POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY CLIVE CROOK IN THE FINANCIAL TIMES
Many of the criticisms here are true, especially those about costs.
But since when in America is it possible to legislate a neat, rational, economical, sensible bill about anything?
That's not just a sarcasm.
American legislation is often so convoluted, so fraught with nonsense, that it in practice it achieves the opposite of its title.
That's just a reality of government in America.
The one real merit of this legislation is that the door is finally thrown open to some extent on healthcare.
And that's no small thing.
With time, the legislation will be refined, improved, and perhaps changed significantly.
The real truth is that America - with its opinionated extremes, its ideologies, and its sheer volume of noise - learns often only by banging its head against walls.
We have seen that time and time again.
Turning America in anything is like turning a super-oil tanker in a tight channel, and too often there is a drunk at the helm.
America is a chaotic society, yet pretends to be well organized, and it is overflowing with posing and melodrama.
It is, as Robert Hughes said, a culture of complaint.
________________
"...it is opposed by most of the country; and it is now law. I would never have believed this possible in the United States."
Clive Crook, that statement by someone as well-informed as you astounds me.
A great many major votes in Congress do not reflect general public opinion in America. Check out public opinion on subjects like gun control, abortion, and some of America's wars.
The truth is that a great many Americans do not vote, so while their views are reflected in a valid poll, they have no political influence.
Also, Congress blurs many issues with immensely complex omnibus bills, making it difficult to sort out votes.
And since representation is what economists call "bundled," voters will forget or forgive an unwelcome vote on some issues so long as they get what they want on others.
In a political duopoly, no voter gets the policies he or wants without lots of extra baggage from either party.
Finally, there has been an immense amount of misinformation, genuinely stupid stuff like the rubbish about death panels put forward by genuine airheads like Sarah Palin.
Once voters see that such misinformation is what it is, views will alter. There will undoubtedly be a big educational drive too.
I would have much preferred another approach - this one has many shortcomings - but it is step forward, and it will make it easier to make refinements in future.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
CONTROVERSY AND PREJUDICE OVER THE NIQAB - AND THE TRUTH ABOUT ISRAEL'S GROSSLY INEFFICIENT ECONOMY IN RESPONSE TO AN IGNORANT COMMENT
POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Gee, it would be nice if the Globe got its garments right.
At the top of an article about the niqab (a veil for the face), you have put a picture of women wearing either chador (a flowing body garment which is often worn without a veil) or a hijab (a simple head scarf, not all that different to a babushka).
It isn't possible to see from the cropping which garments these are, but are most definitely not niqab.
It really would be nice to get a break from all this mindless, anti-Muslim hysteria.
What do I care what my neighbor wears so long as he or she is a peaceful member of society?
My experience with Muslims is simply one a sweet-tempered people who pretty much mind their own business.
I wish their critics displayed half their excellent qualities.
__________________
"Yeah, it's such a shame how all that hedonism led Israel to become the most prosperous nation in the middle east, with the most diverse economy..."
Pure and utter ignorance, that posting.
Israel is, in fact, the most subsidized country in the world, and it enjoys countless unfair advantages over others.
For decades the U.S. government has given it about $3 billion per year - that's about $500 per head each year.
Oh wouldn't Canadians, or even more the Arabs the above writer so clearly despises, like to receive a foreign government’s cheque of $500 each year? Most of Israel’s population has grown up its entire life with this benefit.
But that $500 per head subsidy is only the start of special advantages.
America shares precious intelligence and technology and access on a scale extended to no one else.
What other relatively insignificant country - Israel's population is about that of Ecuador - gets its president into the White House every few months?
What other country of this size has a generous free-trade agreement with America?
But those are still only the beginnings of the subsidy.
America’s defense establishment enters into all kinds of huge and costly joint projects with Israel – as for the Arrow anti-missile missile – sharing valuable technology and access to the best brains plus money.
American Jewish organizations have sent literally tens of billions to Israel over 60 years, and these immense contributions have been given charitable status exempting the givers from tax.
Europe too gives Israel special status in many economic matters.
Germany of course has paid billions in reparations for the holocaust to Israel – I’m not faulting that, but only pointing out one more huge subsidy. It also supplies Israel weapons - like a small fleet of sophisticated, diesel-powered submarines - at bargain-basement prices.
