that terror is tangible and defeatable is no longer questioned.

My question, however, has remained throughout. Isn't terror and terrorism a function of the ideas of its instigators? Without the motives and tragic circumstances - effects of causes such as US foreign policy decisions and US-led economic policies - terrorism would not be the force in the world that it is today. Attacks, then, cannot be aimed at the people and nations that commit violent acts. A battle against "ideology" cannot be fought with guns, bombs, and manpower. Such notions are sheer folly. The prevailing paradigm is this same folly.

A paradigm shift is in order. The Bush administration can continue to chase down every lead in the war on terror, find every person that opposes the brand of freedom that America sells, set up as many false dichotomies as are necessary. The end result? America will be at war with everyone but those whom they identify as friends or "self".

The war on terror can only culminate in world war; but an of insidious, police-state conducted, dystopian form. The kind of war warned against be the likes of Orwell and Eisenhower. To avoid this, the prevailing paradigm must be shifted.

The conflicts between the concerns and ambitions of all parties engaged in the middle east are certainly matters of life and death. The battle for control, dominion, or authority is certainly the "greatest ideological struggle of our time." It cannot be left to the states and powers involved to see this struggle clearly. They continue to march toward the cliff warned against by many. The lies of the current administration continue to mount. Repeating the mistakes of Vietnam and other post WWII conflicts and spreading international instability and insecurity as by-products of secured economic interests, has proceeded apace. Any that stand to contest the juggernaut will be destroyed. This paradigm is unnatural and unacceptable.

A paradigm shift is a grand change. It changes the way everything is conducted, it changes the way humans see the world. It is just this sort of change that the empowered fight in everything that is under "their" control. Perhaps, it is this change that the war on terror will ultimately contest. Ideological struggles rest with the ideas of the participants. A war against ideas makes thoughts into crimes. The terror of the unknown and the unpredictable is what threatens power structures and designs the world over. Perhaps without this fear of change, fear of the unknown, humans can begin to accept the differences between one another and work toward solutions to the problems plague us. The possibilities are clear in human history, South Africa's post-apartheid truth and reconciliation commissions are proof of this.

Security of the First World, A Weak UN

2007-01-08T09:19:00.001-05:00

Prevailing culture mandates the continued existence of creature comforts of the form that have taken shape in the West over the past five decades. Furthermore, the culture mandates of the same poulation that appearances consistent with these comforts, instilled across centuries of political posturing and social compromises also be maintained. As such developmental trends and standards by which this same development is measured are, by in large, expected to be spread to the rest of the world. Certainly, seeing what is had by the "haves" is sufficient to generate desire in the "have nots."

It is unreasonable to believe that the spread of democracy in the world is sufficient to guarantee that development in underdeveloped nations will create the same opportunities that are available at present in established powerful industrialized democracies. This is especially true in the face of vicious competition, drastically compressed timelines for development, and huge cultural differences. It is also unreasonable to believe that the same types of development that are the source of power and authority for industrialized nations will provide for the people of underdeveloped nations in this contemporary frame. This is especially true at a time when the developmental processes of the industrialized world are being called into question for their environmental, social, and legal implications. A new set of answers is required. One that is sensitive to the needs of the many cultures that the development seeks to assist; one that is sensitive to the needs of the new world in which it operates - maintaining not only a competitive edge but an environmentally sound approach; one that is responsive to the speed with which change occurs in the world.

The work of the UN and its adjunct organizations has conducted extensive research into the issues surrounding all of the most pressing of human issues. The UN has made contacts in all of its member states regarding each and every human issue.

Just when the UN appears its weakest, can we realize its importance and strength.

The cliche that necessity is the mother of invention befits the UN. Its inception following WWII as a replacement for the defunct League of Nations was a statement of necessity. The UN was founded to provide a means for conflict resolution without armed conflict. In this mandate, the UN has become decreasingly successful. Non-State actors have the capacity to wage warfare as effectively as states do, as exampled by the standoff in Lebanon from 12 July until 15 August 2006. Armed conflicts peppered the latter half of the 20th century as the Cold War tenaciously advanced. Most of these conflicts, and several of the attacks that were enjoined within them, were condemned by the UN and its member states, but, the UN was powerless to stop them. The UN does not seek to police the world, it acts only as a forum within which grievances can be articulated. Amid the bureaucracy and declarations, the ability to act remains disconnected consideration. As a result, the UN is saddled with the task of cleaning up all of the human tragedies that are left in the violent wake.

Conrad Black

2007-01-02T09:25:00.000-05:00

Who cares about Conrad Black? Certainly an influential and powerful Canadian, at one time, his current woes and trials are none of my concern. Nor was his influence at the time he had it. Perhaps this is because I am an eastern Canadian and his influence, before the national Post, was mainly in the west.

That he rose and fell as do many persons who seek power is inconsequential. There is nothing to be learned here but that one should not get caught with one's hand in the cookie jar.

Lord Black, I experience no sorrow for your troubles, nor sympathy for your situation. Few, if any of us commoners will face our comeuppance in a similar fashion. You are but the latest in a search for spectacle, a story to tell. But, is it really that sensational a story?

A man builds an empire, renounces his nation for a title, is accused of white-collar crime -- in a time of widespread corporate corruption -- and will eventually be found either guilty or innocent. Regardless of the outcome he will be free to roam the world, his empire in tatters, his name, deeds and misdeeds the stuff of trivia.

Regardless of the outcome, this story has been told and retold. Enron, 9/12 airline stock shorts, Bre-X scandal. The emperor has no clothes, the people reject him and move on with their lives. Focusing on the people at the top makes them all the more infamous and makes the people who were cheated all the more victims. All that is certain is that another such ambitious person will repeat this history, building an empire only to see it fall or be torn down.

US vs. Ahmadinejad

2006-12-15T02:00:00.000-05:00

from the BBC :

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to become the target of a lawsuit which accuses him of inciting genocide against Israel."

WTF? A lawsuit against a guy who likes to talk shit? Who knew that the world would slip so far from a global perspective and so deep into a American one.

"The suit is expected to be launched by a panel of international lawyers and former diplomats in New York."

Wait...

"The former US envoy to the UN, John Bolton, is backing the move, which is led by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations."

WTF! Americans, now, are utilizing international laws -- laws that are widely disregarded by America and her federal administrations -- to attack the figurehead president of another country. All because he talks shit about the Jews. And, to top it all off, a man who once declared that taking the top 10 floors off of UN headquarters would go unnoticed -- a man who now represents America at the UN -- is supporting the move.

I guess that turnabout is fair play. Ahmedinejad denies the Holocaust on small stage in an out of the way place, and Jewish organizations everywhere address it. To strike back, they get the grizzled American UN Ambassador to back the use of international law to stop him from having an odious opinion. But, if America wants to use international laws, they ought to accept that the same international laws apply to Americans.

The smart play would have been to stay out of the fray, let this "Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations" make their case, and avoid the embarrassment of opening yet another double standard in an unstable political relationship.

Wait, that's how America gets by. Sole authority for a nuclear first-strike, preemptive military strikes against clear-and-present dangers (like Nicaragua and Iraq), and now using much- flaunted international laws as cannon fodder... where will it end?

And seriously, Mahmoud, you're a [figure]head of state. Act the part. Bring prestige to your nation. Bring harmony to the world. We get it: you don't like Jews and you really don't like Israel. Calling for its annihilation is a little much for a "President" to put out there, don't you think? A little more diplomacy, perhaps? Holocaust denial is sort of unpopular too. It'll make the world believe that you don't represent your people. I mean, you were elected -- but that doesn't make you the Supreme Leader. If he wants to spout hate, I say let him. You, you're an elected official. Represent the people, the 60.8% that elected you. I know, you like the hard line, just like that Ariel Sharon character in... some other country. You talk big like W. Just get other people to get your hate on for you, like back-up dancers or a hype-man. Then, you can skip all this needless litigation.

The New Bond

2006-12-01T01:07:00.000-05:00

No Q
No moneypenny
Not untouchable

This new bond is hardened. Dirtier. Aggressive. Driven. This new Bond is a Bond for the new world. Notwithstanding the 9/11 (and, interestingly enough, 9/12) references in the film, the new world that Bond operates within is one of international businessmen, personal relations, and money.

Not only is his female counterpart alluring and intelligent, she is an accountant. Not only does the plot hinge on a terrorist attack for financial gain, it then shifts to $100 million poker showdown; which bothers me, but I had to accept. This is the contemporary Bond, and I am certain that most baccarat dealers are out of work. Bond is, furthermore, elevated through status symbols: from Ford to a '64 Aston Martin, won at a poker table, to the newest DB7 coupe. He promptly destroys the coupe, proving that nothing about this film is untouchable.

The Bond of the new world is a sign of the times. No longer does Her Majesty's Secret Service serve the interests of international peace and security. No longer do the conflicts and actions intiated by villainous men seek to spark conflicts between nations. No, this new world is guided by ambiguity, plausible deniability, and greed. No one can be trusted. Even M cannot "trust" Bond. She must only keep him alive as long as he is useful and can get a job done.

In this new world no-one is untouchable.
In this new world, Moneypenny dies.
In this new world, Q and his gadgets appear only in commercials for TBS super station.
For this new world, a new Bond.

Said the President:

2006-11-09T11:16:00.000-05:00

"I had been talking with Don Rumsfeld over a period of time about fresh perspective. He likes to call it fresh eyes. [He's 78] He, himself, understands that Iraq is not working well enough, fast enough. And he and I are constantly assessing. [this is the good part] And I'm assessing, as well, {pause} all the time, {pause} by myself, {pause} about, {er....} do we have the right people in the right place, or do we {uh..} -- {y'know} got the right strategy? {now with conviction} As you know, we're constantly changing tactics {!}. And that requires constant assessment{satisfied}."

I didn't watch the video before writing this.

Here's the video feed:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html#

"And so the decision was made -- actually, I thought we were going to do fine yesterday. Shows what I know."

I did watch the video and caught this.

"I know there's a lot of speculation on what the election means for the battle we're waging in Iraq. I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there. Yet I also believe most Americans and leaders here in Washington from both political parties understand we cannot accept defeat.

In the coming days and weeks, I and members of my national security team will meet with the members of both parties to brief them on latest developments and listen to their views about the way forward. We'll also provide briefings to the new members of Congress so they can be fully informed as they prepare for their new responsibilities.

As we work with the new leaders in Congress, I'm also looking forward to hearing the views of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Secretary James Baker and Congressman Lee Hamilton. This group is assessing [that's the money word] the situation in Iraq and are expected to provide -- and the group is expected to provide recommendations on a way forward. And I'm going to meet with them, I think, early next week.

[And then Rumsfeld...]

"The election has changed many things in Washington, but it has not changed my fundamental responsibility, and that is to protect the American people from attack. As the Commander-in-Chief, I take these responsibilities seriously. And so does the man who served this nation honorably for almost six years as our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Now, after a series of thoughtful conversations, Secretary Rumsfeld and I agreed that the timing is right for new leadership at the Pentagon.

"Our military has experienced an enormous amount of change and reform during the last five years while fighting the war on terror, one of the most consequential wars in our nation's history. Don Rumsfeld has been a superb leader during a time of change. Yet he also appreciates the value of bringing in a fresh perspective during a critical period in this war. Don Rumsfeld is a patriot who served our country with honor and distinction. He's a trusted advisor and a friend, and I'm deeply grateful to his service to our country."

[What is a consequential war? Aren' all wars consequential? Why is America continuously fighting wars?]

[How many consequential wars has America been involved in? I actually have a number for this... ]

"People want their Congress -- congressmen to be honest and ethical. So in some races, that was the primary factor."

[Some{!}]

and now the Media kicks the President's Ass...

"Q This is a very competitive environment. No, but we asked you about the fate of Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney. Vice President Cheney, of course, has made -- takes many of the same positions that Secretary Rumsfeld did on the war. Does he still have your complete confidence?

"THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he does.

"Q Do you expect him to stay --

"THE PRESIDENT: The campaign is over. Yes, he does.

"Q And he'll be here for the remainder of your term?

"THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he will. Thank you.

"Suzanne.

"Q Thank you, Mr. President. With all due respect, Nancy Pelosi has called you incompetent, a liar, the emperor with no clothes, and as recently as yesterday, dangerous. How will you work with someone who has such little respect for your leadership and who is third in line to the presidency?"

{ha!}

[later...]

"I understand they're frustrated. I am, too, as I said the other day. I wish this had gone faster. So does Secretary Rumsfeld. But the reality is, is that it's a tough fight, and we're going to win the fight. And I truly believe the only way we won't win is if we leave before the job is done.

"Yes, Jim.

"Q May I follow, sir?

"THE PRESIDENT: I know, terrible principle. I'm sorry.

"Q Thank you, sir.

"THE PRESIDENT: You think I'm nuts? (Laughter.) You think -- you think my sensibility has left me as a result of working hard on the campaign trail, Gregory? (Laughter.)"

[next]

"Q Mr. President, you mentioned the prospect that your successor would be dealing with the war. You'll be making your first trip to Vietnam in roughly a week. Some people are still -- are looking at the war as another Vietnam War. Are they wrong to do so? And if so, why?

"THE PRESIDENT: I think they are. I think they are. First of all, Iraq, after the overthrow of the tyrant {our bitter foe}, voted on a constitution {that we made them sign} that is intended to unite the whole country {by our rules and for our reasons}. And then they had elections {overseen by us} under that constitution where nearly 12 million people voted {'cause we made them believe it would matter} for this unity government. Secondly -- which is different from Vietnam."

Shifting Reality

2006-10-11T23:56:00.000-04:00

Reality within and reality without are each mutually exclusive. One reality cannot always encompass both, thus one must choose what one believes. The source element of this choice is critical. Whether religious or political or logical or reactionary, the kernel truth uPon which reality is based is critical. Communicating this truth must be part and parcel with bringing others to understand. Control of realities is in control of what is accepted as true. Once the truth is subject to a shift in objectivity, so too follows the remainder of a reality.

Realities of Note (In writing this post)

Ugandan civil war - any other reality unknown from within, unknowable from without
Pakistani nuclear program - perceived as heroic from within, questionable from without
North Korean regime - perceived as heroic from within, despotic from witout
Afghanistan - invasion time and again from within, a 'project' in Nation-building from without

The realities built in each of these corners is telling of the conditions under which the people are subject to survive. Promises of change are mere fancy or sophistry without fundamental shifts. To shift a foundation is a massive undertaking and cannot be excecuted without internal knowledge.

Thoughts on the WOT

2006-10-11T23:54:00.000-04:00

Is the WOT really a suppression of the means by which the powerless can defend themselves or deter the ambitions of the powerful?

London, Madrid, Iraq, attacks made by jihad against targets belonging to the allied nations that wage a war in the middle East. Canada's role, securing the first footprint of this 'clash of civilizations,' does not exempt us from the rising incidence of terrorist attack. Is it any wonder that the al-Qaeda attacks since 9-11 have struck the two nations that colluded with America in invasion of Iraq? More analyses of that invasion conclude that the incidence of terrorist acts and recruitment of 'terrorists' has increased since March 2003. Accepting these premises begs a pertinent question, as an invader in Afghanistan, does Canada, day by day, increase rather than decrease the likelihood of terrorist activity on our soil? Our goals in Afghanistan must be clear to both canadians and afghans alike. There Mia be no imposition of belief on the Afghan people. Is the mission to Afghanistan, in the end, another example of economic colonialism?