Israel’s economy is often grossly inefficient, yet its privileged position allows for that. For example, Israel squanders the precious water resources of the region to grow things like tomatoes which it exports to the U.S. and Europe. If the true cost of the water were reflected in the price, Israel’s produce would rot on the docks for lack of customers.
And then at the same time, Israel builds desalination plants to create more potable water at immense cost per unit volume of water.
Israel is many things, but it is neither efficient nor is it an economic miracle. It only has that appearance if you don’t look beyond the gloss.
Gee, it would be nice if the Globe got its garments right.
At the top of an article about the niqab (a veil for the face), you have put a picture of women wearing either chador (a flowing body garment which is often worn without a veil) or a hijab (a simple head scarf, not all that different to a babushka).
It isn't possible to see from the cropping which garments these are, but are most definitely not niqab.
It really would be nice to get a break from all this mindless, anti-Muslim hysteria.
What do I care what my neighbor wears so long as he or she is a peaceful member of society?
My experience with Muslims is simply one a sweet-tempered people who pretty much mind their own business.
I wish their critics displayed half their excellent qualities.
__________________
"Yeah, it's such a shame how all that hedonism led Israel to become the most prosperous nation in the middle east, with the most diverse economy..."
Pure and utter ignorance, that posting.
Israel is, in fact, the most subsidized country in the world, and it enjoys countless unfair advantages over others.
For decades the U.S. government has given it about $3 billion per year - that's about $500 per head each year.
Oh wouldn't Canadians, or even more the Arabs the above writer so clearly despises, like to receive a foreign government’s cheque of $500 each year? Most of Israel’s population has grown up its entire life with this benefit.
But that $500 per head subsidy is only the start of special advantages.
America shares precious intelligence and technology and access on a scale extended to no one else.
What other relatively insignificant country - Israel's population is about that of Ecuador - gets its president into the White House every few months?
What other country of this size has a generous free-trade agreement with America?
But those are still only the beginnings of the subsidy.
America’s defense establishment enters into all kinds of huge and costly joint projects with Israel – as for the Arrow anti-missile missile – sharing valuable technology and access to the best brains plus money.
American Jewish organizations have sent literally tens of billions to Israel over 60 years, and these immense contributions have been given charitable status exempting the givers from tax.
Europe too gives Israel special status in many economic matters.
Germany of course has paid billions in reparations for the holocaust to Israel – I’m not faulting that, but only pointing out one more huge subsidy. It also supplies Israel weapons - like a small fleet of sophisticated, diesel-powered submarines - at bargain-basement prices.
Israel’s economy is often grossly inefficient, yet its privileged position allows for that. For example, Israel squanders the precious water resources of the region to grow things like tomatoes which it exports to the U.S. and Europe. If the true cost of the water were reflected in the price, Israel’s produce would rot on the docks for lack of customers.
And then at the same time, Israel builds desalination plants to create more potable water at immense cost per unit volume of water.
Israel is many things, but it is neither efficient nor is it an economic miracle. It only has that appearance if you don’t look beyond the gloss.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
NOBEL-WINNING ECONOMIST PAUL KRUGMAN'S DANGEROUS THOUGHTS ABOUT CHINA - AND WHY AMERICA HAS NEVER BEEN A GENUINE FREE-TRADER
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY JEREMY WARNER IN THE TELEGRAPH
Jeremy Warner, you have it exactly right.
Americans have never been free traders at heart.
And I believe that is because the impulse to dominate, very much part of American culture and tradition, is not comfortable with it. Americans raised for generations with Manifest Destiny and “Empire of Liberty” have an instinctive repulsion around compromise with others.
And, following from the same roots, Americans are largely repulsed by the rule of international organizations so necessary to a better-ordered world. Thus everything from the United Nations to various International treaties are viewed with suspicion or even contempt.
Indeed, America often uses free trade, in the form of free trade agreements, as a weapon for political domination.
After all, classical economics tells us that it is the smaller partner who has the most to gain from free trade.
So when the U. S. signs a free trade agreement with some relatively small countries in South America or the Caribbean (as it has recently), it obtains effectively a sledge hammer over the affairs of those countries: don't get out of line or we’ll abrogate the treaty benefiting you.
Further still, when the U.S. enters into a large and complex free trade agreement – as, for example, the North American Free Trade Agreement – it flexes its muscle whenever it is uncomfortable with a situation rising out of the terms of the agreement.