Question Period

2006-09-18T15:05:00.000-04:00

Our government is debating many different topics today. Accountability, the gun registry, troop deployment in Afghanistan, softwood lumber, lobby positions of ex-government officials, and so on.

There is a scary parallel here. Today, we remember the shootings of Montreal. Today, we remember 4 more dead in Afghanistan. Today, we remember that this is a young government - a minority government - and that is evident today. The levels of passion being presented in the house are clear. Much has changed in Canada since the recess of the house in June. Furthermore, another confidence vote looms in the future.

The gun registry proved useless in the face of the shootings at Dawson College. Moreover, you can't legislate, nor necessarily prevent senseless people from wreaking senseless havoc. The debate over the gun registry, a political issue because of the efforts of "$133 M" in lobbying in support of the Conservatives ascent in government, may have to take a back seat to the demand for guns to be banned outright. Gun violence in Toronto, the deaths of 4 RCMP officers in Alberta, and now Montreal, may cause the public to question their assumptions. More cops on the street and stiffer penalties for violent offenders will not necessarily prevent these things from happening. They will only serve to make the survivors feel better for a while. Deterrence is insufficient in the face of incidence. The tools of these incidents must be removed.

The words in the House are forceful and clear. The past Liberal government is consistently referred to as being patently corrupt, that chapter being "one of the darkest" in Canadian history. In the words of Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, a "regime," echoing the English-language association with Saddam Hussein and the current battle against the Afghan Taliban regime.

The words are reminiscent of happenings elsewhere. With respect to the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan, the leaders of our nation - including our Ministers of National Defense and Foreign Affairs - are resolved to remain engaged in Afghanistan until "the job is done." Further echoes of the United States ring true here.

Paraphrasing, if Canadian forces leave Afghanistan before the insurgency is quashed, then the Taliban will return to power in that nation. Consequently, Afghanistan will certainly return to its former status of training ground for international terrorism, women and children will be subject to the harsh treatment of Taliban rule, and the world will be less safe for Canadians, Britons, Aussies, and Americans. We msut learn the lessons of 9/11.

Canada's forces are, allegedly, experiencing a disproportionate casualty rate in Afghanistan. According to a report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a member of the Canadian forces is "six times more likely" to die in Southern Afghanistan than an American armed forces is in Iraq. For a conflict that is not considered a war, as the conflict in Iraq is, but an exercise in security, counter-insurgecy, and nation-building, Afghanistan is proving a tall order for Canadian forces.

International conflict is mutating in a world that has changed since 1914. No longer are wars fought along clearly defined lines for the conquest of territory and exultation of ideology. The world changed again in 1949, wherein mutually assured destruction (MAD) rose as the only means tempering the superpowers resolve to annihilate one another. With the mutations of acts terrorism, and a war thereupon, the world is changing much faster now. Instead of states defining the course of policy, it is the static system that must respond to tiny but massively significant threats.

The lesson of 11|09|01 teaches nations that the price of freedom is vigilance. This vigilance is acted out in terms of military action abroad. The problem is, with violence practiced abroad, what is being done about the violence at home? It cannot be said, definitively, that one has nothing to do with the other. If vigilance is the sole lesson of 11|09|01 and acts of terror have ceased neither at home nor abroad in the five years hence, perhaps there is another lesson we missed.

The lesson that Afghanistan teaches us today is that violence begets more, and more efficient, violence. That 27 years in a cycle of violence tends to bring out violence in those it confronts. That people will do what they must to survive. No amount of military engagement can overwhelm the Afghan people. They are, in their own way, strong. No amount of outside interference, indoctrination, or industrialization will lead Afghanistan away from their core values -- from the history that binds them together as Afghans. No amount of progress will make them forget the past. The Canadian mission in Afghanistan must come to recognize this. To withdraw from military operations and shift, tactically, to a new approach.

The suicide bomber and the suicide shooter are kindred spirits. Each is disillusioned by the world he inhabits. Each one seeks release and absolution in death. Each seeks to inflict pain upon the world that has pained them. Each is produced in the same world we all inhabit.

Under extreme stress any person can become the unthinkable. The final lesson of any horrible event cannot simply be: "How are we to prevent this from happening again," it msut be "What in the world caused this to happen in the first place?"

Without this understanding it will happen again, and again, and again, and again...

5th Anniversary of 9/11 (Part II)

2006-09-11T13:30:00.000-04:00

Je Me Souviens
Lest We Forget
Those who neglect the past are condemned to repeat it.

Anything I do say will be used against me. Labelled uncaring or overbearing or melodranatic or reactionary. An incitement to riot or revolution or otherwise counterprogressive.

Any move toward world change is held suspect in the light of this petrified New World Order. A post-9/11 world rife with terrorists, malcontents, upstarts, usurpers, and the like. A world in which four colours -- green, yellow, orange, and red -- relate how safe it is to go outside. Just say it, it's never safe to go outside. The world is no longer a safe place. Joke's on you, it never was.

They say that people who live in glass houses should never throw stones. I live in the world, and all I have are stones to throw. I say more here, online, than I do in the world because I have only stones to throw. Here, if I shatter your world -- the precious glass bubble you call home -- you have made the decision. If you're talking to me in the world, I will censor myself, finding out what you think and feel first before I tell you of the way things are.

The world has never been a safe place. Security, for all intents and purposes, is a farce. Not everyone can have a Secret Service detail to establish a perimeter about them to ensure that nothing bad will happen. Not everyone is trained in the ways of firearms, swordsmanship, or hand-to-hand combat. Not everyone is a lawyer, able to defend oneself from incursions by the law. Not everyone is a philosopher, able to argue their way out of coercion. Not everyone is a salesperson, able to see the deceptions that underscore the phrase caveat emptor. Not everyone is a healer, able to undo the harms we bring on others or ourselves. Not everyone is a teacher, fending off ignorance at each turn. It is for these reasons we must all rely on each other, it is in this that we build our security.

The world is no longer a safe place. Ironically, it never was. Attempts to make the world safer have only led to more insecurity. The events of five years ago are as possible today as they were then. What, then, of the security measures, programs, and initiatives instituted since that infamous day? All for naught. The mandate that brought the events of 11|9|01 to the world have not changed.

The climate of disparity and discord between the powers that be and the powers that would be has not changed. The command of dollars and nonsense has not changed. Education, understanding, and inclusivity has not changed. Regard for "others" has not changed. Value of human life has not changed. These words, my thoughts and suspicions and the creeping admission of rot within the world has not changed. I have changed. I control only myself. I no longer drive, I take the bus, ride my bike, and walk every day. Every now and again I bum a ride, reducing the footprint of the person sitting next to me. I've replaced all of my 60 W incandescent bulbs with 12 W fluorescents. I read more and watch TV less. What effect will changing myself have if I have no changes in others to show for it?

External forces continue to induce desire in the people whom I associate with. While I actively search within for what motivates me, the total command of external desire, a crushing tide of conformity, washes across the world.

Oft stated that everything changed that one day in September, it has only galvanized that there will be and ever shall be more of the same.

More oversight, government or otherwise.
More technology, to monitor and shape behaviour.
More disparity of wealth.
More advertising.
More commerce.
More fundamentalism.
More divisiveness.
More alienation.

With these things, maintaining artificial sense of balance, there will also be less.

Less hope that the future will be better.
Less food on the table.
Less autonomy and freedom.
Less opportunity for growth.
Less art and creativity.
Less caring.
Less new information.
Less transparency.
Less light.
Less change.

There are many victims to this reality, though none is so proud as to claim the mantle of victor. No-one will admit that, often, where there is oppression, the oppressors wear ties. Such admission is too familiar, structured as desirable. To strike against the monolithic "right" of progress, justified by the established powers, is self-destructive. Any
who can claim priveleige, the same priveleiges near universal among industrialized nations, are party to its justification. I include myself in this.

I admit that to change the world for the better I must be willing to concede much of what I have become accustomed to. As a Canadian, by virtue of geography, we are able to produce much of what we consume. Other nations are not as fortunate. I must also, then, be willing to support development in other parts of the world, providing access to that which I take for granted.

The space between the comfortable design of contemporary nations of priveleige and those of destitution and despair is so great that it ensures that there is no recourse against the great nations. "Others," and any rights guaranteed them, cannot overcome the insurmountable expanse. Only from above, from the higher echelon, can change be made in this world.

Understanding what they need, those "others," and not forcing change upon them. Power must be distributed in service of needs as they arise. the power that industrialized nations wield must shift from imposition upon "others" to operation in service of those "others." The former mandate has not worked these past sixty years. An inversion, shifting from force-feeding industrialization to underdeveloped nations to permitting them to grow and subsist by their own devices and natural evolution is a more stable mandate. The safety and security of the world may well hinge on this admission.

On this anniversary of immense destruction, an event replays in the minds eye for a moment. Each person remembers where he or she was when it happened. The event reverbates differently in each corner of the globe, having one effect among those sympathetic to America, another to those who stand against America. There are those to whom 11|9|01 has had no direct effect, though the side effects abound. Anniversaries such as this are many: Pearl Harbour Day (December 7), Hiroshima Day (August 6) and Nagasaki Day (August 9), Halifax Explosion Memorial (December 6), DRAVAW (also December 6), 7|7 Bombing London (July 7), Guy Fawkes Day (November 5), D-Day (June 6), and so on. The point is, each of these events ended (or in the case of Guy Fawkes, would have ended) in massive destruction and loss of human life. What verifiable effect each event has is only discernible in the lens of history. Each time one of the anniversaries passes without remembrance, without discernible effect, the loss of life incurred goes unrespected. Its historical impact unnoticed. Given time, all events admit of consequence. Nothing is trivial. In this -- a lesson, things do change, only if we recognize, accept, and incorporate understandings achieved therein.

5th Anniversary of 9/11 (Part I)

2006-09-08T13:30:00.000-04:00

There are only three days left. Already, the tributes and documentaries and political posturing has begun for the fifth anniversarry of the most (insert adjective here) act of terrorism ever carried out on US soil.

This post is about this article on the BBC about an ABC TV movie that recounts the run up to 9/11. Members of the Clinton administration have strong reservations about the content of the film citing "factual errors." In their defense, ABC has offered this statement:

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalised scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement.

"We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

Part I of fhe film - er, movie - will be released Sunday, and continued with part II Monday night.

I think that Mickey has gone too far this time.

Sure, we want to believe that the Disney-ified view of the world can come to pass. We want to believe that Prince Charming would never find his love but for glass slipper. Its OK Bambi, you're an orphan but tomorrow will be better. Aladdin and Jasmine talk like US, but Jafar is the embodiment of evil. The Knights Templar may killed millions in the Crusade and plundered billions (21st c. dollars) in treasure from the Middle East, but as long as the Declaration of Independence is preserved and the family name is upheld, revisions of history are A-OK.

But, to have the House of Mouse dictate history, with "fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression" on the anniversary of the tragedy they are redefining is a further example of American disdain for anything but their own mythology.

Calling upon the public, already searching for absolution, to recognize that a movie depicting 9/11 contains fiction is like asking kids to kick the tooth fairy's ass. Every American production that depicts 9/11 will be believed to be respectful of the dead and respectful of history.

Belief is nice, but not always reality. Contortions, mutations, and outright revision of history is no justification to support beliefs. Disney does an immense disservice to history teachers around the world with each of its creations.

I won't watch the film, I will look for the factual errors on iMDB, and then I will redouble my efforts to incite suspicion in any of the films Disney releases.

Why I chose D.O.A.P.

2006-09-02T03:13:00.000-04:00

I wanted to see this film for it's near-future exploration of a world that I have grown to know quite well. I did not read the entire description, there were 352 of them for me to get through in three hours, but I did read the following:

"As one might expect, Range is ultimately interested in addressing today's political issues through the lens of the future. Xenophobia, the hidden costs of war and the nature of civil liberties in a hyper-media age all come under the microscope. The film is never a personal attack on Bush; Range simply seeks to explore the potential consequences that might follow from the President's policies and actions.

"It is the very technique of D.O.A.P., finally, that poses the most haunting questions of all. Not only do we feel the authenticity of mass media imagery slipping away, but Range suggests that his manipulation is merely a more radical example of what we encounter every day."

Noah Cowan's description is floating around the 'net, causing a ruckus as it goes, but, what is there to be made of a film that no one has seen? The key word in the description, the one that got me hooked on this film as an idea, was xenophobia. The ruckus that is swirling, or will swirl until the film premieres on 10 September, is linked directly to this: fear of change and the unknown.

I agree with the official statement released by TIFF on 1 September.

"...a highly original film; a falsified history on what would be a tragic event. D.O.A.P addresses a wide array of contemporary issues including the loss of civil liberties, the ramifications of war, and ultimately critiques the overwhelming influence and manipulation of mass media...

"The Toronto International Film Festival is committed to the free expression of ideas and to engaging audiences in thoughtful discussion about issues of the day. D.O.A.P contributes meaningfully to the public discourse surrounding current social issues, demonstrates highly original storytelling techniques and utilizes innovative digital effects. The film is not exploitative in any way and treats what would certainly be a great tragedy respectfully and un-cynically."

And so, storm's a brewin'.

Is the president of the US in a particularly weak position for such a film to be released? Sure, his approval rating hasn't broken 50% since April of 2005. Political assassination is the more effective tool here. For him to leave office disgraced and the nation in a double (or octuple) pitfall may provide the lesson that American "leadership" needs. Will the film have any effect on Americans, with the exception of opening up a new avenue of Canada-bashing? Probably not. Most Americans can't point to Toronto on an unmarked map. Why should they care about anything but the immediate threat to the image of their leader?

Really, it's fiction. Fiction. The film that no-one has seen will have some kind of effect. If it's any good, it might go on TV. If it's no good, it'll be in a ten-dollar-store bargain bin fourteen years from now for $5 in the antiquated HD-DVD format. Talk about your cautionary tales.

The Drudge Report, and several blogs are weighing in. The Daily Mail has published this "What if?" scenario. When I started this article the count was 58 on Google for ""D.O.A.P."+"Death of a President"." By 10:00 (EDT) it'll be over a thousand. It's Saturday, there'll be a bunch of newspaper articles, it's had time to circulate... I am looking forward the the Ideas section of the Toronto Star on Sunday.

So what is left? Are we to contine to expect the worst in constructing our future or to hope for the best? The stringent order has favored the former. Perhaps it's time, Mr. President, to give the latter a shot -- so to speak.

Qana

2006-07-31T12:07:00.000-04:00

Is it any wonder that the southern towns of Lebanon are pro-Hezbollah?

Bordering Israel is no easy task for any Arab population. Hate runs deep, and the disposition of the people of Qana is with good reason. It was a little over 10 years ago that Israel shelled the UN-protected town, killing 100 people in a hail of shrapnel. Then, as now, Israel claimed that civilian casualties in Qana in 1996 were accidental; a response to Hezbollah firing upon Israeli citizens from this position. In effect, Israel said, Hezbollah used Lebanese civilians as "human shields." An investigation, under UN authority, concluded that the shelling was no accident.