Students of that historic agreement will know the U.S., on a dozen issues, has simply declared it will not comply, and that is after going through the entire dispute-settling process established by the treaty and losing every decision. For Canada this high-handed behavior has included everything from trade in pork to soft-wood lumber, and for Mexico, it has included many agricultural products plus important services.
Americans, many of them, simply believe they have the best of all possible worlds under the best of all possible governments, and anything which appears to say otherwise is rejected out of hand.
Paul Krugman, despite the Noble Prize, is contaminated with strains of the same thinking we see in Thomas Friedman or Pat Buchanan or a large fraction of the United States Senate.
That is why, in my book about the decline of the American Empire and the rise of China, one of my most important themes was whether the United States would peacefully allow China to compete. I do believe if China is allowed to peacefully compete, it will unquestionably become the world’s most powerful economy in not many decades.
United States’ history puts the odds against it. The rise of Japan was met with immense hostility which eventually caused the Japanese to go to war against the United States, something they had had no intention of doing.
But the American expectation to keep the Pacific Ocean as an American lake made it take policies extremely hostile to Japan. The same motive was still at work only a few decades ago with the American holocaust in Vietnam.
Jeremy Warner, you have it exactly right.
Americans have never been free traders at heart.
And I believe that is because the impulse to dominate, very much part of American culture and tradition, is not comfortable with it. Americans raised for generations with Manifest Destiny and “Empire of Liberty” have an instinctive repulsion around compromise with others.
And, following from the same roots, Americans are largely repulsed by the rule of international organizations so necessary to a better-ordered world. Thus everything from the United Nations to various International treaties are viewed with suspicion or even contempt.
Indeed, America often uses free trade, in the form of free trade agreements, as a weapon for political domination.
After all, classical economics tells us that it is the smaller partner who has the most to gain from free trade.
So when the U. S. signs a free trade agreement with some relatively small countries in South America or the Caribbean (as it has recently), it obtains effectively a sledge hammer over the affairs of those countries: don't get out of line or we’ll abrogate the treaty benefiting you.
Further still, when the U.S. enters into a large and complex free trade agreement – as, for example, the North American Free Trade Agreement – it flexes its muscle whenever it is uncomfortable with a situation rising out of the terms of the agreement.
Students of that historic agreement will know the U.S., on a dozen issues, has simply declared it will not comply, and that is after going through the entire dispute-settling process established by the treaty and losing every decision. For Canada this high-handed behavior has included everything from trade in pork to soft-wood lumber, and for Mexico, it has included many agricultural products plus important services.
Americans, many of them, simply believe they have the best of all possible worlds under the best of all possible governments, and anything which appears to say otherwise is rejected out of hand.
Paul Krugman, despite the Noble Prize, is contaminated with strains of the same thinking we see in Thomas Friedman or Pat Buchanan or a large fraction of the United States Senate.
That is why, in my book about the decline of the American Empire and the rise of China, one of my most important themes was whether the United States would peacefully allow China to compete. I do believe if China is allowed to peacefully compete, it will unquestionably become the world’s most powerful economy in not many decades.
United States’ history puts the odds against it. The rise of Japan was met with immense hostility which eventually caused the Japanese to go to war against the United States, something they had had no intention of doing.
But the American expectation to keep the Pacific Ocean as an American lake made it take policies extremely hostile to Japan. The same motive was still at work only a few decades ago with the American holocaust in Vietnam.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
JEFFERSON AS AUTHOR OF DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: ONLY PARTLY RIGHT - MORE ABOUT JEFFERSON TOO
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY DANIEL FINKELSTEIN IN THE TIMES
You are only partly right, Daniel, calling Jefferson author of the Declaration of Independence.
That is of course what Jefferson liked to think himself - he had an ego the size of a cruise ship - and he had that half-truth carved on his tombstone at Monticello.
But in that as in so many things Jefferson was a rather dark and devious man.
Jefferson's draft of the Declaration was long and slightly ridiculous. The opening memorable phrases were amended to what we know today by that original genius, Benjamin Franklin.
Perhaps more importantly, the Continental Congress whittled his draft seriously down. Jefferson was in fact angry and embarrassed by the editing.
Jefferson’s draft was ridiculous for his lengthy focus on the King’s guilt for the slave trade – this from the lifetime owner of more than two hundred slaves.
Jefferson undoubtedly had a double purpose in this condemnation of the King.
First, at the time, there was actually a surplus of human flesh on the market, and slave prices were falling, and Jefferson was looking after his large investment in flesh.
Second, as always, Jefferson liked to be seen as a great advocate of human freedom, a kind of minor Enlightenment figure if you will with a legacy of words if not acts, so condemning the King would be part of his manufactured legacy.
Jefferson was such a spendthrift all his life, never able to earn his way as a lawyer, he never thought of setting his slaves free. Indeed, he died a bankrupt still.
So far as freedom goes, Jefferson also assisted Napoleon in trying to suppress the slave revolt in Haiti. A number of other ugly behaviors and policies are on his freedom-balance sheet.
The Declaration, if you actually read it (few do), after the wonderful opening words, descends into an almost petulant long list of charges and grievances, taking on a tone of something still true of America, always blaming others for their own poor choices.
All early – before the revolution - visitors to the colonies remarked how healthy and free the American colonies were. The colonies were widely regarded as one of the freest places on earth.
But being asked to help pay with taxes for something which largely benefited them – the French and Indian War – and being made part of a dreaded Catholic place, Quebec, under the Quebec Act caused an almost insane reaction.
The colonists had the benefit of the war and saw no reason to help pay for what they already had, and anti-papacy became a raging storm resembling in its intensity something from Northern Ireland in 1969.
You are only partly right, Daniel, calling Jefferson author of the Declaration of Independence.
That is of course what Jefferson liked to think himself - he had an ego the size of a cruise ship - and he had that half-truth carved on his tombstone at Monticello.
But in that as in so many things Jefferson was a rather dark and devious man.
Jefferson's draft of the Declaration was long and slightly ridiculous. The opening memorable phrases were amended to what we know today by that original genius, Benjamin Franklin.
Perhaps more importantly, the Continental Congress whittled his draft seriously down. Jefferson was in fact angry and embarrassed by the editing.
Jefferson’s draft was ridiculous for his lengthy focus on the King’s guilt for the slave trade – this from the lifetime owner of more than two hundred slaves.
Jefferson undoubtedly had a double purpose in this condemnation of the King.
First, at the time, there was actually a surplus of human flesh on the market, and slave prices were falling, and Jefferson was looking after his large investment in flesh.
Second, as always, Jefferson liked to be seen as a great advocate of human freedom, a kind of minor Enlightenment figure if you will with a legacy of words if not acts, so condemning the King would be part of his manufactured legacy.
Jefferson was such a spendthrift all his life, never able to earn his way as a lawyer, he never thought of setting his slaves free. Indeed, he died a bankrupt still.
So far as freedom goes, Jefferson also assisted Napoleon in trying to suppress the slave revolt in Haiti. A number of other ugly behaviors and policies are on his freedom-balance sheet.
The Declaration, if you actually read it (few do), after the wonderful opening words, descends into an almost petulant long list of charges and grievances, taking on a tone of something still true of America, always blaming others for their own poor choices.
All early – before the revolution - visitors to the colonies remarked how healthy and free the American colonies were. The colonies were widely regarded as one of the freest places on earth.
But being asked to help pay with taxes for something which largely benefited them – the French and Indian War – and being made part of a dreaded Catholic place, Quebec, under the Quebec Act caused an almost insane reaction.
The colonists had the benefit of the war and saw no reason to help pay for what they already had, and anti-papacy became a raging storm resembling in its intensity something from Northern Ireland in 1969.
A COLUMN EXPLAINING WHY AMERICAN-ISRAELI RELATIONS HAVE GONE SOUR - SO WHO NEEDS AN EXPLANATION?
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Why?
Who needs a column to explain the obvious?
Israel hurled a studied insult at the Vice President of the United States on a visit, and expects everyone just to smile.
Unbelievable.
Israel wants it both ways in everything.
Recently a government leader from Brazil was on a visit, and he did not wish to visit a certain monument to a controversial Zionist.
The Israeli government went out of its way to treat his action as an insult.
As far as the U. S. goes, Israel is happy to receive countless blessings - from security agreements and intelligence sharing to the world's richest haul of foreign aid - yet when the U. S. treats any of Israel's high-handed behavior for what it is, the U. S. government is the bad guy.
Ridiculous.