Now, in 2006, the same line is being trotted out, Hezbollah is to blame. If Hezbollah did not exist -- or, better yet, if Lebanon would not tolerate the existence of Hezbollah -- none of this would ever have happened. Hezbollah has admitted that the response of Israel to the incursion and kidnappings was completely unexpected. The tactic of kidnapping and prisoner exchange was, until now, manageable.

Today is a National Day of Mourning in Lebanon. A 48-hour ceasefire is rapidly coming to a close. Tomorrow, rockets will be fired from Hezbollah positions into Israel, and Israeli forces will return fire, in kind, raining death from above on the Lebanese people. Whether or not these Lebanese are Hezbollah, the bombs do not care. The War on Terror marches forward.

The most forceful nations on Earth wield the most advanced weapons in existence, and yet, collateral damage is the constant excuse for deaths of non-combatants.

New initiatives seek to install a peace keeping force in a buffer zone between the two nations, introducing more confusion in this region. An additional authority to deal with cannot be the answer here when the failure of coalition forces to quell uprisings in Afghanistan stretch into the beginning of a sixth year. Coalition forces, too, remain in Iraq seeking to stifle a rabid insurgency -- a conflict vehemently denied certification as a Civil War.

What is to become of the Arab world? To ensure peaceful coexistence with the desires and designs of the West, armed babysitters must suppress any militancy or dissent. Groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas rooted out in this campaign against terror, state-sanctioned tactics of terror used against them, will be annihilated and their ideas quashed. Only after a generation or two of behavioural engineering will the Arab world fall in line and become the gentle neighbour. They will do as they are told by the powers that be and forgetting the wrongs that have been committed against them along the way.

The cycle of violence persists only because those who have the power to stop it, those in the seat of power, refuse. Had Hezbollah not commited to the incursion, killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, Israel would not have been made to make a choice. From the seat of power, Israel has a responsibility to defend its borders. "Israel has the right to defend herself," is the sentiment echoed by US President Bush, Canadian PM Stephen Harper, and Israeli PM Ehud Olmert.

Does Israel not also have a responsibility and a right to defend its citizens from a escalate conflict? Does Israel, and all empowered nations, not have a responsibility and a right to set a new standard? Not to be the schoolyard bully, not to be the oppressor, to not strike back. Feeding the violence with more violence entrenches those on the other side, increases recruitment for that cause, pushes peace farther from sight. Hezbollah becomes stronger with each Israeli bombing. Israel becomes more staunch an opponent when the group of weaker younger kids on the playground, the kids whose faces constantly change, have the audacity to claim some authority.

When you are the stronger and choose not to fight, it is not a sign of weakness, it is wisdom, tolerance, forgiveness, perhaps even love. Had Israel not bombed Lebanon on 12 July, there would be no Qana Massacre No. 2. Nothing is learned when in kill-switch conflicts.

US Attorney General vs. the First Amendment

2006-05-22T23:41:00.000-04:00

Read the NYT article.

The way that this reads in the NYT is that first and foremost responsibility of US Government is to prosecute criminal offenders. The problem is, the release of "sensitive" materials by the press is in the pursuit of justice that cannot be obtained any other way. Especially where those being brought to justice are within US Government body.

The release of information for public consumption, sometimes a threat to the nebulous notion of "national security," opens a Pandora's Box for the Administration, especially this Administration. The corruption rife within the Bush Adminstration has only begun to be uncovered. Indictments are piling high and the conduct of officials is under scrutiny. As such, the remarks of the Attorney General are not unexpected. However, a consequent crackdown on freedom of speech would certainly be a step backward for US.

"'... it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity' he said. 'And so those two principles have to be accommodated.'"

It was well put by Hemos on Slashdot: So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them?

Vincente Fox vs. US

2006-05-04T11:06:00.000-04:00

Within the past year, both Canada and Mexico have sought to decriminalize recreational quantities of controlled substances. While Canada seeks to establish an in road with marijuana, a widely accessible and virtually harmless controlled substance, the efforts of the past forty years of decriminalization have been stymied at each turn by the reflexive responses of US drug warriors. The clear message in Canada is captured here:

"'Paul Martin,... said he did not think that young people caught with small amounts of pot should have a criminal record. ... 'Certainly, from a health point of view, doctors will all tell you that it (using pot) is not the best thing,' Martin said. 'But it's of no use to anyone to give a criminal record to a young person who is caught with small quantities.'"

Restriction on the freedoms of an individuals act as deterrents, it is for this reason that some civilizations have laws, legal systems, and prisons. Record-keeping, sometimes as effective a deterrent to criminal behaviour as prison itself, is part and parcel with any criminal justice system. Timely review of justice within a society must also take place to ensure that laws in place represent the people and steer clear of the institution of a totalitarian state. The combined interests of freedom and security may yet result in the repeal of the drug prohibition.

Tabling a decriminalization bill to curb violence directly associated with the drug trade is a reasonable and responsible position to take. Vincente Fox, President of Mexico, a free nation under siege, bears the responsibility to protect his people. The internal considerations of that nation supercede the interests of its international trading partners and a global war on drugs. As long as Mexico takes steps to prevent drugs from crossing its borders, say, into the US, then legislation may proceed as the nation sees fit.

As has been exemplified on thousands of occaisions the prohibition of the drug trade has only perpetuated a negative feedback loop of violence and addiction. It is human nature: a person moreso desires that which cannot be had. Lifting prohibition on narcotics, treating drug consumption as a disease rather than a crime, is a positive step that the drug enforcement culture of America refuses to approach.

Lifting the prohibition of alcohol that resulted in so much violence and organized crime in the 1920s and 30s in America did not result in violent backlash when repealed in widespread alcoholism in the 50s and 60s. Instead, social structures and education introduced a check-balance system that constantly monitors alcohol consumption. Alcoholics, furthermore, have the means to seek counselling for their problems. This is especially important today as the crushing pressures of contemporary life begin to push more people toward the escapism afforded by recreational substances, legal and controlled alike.

America is the single most consumptive nation on the face of the Earth. It is this consumptive nature that is responsible for their downfall in the face of drug culture. Whereas non-Americans know where to draw the line, exerting discretion and common-sense in consumptive behaviour, America seeks to broach the extremes. Applied to drug consumption, this behaviour is monumentally destructive and, as a result is subject to such intense control. A cultural shift away from excess is needed for Americans to appreciate freedom for what it is. Freedom does not necessitate self-destruction, it necessitates the acceptance of responsibility.

As it stands, however, the march of freedom simply does not guarantee sovereign nations the right to internal security. Each time that a nation bows to the interests expressed by those United States, the assimilation of the world grows closer to concrete fruition.

What is wrong with the world?

2006-03-08T14:16:00.000-05:00

This.

"Americans opposed

"Mr Bush has strongly backed the $6.85bn (£3.94bn) deal, saying he would veto any law designed to block it."

The End

Random Quotes

2006-02-09T09:35:00.000-05:00

"For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk." -- Stephen Hawking

If imagination is the lynch-pin which defines us all as human, and communcation is the tool that permits us expression of what we imagine, then, imagine a world of clear communication.

"An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it." -- James A. Michener

Timedancing Backwards

2006-02-08T19:32:00.000-05:00

So much to cover. Maybe some blurbs and links. Yeah. That's a plan.

::New species discovered in Papua New Guinea

The lesson learned here is that the places in the world where there are no people are the best places in the world. Every time scientists or governments or other groups of people encroach on the natural world, we destroy everything in our path. It is enlightening that science is now aware of these species and that such a region of the world has been uncovered, but, the new desire to enter into and exploit potential resources of this area is the problem that humanity presents. Hopefully, this untouched area will remain untouched. Being without walking trails, therefore, without roads and research sites and helipads, etc., it ought to remain this way. If enterprise and human "resourcefulness" is introduced, there is no doubt in my mind that humanity will have a "mice-in-Australia" effect.