And why is the American Secretary of State calling the leader of an insignificant country of 7 million (less than 6 million if you discount the Arabs Israel has every intention of eventually expelling) to explain her remarks? It, of course, should be the leader of the insignificant country calling her to apologize.
And people say it is the Arabs who behave irrationally.
Why?
Who needs a column to explain the obvious?
Israel hurled a studied insult at the Vice President of the United States on a visit, and expects everyone just to smile.
Unbelievable.
Israel wants it both ways in everything.
Recently a government leader from Brazil was on a visit, and he did not wish to visit a certain monument to a controversial Zionist.
The Israeli government went out of its way to treat his action as an insult.
As far as the U. S. goes, Israel is happy to receive countless blessings - from security agreements and intelligence sharing to the world's richest haul of foreign aid - yet when the U. S. treats any of Israel's high-handed behavior for what it is, the U. S. government is the bad guy.
Ridiculous.
And why is the American Secretary of State calling the leader of an insignificant country of 7 million (less than 6 million if you discount the Arabs Israel has every intention of eventually expelling) to explain her remarks? It, of course, should be the leader of the insignificant country calling her to apologize.
And people say it is the Arabs who behave irrationally.
Monday, March 15, 2010
NETANYAHU AND THE AFTERMATH OF ISRAEL'S POINTED INSULT TO VISTING VICE-PRESIDENT BIDEN - WHERE ISRAEL'S SAVAGE BEHAVIOR IS TAKING US
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN THE TORONTO GLOBE AND MAIL
Netanyahu is beyond reaching by criticism or speeches, being one of the worst in a long series of prime ministers ready to do almost anything to achieve Israel's unspoken goal: getting rid of all Palestinians and taking all their homes and farms.
There can be no defense of such unethical and brutal behavior, although a large number of Israel's apologists keep trying. After all, the United States went to war when the Serbs were doing much the same kinds of things.
I fear Israel is going to confront the world with a true crisis in the next decade or so, as it drives out the 1.5 million people from Gaza and the several million from the West Bank, and it would do this with no compensation for taking people's property or disrupting their lives.
The blockade of Gaza is nothing but a brutal attempt to drive the people out under the pretense that Israel can't live with "terrorists." Gaza has always been a nightmare for Israel's leaders: 1.5 million refugees huddled in a small enclave inside Israel's claimed territory.
There is little hope to preventing a disaster it seems to me simply because the United States is the only force on earth that can demand reason from Israel, and the lobby for Israel has the members of Congress caught in a web of sophisticated campaign-financing techniques and the threat of unpleasant, noisy opposition at each election.
When President Truman was pondering the question of whether the United States should immediately recognize the state of Israel then emerging from a wave of terror by outfits like Stern and Irgun, frightening Palestinians into a mass exodus from their homes, he is said to have remarked that the lobbying efforts coming at him were like nothing he had ever experienced, overwhelming.
And he faced an election as an underdog candidate, so campaign funds were critical, and that’s how Israel gained recognition.
And nothing has changed: Obama just signed an agreement for $30 billion in American assistance over ten years, yet Israel is neither a poor country nor is it seriously under threat from anyone. That’s more aid than anyone anywhere receives, even people in far greater need. That is only possible under the influence of an extremely tough lobby at home.
So despite well justified criticism from America’s administration as the Vice-president recovers from the grotesque public insult of Israel’s announcing new settlements in East Jerusalem to coincide with his trip, it is almost impossible America will start enforcing fairness on Israel.
And so a truly ugly world crisis seems unavoidable not too far in the future.
______________________
"Mr Chuckman knows, Gaza is under the control of Hamas, a fundamentalist organization openly dedicated to anti-Semitic principles and to the destruction of Israel. Its goal is simply to cast out the infidels and impose Sharia law over all of Palestine."
Just more of the countless repetitions of mindless, going-in-circles arguments.
First, Hamas is not a terrorist organization, except by Israeli declaration. Its history was overwhelmingly as a humanitarian organization.
It was actually secretly supported earlier by Israel's secret service, in an effort to create competition for Fatah, so it cannot have been viewed as much of a threat.
When Hamas became a political party, it ran a clean election and was honestly elected. Most of its senior leaders are professional-type people, not terrorists. Hamas for the Palestinians represented the hope for clean government after the endless corruption of Fatah.