::Satirizing the Prophet Muhammed

If there was ever any doubt that the Islamic people take their religion and their religion and religious figures very seriously, perhaps even more seriously than any other major group, there may no longer be any doubt. This despite suicide bombings, "terrorist" ties, and theocratic governments, the publication of these cartoons is more universally accessible than many other international international ideological conflicts. Children, and those of child-like mind, see the connections and bias of the cartoons without acknowledging satirical implications. In fact, only Albert Brooks, could tell us whether or not Islamic people respond well to satire.

The reverence that Islamic people have for their prophet is unparalleled. To my knowledge, the position of Prophets in Western religions have always taken a back seat to the position held by the Son of God. Thus, in the attempt to draw parallels between Islam and Christianity, there is a clear disconnection. Prophet for prophet, Muhammed and Moses are not considered in the same league. Hell, NRA King Charlton Heston played Moses. Muhammed, even in ancient depictions, was shown veiled. As I understand it, Muhammed is the perihelion of Islam. No diminishment of this single, perfect connection to God could be tolerated.

Their intolerance of his caricature is not unlike the resistance such a treatment of Jesus, one of many instances of Christian perihelia, until recent free expressive acts. Sure, the depiction of Jesus hanging from a cross is acceptable and reverent despite being a clear and torturous image. Even now, the depiction of Nas or Kanye West or Eric Cartman as being crucified or wearing a crown of thorns, however, is sacreliege. Western societies have come to tolerate these depictions under the acceptance of free speech. We (the West) cannot force (enforce) such a fundamental change in the Islamic world.

My verdict: The actions of Danish newspaper editors at Jyllands-Posten are responsible for the current state of affairs. Freedom of the press is guaranteed by nations internally, however, the world grows smaller by the day. One cannot hide behind the guise of externality, whether corporate externality or national externality, in a truly international and market-driven world. Ignorance of the reverence for the image of the Prophet is no excuse. This current backlash is proof-positive. An investigation, as demanded, is inadequate response to this affair. Education of the press, too, as to the sensitive areas of relations with "foreign" cultures must be undertaken to ensure that such a collision of freedoms does not recur. It is because the world grows smaller that nations cannot alienate one another, especially over misunderstandings such as this. These images constitute hate-crime. Just as much as scrawling swatstikas on the walls of a synogogue, just as much as imprisoning practitioners of Falun Gong, and just as much as beating up homosexuals. The moral outrage of the Islamic people is justified and the turning of a blind eye and a dispassionate ear to this conflict, as the West is currently doing, is only another example of disconnection and misunderstanding between East and West.

High Cost of Low Price

2006-01-01T18:05:00.000-05:00

The first of a new year. The last year lacked many things... mostly my capacity to focus on a goal and carry it through. I am interested in so many things that, unlike those who have chosen a clearer path, I spread myself thin across all of these interests. Nothing gets done.

Maybe this post should be in the other blog.

Ok, refocussing on POV.

I started the year with Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Lower Prices, a Disinfo doc exposing the business practices of the world's largest retailer. Though I have always had an issue with the practices of large corporations, especially with respect to the manner in which their employees are treated. I was already aware of the standard practice to pay as little as posible, demand more out of each employee regardless of wage, and the slippery tactics of schduling and budgeting. As a matter of fact, Wal-Mart is often cited by the corporation for which I work as a shining example of responsible, respectable, and admirable business practice.

wtf.

The legacy of Wal-Mart corporate practices is surely a sign of the times. Bullying their way into a community, it promises employment and investment. Then, once the foundation is set, they rescind their agreements, cause the closure of dozens if not hundreds of local businesses. The impact of these closures only feeds Wal-Mart more employees willing to work at a lower wage. Others who cannot restart business and cannot get jobs at Wal-Mart - because they intentionally understaff their stores - fall away neglected and destitute. At each link in the chain Wal-Mart applies a code of of business conduct in which respect and individuality are stripped from their people. Each of these employees is no more than human commodity, cattle, for the attainment of corporate ambition. Staff members accepting this as gospel, literally cheering its praises each morning, the physical and psychological cycle is complete.

The most successful businesses set the trend. Investment comes for successful business models. By undercutting the competition on price, co-opting and killing their comptetitors, and imbalancing the field of competition by creating the largest margins possible, record profits are assured. What is the future going to be like if these practices are mimicked and instuted universally?

In the past, if I could avoid going to Wal-Mart, I would. Now, I simply won't go.

Has it come to this?

2005-12-22T01:48:00.000-05:00

Elections in Canada are fast approaching. The platforms of each of our parties, espousing promises of nominal political timbre, can be found at their respective websites. The ruling party, the Liberal party, seeks another term in office while the Conservatives seek to unseat them. Our other choices: the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and, ostensibly, the Green Party, do not stand a ghost's chance at forming a majority government. There is conviction, at present, that none of these parties will form a majority government and that we will be voting, again, in 12 to 18 months. In my opinion, none of these people are suitable to form a national government, nor are we - the citizens of this nation - properly informed to make such a choice. Such is democracy, the right to vote blindly for unelected, party-sponsored candidates.

We had discussions tonight - whom the "we" is is not important, we are all voting Canadians - concering this election. Once we clarified what we were talking about, that the choices must be made among all eligible candidates and that "official" party status has only political bearing the selection made by an individual, we approached the topics of greatest concern in this, or any, election: the value of a vote and what supports such a decision.

The decision in question is that of D, a homosexual male, who - after some great degree of soul searching - has decided to vote Conservative. This, because he:

a) does not want to "waste" his vote
b) wants to "punish" the Liberal party

Gomery report, broken promises, and mismanaged funds among his reasoning, he believes that the best way to hold the Liberal Party accountable for their actions in office is to vote them out. 12 years of Liberal leadership, in his mind, has culminated in a "corrupt" power centre that does not act responsibly. He goes further to say that the Liberals "need time [to] rethink" their manner of government before they can be allowed back into power.

The Conservatives are his only choice, he believes. The same Conservative party that discriminates between homosexuals and heterosexuals with respect to marriage, instead of treating people as people. The same Conservative party that cozied up to US interests and brought NAFTA into our midst. The same Conservative party, whose leader, Stephen Harper, espouses as policy that the solution to drug trafficking is harsh sentancing - including mandatory prison sentances for grow-ops and the death of marijuana decriminalization.

The world that the Conservative party has in mind is much closer to that dream sought by America. Smaller government, more free enterprise, less social responsibility and more privatization. Corporate enterprise will succeed and individual liberties will fail. The indictment of Canada as a welfare state, burdened by our "archaic, governmen-run health care system" seeks to undermine all things Canadian. But, that's what the Connies (no offense Connie) want.

My argument targets both of D's justifications. The first, that voting against the Liberals without voting for the official opposition is a "waste" is preposterous. An election is the time at which all must choose for themselves. The "waste" is prognostication, tortious interference in the path of the future. Alliances and dependence on what is past, or, especially, what is planned or promised for the future is not the way of freedom.

An election is a free vote, let the chips fall where they may. D did go so far as to say that there are too many choices, that any vote away from the Liberals or Conservatives is a wasted vote. The product of a two party system is clearly exemplified in US politics. Furthermore, a two party system is only one step away from a totalitarian regime, much like the "enemy states" of the past: Facist Germany and Italy and Spain, Soviet Russia, N. Korea, Iraq, and others.

Campaigns, especially mudslinging, ought to be outlawed. An election should present the best options to the people based on sound judgement and responsible execution. And yet, though most of us have left high school behind, politics remains a popularity contest.

If a Green Party government is elected, so be it. No vote is wasted.