Anyway, no matter what you might imagine Hamas to be, one is supposed to talk to one's opponents for peace. Just because I have neighbors with whom I don’t agree doesn’t give me the right to attack them, attempt to starve them out, imprison them, or murder them, but Israel claims this insane right.
Israel has never ever talked with a legitimate government. As we all know from history – Nixon and China for example – often extreme foes are better able to make peace.
Anyway, all Israel did for years was treat Arafat as though he were a clod of dirt, and many suspect Israel finally assassinated him with poison, something they’ve done many times to others.
If you want peace, you talk, you compromise, and you do not even need American assistance to do so.
If you don’t want peace – indeed, if you want to make those with whom you disagree disappear and you want to seize their property - you do just as Israel does year after year.
It truly is that simple.
Netanyahu is beyond reaching by criticism or speeches, being one of the worst in a long series of prime ministers ready to do almost anything to achieve Israel's unspoken goal: getting rid of all Palestinians and taking all their homes and farms.
There can be no defense of such unethical and brutal behavior, although a large number of Israel's apologists keep trying. After all, the United States went to war when the Serbs were doing much the same kinds of things.
I fear Israel is going to confront the world with a true crisis in the next decade or so, as it drives out the 1.5 million people from Gaza and the several million from the West Bank, and it would do this with no compensation for taking people's property or disrupting their lives.
The blockade of Gaza is nothing but a brutal attempt to drive the people out under the pretense that Israel can't live with "terrorists." Gaza has always been a nightmare for Israel's leaders: 1.5 million refugees huddled in a small enclave inside Israel's claimed territory.
There is little hope to preventing a disaster it seems to me simply because the United States is the only force on earth that can demand reason from Israel, and the lobby for Israel has the members of Congress caught in a web of sophisticated campaign-financing techniques and the threat of unpleasant, noisy opposition at each election.
When President Truman was pondering the question of whether the United States should immediately recognize the state of Israel then emerging from a wave of terror by outfits like Stern and Irgun, frightening Palestinians into a mass exodus from their homes, he is said to have remarked that the lobbying efforts coming at him were like nothing he had ever experienced, overwhelming.
And he faced an election as an underdog candidate, so campaign funds were critical, and that’s how Israel gained recognition.
And nothing has changed: Obama just signed an agreement for $30 billion in American assistance over ten years, yet Israel is neither a poor country nor is it seriously under threat from anyone. That’s more aid than anyone anywhere receives, even people in far greater need. That is only possible under the influence of an extremely tough lobby at home.
So despite well justified criticism from America’s administration as the Vice-president recovers from the grotesque public insult of Israel’s announcing new settlements in East Jerusalem to coincide with his trip, it is almost impossible America will start enforcing fairness on Israel.
And so a truly ugly world crisis seems unavoidable not too far in the future.
______________________
"Mr Chuckman knows, Gaza is under the control of Hamas, a fundamentalist organization openly dedicated to anti-Semitic principles and to the destruction of Israel. Its goal is simply to cast out the infidels and impose Sharia law over all of Palestine."
Just more of the countless repetitions of mindless, going-in-circles arguments.
First, Hamas is not a terrorist organization, except by Israeli declaration. Its history was overwhelmingly as a humanitarian organization.
It was actually secretly supported earlier by Israel's secret service, in an effort to create competition for Fatah, so it cannot have been viewed as much of a threat.
When Hamas became a political party, it ran a clean election and was honestly elected. Most of its senior leaders are professional-type people, not terrorists. Hamas for the Palestinians represented the hope for clean government after the endless corruption of Fatah.
Anyway, no matter what you might imagine Hamas to be, one is supposed to talk to one's opponents for peace. Just because I have neighbors with whom I don’t agree doesn’t give me the right to attack them, attempt to starve them out, imprison them, or murder them, but Israel claims this insane right.
Israel has never ever talked with a legitimate government. As we all know from history – Nixon and China for example – often extreme foes are better able to make peace.
Anyway, all Israel did for years was treat Arafat as though he were a clod of dirt, and many suspect Israel finally assassinated him with poison, something they’ve done many times to others.
If you want peace, you talk, you compromise, and you do not even need American assistance to do so.
If you don’t want peace – indeed, if you want to make those with whom you disagree disappear and you want to seize their property - you do just as Israel does year after year.
It truly is that simple.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
CONSERVATIVE JUNIOR MINISTER HELENA GUERGIS'S UGLY AIRPORT MELT-DOWN AND THE PARTY'S PATHETIC POOL OF MINISTERIAL MATERIAL
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Reading of Helena Guergis’s airport melt-down, I may have new sympathy for the unpleasant Rahim Jaffer, her husband.
Maybe there's actually a good reason Rahim Jaffer (of drunk-driving, cocaine-possession, and getting-off-with-a-slap-on-the-wrist fame) does the desperate things he does?
He appears to be married to a lunatic.
And, yes, indeed, where were the RCMP tasers on this one, as someone above asked?
I guess they save that treatment for poor foreigners who can't speak English and who are not junior cabinet ministers.
And even then, they need four officers against one person to "deploy" the taser.
The photo with the story only shows two RCMP officers with the ghastly Guergis.
God, the new Conservatives have pathetic ministerial material. Peter "we'll fight for Israel" Kent, Helena "I'm God" Guergis, Peter "my ex is a dog" MacKay, Lisa "leave my documents behind" Raitt, Maxime "leave my secret papers at my biker gang girlfriend's" Bernier, and so on.
Our election system is a terrible mess if its result is keeping a bunch of second- and third-raters like this running the country with about a third of the country’s support. We really do need serious election reform.
Reading of Helena Guergis’s airport melt-down, I may have new sympathy for the unpleasant Rahim Jaffer, her husband.
Maybe there's actually a good reason Rahim Jaffer (of drunk-driving, cocaine-possession, and getting-off-with-a-slap-on-the-wrist fame) does the desperate things he does?
He appears to be married to a lunatic.
And, yes, indeed, where were the RCMP tasers on this one, as someone above asked?
I guess they save that treatment for poor foreigners who can't speak English and who are not junior cabinet ministers.
And even then, they need four officers against one person to "deploy" the taser.
The photo with the story only shows two RCMP officers with the ghastly Guergis.
God, the new Conservatives have pathetic ministerial material. Peter "we'll fight for Israel" Kent, Helena "I'm God" Guergis, Peter "my ex is a dog" MacKay, Lisa "leave my documents behind" Raitt, Maxime "leave my secret papers at my biker gang girlfriend's" Bernier, and so on.
Our election system is a terrible mess if its result is keeping a bunch of second- and third-raters like this running the country with about a third of the country’s support. We really do need serious election reform.
TIRESOME IN-HOUSE NEPOTISM AT CBC RADIO ONLY REDUCES PUBLIC RESPECT FOR THE NETWORK
RESPONSE TO AN INTERVIEW ON CBC RADIO
"Fresh Air" is the third program recently interviewing Kevin Sylvester about his children’s book.
Sylvester is a perfectly nice man, and I like him, but I turned the radio off.
I'm really tired of this kind of in-house "nepotism" at CBC Radio. It is unfair and abusive.
I know several publishers turned Sylvester’s book down, so I doubt it is some magical production. Indeed, I heard parts of it read, far too many parts, when he replaced Shelagh Rogers one summer. It was actually shameful that he was paid to host a show and his hosting consisted of many, many readings from his work-in-progress.
This making the rounds at CBC shows for free publicity is just wrong since he is both an ex-full-time employee and a current part-time employee. This is abuse of listeners and access to CBC Radio.
Even more, with all the authors in this country, why would one little children’s book - even if it wasn’t mediocre and the writer didn’t work for CBC - get this unwarranted attention?
I'd almost bet that the publisher who did take the book did so knowing full well it would get this kind of excessive, free promotion by his fellow CBC employees.
Simply wrong, and my respect for CBC Radio goes down with each iteration of this kind of behavior.
Is this one more aspect of the general dumbing-down going on, the Ghomeshi-izing of CBC?
"Fresh Air" is the third program recently interviewing Kevin Sylvester about his children’s book.
Sylvester is a perfectly nice man, and I like him, but I turned the radio off.
I'm really tired of this kind of in-house "nepotism" at CBC Radio. It is unfair and abusive.
I know several publishers turned Sylvester’s book down, so I doubt it is some magical production. Indeed, I heard parts of it read, far too many parts, when he replaced Shelagh Rogers one summer. It was actually shameful that he was paid to host a show and his hosting consisted of many, many readings from his work-in-progress.
This making the rounds at CBC shows for free publicity is just wrong since he is both an ex-full-time employee and a current part-time employee. This is abuse of listeners and access to CBC Radio.