The "punishment" of a party, too, is a ridiculous reason to "vote for the other guy." A party cannot be "punished" because a party is not a person. The ideas, ideologies, and methods of the Liberal party will remain whether or not they are in the offical seat of power or not. Political inertia is the reason for this. If the object of the game is to win, and the Liberals happen to lose, it does not mean that they will abandon what has worked for 12 years, they will only tweak it and make it work next time. Nothing is learned in politics but innovative ways to achieve victory.

The Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada will remain deadlocked for much of the time to come. The concern of many Canadians are identical, that they want their vote to count and that they want their vote to have an impact. Until a true paradigm shift washes through, hopefully in the form of a Green Revolution, we will be stuck with the present issue: can our democracy work? My solution is simple, the ballot option to abstain.

Lot More

2005-11-17T12:38:00.000-05:00

"KERRY:

"'I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

"'How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.'

"'... You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.

You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.'"

"LEHRER:

"'Ninety seconds.'

"BUSH:

"'Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.'" (italics added)

Obviously the President, in the conduct of his affairs doesn't understand the concept of responsibility. Ignorance, ever his best friend, is his first response. This was the weakness that Bush exhibited throughout the first debate. Reacting violently to the notion of testing, of being held accountable for his actions, Bush proceeds...

"'My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.'"

This attitude is why no-one wants him to invite himself over to their house. The security of the country, as it turns out, was never threatened by Iraq, because there were no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons materials in the enitre country. Instead Bush has found himself in a trap. Iraq baited him, making him believe that there was a threat, US troops invaded, and now more than 2000 troops have died and more than 30 000 civilians have died.

By the by, Saddam Hussein is on trial for the massacre of 143 Shia men in 1982. Bush, whose government is crumbling about him, is responsible for each of the 33 000 deaths in Iraq since 19 March 2003. Iraq may yet set precedent for halting US intervention as foreign policy. If so, at this rate, Hussein could be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Contrast is a very funny thing, and, no, he can't get the prize. But, neither can Bush.

"'My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions. And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.

"'And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.'"

Obviously, the Prez is more than a little concerned about the possibility of being called, himself, to answer for his actions. Or, he simply doesn't believe that war crimes exist. What he does believe is that America, unlike other nations, must be permitted to act with complete autonomy.

He maintains an obvious double standard. On 30 September 2004, he denies the validity of the ICC, just in time for Christmas his troops uncover Saddam Hussein, and on 19 October 2005, Hussein is put on trial by a court in New Iraq under US occupation. Dubious authority of the court has already been called into question by the Hussein defense team, refusing to recognize the validity of the court and refusing to accept the manner in which he was removed [read:escaped] from office.

US and Iraqi interests are aligned in refusing ratification of the Rome Statute, denying the authority of the ICC. Others short listed nations: China, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen. Of note, one of the final acts of the President Clinton was the signing of the Rome statute on 31 December 2000. However,

"Israel, the United States and Yemen signed the statute at the end of 2000, but the United States has continued to insist on immunity for American forces.

On May 6, 2002, the Bush Administration informed the United Nations Secretary-General that 'the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.' The United Nations has not removed the name of the United States from the official list of signatories." (from wikipedia)

"'My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.'"

Interestingly enough, the interests of the President and his investors, er... constituents have neatly aligned with those of America, regardless of the cost in terms of human lives. As long as more foreigners die than Americans, American interest in winning will be satisfied.

Stop war. All human lives are valuable.

Global Test

2005-11-17T12:10:00.000-05:00

... I know its over, but it pissed me off at the time. Here, let's hop into the ol' Way Back Machine.

Maybe I should redate this post, but that wouldn't be any good either... rewritining history like that. Anywhoo...

The words heard, and ridiculed, 'round the world were spoken by John F. Kerry during the first of three presidential debates in 2004. Kerry, when questioned about the US pre-emptive strikes, he referred to "a global test."

Here's the quote from http://www.debates.org/

"LEHRER:

"New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry. What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

"KERRY:

"The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Interestingly enough, for the rest of the election campaign, Bush and his team twisted this quote, undermining the rest of Kerry's campaign. They reconstrued it to make the American people believe that he, Kerry, would cede control of all American Foreign policy to the UN, or other exterior entities. Basically, Bush used the third grade understanding of the word "global" against Kerry, knowing full well that the lowest common denominator theory of media play would work in his favor.

Kerry proposed a global test among Americans in the same sentance. "[T]he global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing[.]" The gaffe of including proving it to the rest of the world was probably what did Kerry in, but I understood what he was going after. Interestingly enough, the Democrats and the rest of the "democratically" elected senate, and most of the rest of the world, are asking questions about the pre-emptive strike against Iraq: questioning the Bush administration, really, about "why you're doing what you're doing[.]"

The moral of the story, don't provide answers on 30 September 2004, to questions that will be asked in October 2005. It will not get you elected, or even noticed. It will have you ridiculed.

Patent 6960975 - Spaceship

2005-11-15T13:25:00.000-05:00

I've compiled here some of the online publications pertaining to this patent. Enjoy.

from www.dose.ca

The U.S. government has granted a patent on a futuristic spaceship designed to approach light speed and escape gravity — by bending space, time, and probably the laws of physics.

This means you can’t build a ship able to do these things unless you get permission from Boris Volfson, of Huntington, Ind. This is his own invention, along with a new type of pinking shears.

from http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/

The USPTO issued Patent 6,960,975 on November 1, 2005. The object of the patent? A spaceship which moves by creating "a spacetime curvature anomaly outside the space vehicle". I kid you not. Read it for yourself.

I'm taking an intellectual property law course this semester. One of the requirements of a valid patent is the "utility" requirement, which has three components. First, the technology must have general utility, or in other words, it must actually do something productive. Third (you'll see why these are out of order in a second), the utility must be beneficial/moral - you can't get a patent on a biological weapon, for example. The second component of the utility requirement is "operability" - the patent must work as described. Apparently this requirement is now optional.

My back-of-the-envelope analysis of the social value of this patent (caveat emptor, as always) is below the fold.

from National Geographic

Volfson's craft is theoretically powered by a superconductor shield that changes the space-time continuum in such a way that it defies gravity. The design effectively creates a perpetual-motion machine, which physicists consider an impossible device.

..."The patent office used to say that they didn't patent perpetual-motion machines, but it turned out that there really was no such rule," Park said.

A 1990 federal court ruling against inventor Joe Newman, who applied for a patent on a motor that he said could return more energy than it consumed, was interpreted as precluding patents for such devices.

..."The effect that [the court ruling] has had is that patent seekers no longer call them perpetual-motion machines," Park said. "Now it's called capturing zero-point energy."

Zero-point energy is a real type of energy produced by the miniscule movements of molecules at rest. Harnessing this energy is theoretically possible, but the task seems, at least for the moment, practically impossible.

from Boris Volfson, the inventor:

This proposal is for the patented inflationary vacuum spaceship. The implementation of this proposal would take years and billions of dollars. All new spaceships cost billions to develop. However, it would be cheap, quick and easy to build an orange-sized, electrically-powered “breadboard” device of my patent. The device could be gently placed, with the shuttle’s mechanical arm, on the shadow side of the next space shuttle, fired up, and observed whether it moves comparatively to the shuttle.

from me:

Well, the jury's still out. No-one woulda thought that Einstein would come out of no where to be the foremost authority on physics in 1915. This guy, Boris, might be onto something. Granted, it's gonna take more than a few fridge magnets and an orange to make it work, but, what if it does? What if his theory is proven? Does this change the way that the world works? Certainly. The quest for perpetuatal motion has been at the basis of physics since Newton and his apple. Personally, I've always believed it to be possible, but, then again, the Laws of Physics say that it can't be.

Insofar as conventional motors are concerned, I buy that. No one can produce a machine that produces more energy than it consumes. It is for this reason that the machine that humanity has created for itself - industrial economy - concerns me. It is impossible to support humanity perpetually on this machine, eventually everything will be consumed and a dark age will follow. But, back to the point...

No conventional motor can be perpetual, but, a motor that exploits some natural energetic source (i.e. magnetism, gravity, nuclear forces) should be possible. We cannot consume gravity, but, there must be some means by this constant unchanging force can be used to generate energy. Magnetism, too, could prove to be a source of energy. The VanAllen belts, responsible for our protection from the solar winds and the architects of the Auroura Borealis, are proof positive of a naturally-occurring magnetosphere. Tapping into this energy, without its consumption, is a possibility.

Remember, something is only a problem as long as there is no solution. Good luck, Boris. Hope this one pans out for you.

Everything Sucks

2005-11-15T00:42:00.000-05:00

... well it sorta does.

It depends on your perspective, your point of view, so to speak (incidentally, the first time I've ever dropped the title of this blog in context).

The world is doing the stupid dance. A war rages that no one wants to pay attention to. It's the 70s all over again, and, instead of Vietnam, people are dying in Iraq on a daily basis because of political buffoonery. But no-one cares... we, the powerful, are more concerned about the media blitz of Eva Longoria, or the last and next games of poker. There's hurricanes and political corruption to be concerned with, not that it has anything to do with the war...

"The cost of living is going up, I've got a job to go to every day, why should I worry about anything outside of that. Besides, everything will either stay the same or get worse... I just have to get mine while I'm here."

"What? What am I after you ask? Happiness, of course. great vacations, a nice place to live, a car or two, and good family life."

"What else? What else is there?"

"Ummm... let me get back to you on that."

Insulation is the name of the game. If one is sufficiently insulated from reality, one can start to enjoy one's life, absent-minded of the elements that construct the existence one enjoys. It is this pleasent separation from reality -- a synaptic schism -- that permits acceptance of the unknown interim.

If individuals were aware of all of the action potentials leaping across all of the synapses of every part of the body, even for a moment, the ensuing state of awareness would transcend all existence...

"I don't care how it works, I just need to know that it works."

It seems that the human condition is to be content in falling short of potential. to make do with what limitations there are instead of pushing toward new and attainable solutions. Setting the bar lower with each ensuing generation ensures a backward slide for culture and reason, for humanity at large. This philosophy, disseminated at large by those with a vested interest in guaranteeing general failure among individuals, secures and furthers success of few people in the process.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't promote achievement.

Iran Recant

2005-11-13T17:02:00.002-05:00

I'd like to recant a portion of my previous statment (NNPT vs. Iran). New information has arisen that I was unaware of.

"The dark underside of nuclear power has always been its potential to aid in the production of nuclear weapons, through the production of plutonium Ð an inevitable byproduct of reactor operation. Of all commercial reactors, the CANDU design produces the most plutonium per unit of energy, and is the most difficult to safeguard."

http://www.cnp.ca/issues/exporting-disaster.html

If Iran is intent on reactivating its nuclear reactors, and, if world powers continue this merry dance toward total self-annihilation under the guise of mutual terrorist acts, then, it is inevitable that Iranian powers will seek to generate nuclear weapons for self-defense. Only with the stabilzation of international relations, a position that will not come to pass with current US foreign policy in place, will the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran, or any other nation, be quieted.

Self-defense is the all-too common reason for taking up arms. A perceived threat is sensed, arms are taken up, death and destruction ensues. Hopefully, one day, threats need not be perceived at all.

Incidentally, if Canadian reactors produce the most Plutonium per unit of energy, where did it all go? South of the Border, perhaps?

Haters.

2005-11-11T00:22:00.000-05:00

Anne Rice haters. Read Memnoch the Devil. Then judge.

So she wrote a goth Jesus book, so what?

Read it, it's good.

Killing, Lying, Numbness

2005-11-04T15:32:00.000-05:00

There are two types of people in the world. Those who have a taste for killing, and have possibly killed in the past, and those who have not. The world, at present, demands of people that killing and destruction be sanctioned as a means to an end.

Empowerment, especially when the act of killing is distant from the command, is dangerously seductive. It shapes the manner in which one conceives of all remaining life. Taking life can make one intoxicated with power. Barring remorse, permitting only attraction or apathy in the act, a need can build to incur such destruction again and again. Such individuals are monstrous.

The design on human affairs is built on a foundation of incurring destruction. Taking life is, iteslf one such form of destruction. Pollution, deforestation, agriculture, and the like are all such examples of the underpinnings of society as reliant upon the destruction of other living things. In appreciation of the fact that there is only destruction to generate "progress," there is nothing in this progressive world that is in keeping with the sustainence of any living thing. Killing is the only way to get ahead.

Justification of killing and destruction is tantamount to epic lying. The lies that humanity tells to justify and to cover up the manner in which our affairs are conducted abound. Destruction is perpetuated and the pillars of society tell lies to cover their tracks. For example, progress and economy as the highest of ideals in place of the natural resources destroyed. Much in the same manner, lies mask the factors that drive the powerhouse economies of the world. Heavy reliance upon cheap labour to create massive profit margins. The high held ideal, large profits mask the reality of cheap labour. The ends, again, justifying the means.

If the means is always to be veiled in some false justification, where will it end? Already, we occupy a world wherein the single, most-powerful nation has initiated a war on false pretense. The surrounding global state of emergency, the War on Terror, justifies away the existence of two groups: those fighting for freedom and those fighting against freedom. The distinction remains tenuous as the association of the word "terrorist" can be applied to both camps.

The level to which conflict has risen at this point in human history, where "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," is only proof positive that nothing has been learnt from our history. With each incremental rise in security, there is a consequent fall in the level of freedom. Security and freedom, intricately associated, are never tied together in this way in media [read: propaganda]. Being hammered again and again with these ideals, both of penultimate import, the paradox is blinding. To deal with it, only numbness will do.

It is freedom for which we all fight, everywhere in the world. Freedom to practice religion as we each see fit, freedom to practice government as we each see fit, freedom to practice economy as we each see fit. Basically, freedom to live. The world we share is growing smaller, and more crowded. The possibility of global acceptance of any system - of faith, dollars, or governance - diminishes with time. Individuality and collective acceptance, too, are paradoxically promoted.

Be yourself and fit in.

"Ignorance is strength, war is peace, freedom is slavery. "

The cost of all of this fighting, not only in wars but political infighting, economic competition, and the like, is its perpetuity. The lust for destruction, death and conquest never leaves. Humanity is a monstrous machine, there is no remorse for the destruction incurred. In fact, the only means by which any progress can be made is in the employment of destructive acts.

The enlightenment that escapes societies is the capacity to co-operate, to abandon killing, and to create without destruction. Without this understanding, the only refuge for humanity is resolute numbing. While some drug themselves, others occupy themselves vigorously, blocking out the contradictions. The search for an answer remains. It is plain to see...

... stop killing, stop lying, stop numbing. Find a way.

Canada vs. Martha

2005-10-06T19:21:00.000-04:00

Martha Stewart is a convicted felon. As a result, Canadian law does not permit her to cross the border into our country. Incidientally, she's coming for a pumpkin festival in Windsor.

Of course, being Martha Stewart (capital M, capital S), she takes exception to this.

US government officials will turn away Canadian citizens convicted of summary (not felony) charges, including, drug possession charges, including small amounts of marijuana; underscoring the [pathetic] importance of their drug war.

Just a thought, ounce of weed vs. felony fraud. The lesser of two evils is treated as the greater on a regular basis.

If Martha Stewart crosses the border, it will be one more instance wherein American might flaunts international laws 'cause they feel like it. Because she's a celebrity, because she'll bring money and investment with her, and because she wants to -- she should get a pass? No.

Suck it up Martha, bake an apple pie why don'tcha?