Even more, with all the authors in this country, why would one little children’s book - even if it wasn’t mediocre and the writer didn’t work for CBC - get this unwarranted attention?
I'd almost bet that the publisher who did take the book did so knowing full well it would get this kind of excessive, free promotion by his fellow CBC employees.
Simply wrong, and my respect for CBC Radio goes down with each iteration of this kind of behavior.
Is this one more aspect of the general dumbing-down going on, the Ghomeshi-izing of CBC?
Sunday, March 07, 2010
HAITI: IS IT HOPELESS?
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY MARGARET WENTE IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Read Graham Greene's "The Comedians" in considering your answer to this question.
It remains a devastating examination of Haiti although written many decades ago.
___________________
One could theorize that an entire population of ex-slaves provides a poor basis for a society.
In general, the slaves taken by traders were the ones without the wits and cunning to avoid being taken.
Of course, people discussing slavery generally forget that it was African chiefs themselves who traded their people to slavers for profit. They weren't likely to select the most promising of youth.
Slaves were valued only for their physical abilities, strength and endurance.
I think you could fairly speculate that an unrepresentative sample of African population provided the basis for Haiti, a population then missing many of the qualities which go to building a sound society.
Two hundred years of abject failure tells all thinking people that something there is drastically wrong.
The arguments, repeated in a comment here, about past wealth seized and American occupations cannot possibly explain the human hell that Haiti is.
Immigrants came to other parts of North America, virtual peasants from Russia or Germany or Scotland, without a dime in their pockets and became successful in millions and millions of cases.
Haiti has now become the classic case of the development nightmare with a population-resource ratio inadequate ever to achieve anything. No resources and high birth rates.
There have been a small number of successful Haitians. In general, they either live in an exclusive enclave above the squalor or leave, like our Governor General.
Haiti too is an extremely racist society. People are literally graded like fruit by graduations of lightness in their skin color. This was not imposed on the society, but has arisen out of its history.
American interventions, naturally hated anywhere, have always been based in fear that huge migrations of Haitians would land on America’s shore if things became desperate enough.
Read Graham Greene's "The Comedians" in considering your answer to this question.
It remains a devastating examination of Haiti although written many decades ago.
___________________
One could theorize that an entire population of ex-slaves provides a poor basis for a society.
In general, the slaves taken by traders were the ones without the wits and cunning to avoid being taken.
Of course, people discussing slavery generally forget that it was African chiefs themselves who traded their people to slavers for profit. They weren't likely to select the most promising of youth.
Slaves were valued only for their physical abilities, strength and endurance.
I think you could fairly speculate that an unrepresentative sample of African population provided the basis for Haiti, a population then missing many of the qualities which go to building a sound society.
Two hundred years of abject failure tells all thinking people that something there is drastically wrong.
The arguments, repeated in a comment here, about past wealth seized and American occupations cannot possibly explain the human hell that Haiti is.
Immigrants came to other parts of North America, virtual peasants from Russia or Germany or Scotland, without a dime in their pockets and became successful in millions and millions of cases.
Haiti has now become the classic case of the development nightmare with a population-resource ratio inadequate ever to achieve anything. No resources and high birth rates.
There have been a small number of successful Haitians. In general, they either live in an exclusive enclave above the squalor or leave, like our Governor General.
Haiti too is an extremely racist society. People are literally graded like fruit by graduations of lightness in their skin color. This was not imposed on the society, but has arisen out of its history.
American interventions, naturally hated anywhere, have always been based in fear that huge migrations of Haitians would land on America’s shore if things became desperate enough.
YAWN: TELEVISION DEBATES COMING TO BRITISH POLITICS
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN THE TELEGRAPH
American television debates are not, nor have they ever been allowed to be, debates in any sense - they are joint press conferences.
They are scripted and tightly controlled. Times for responses are highly limited. The moderator is jointly agreed upon, and thereby is rather a marshmallow-like newsman, And the questions generally do not touch true controversies.
Past presidential debates are only memorable for the odd mistake, but candidates have always made mistakes, and I think they are often more powerful in print than on the evanescent television image.
There’s also silliness that enters the television debate, a good example being the impression Nixon made with five-o’clock shadow and sweating, and that is no way to judge a leader.
In effect the American debates are the perfect symbols of what national politics have become there: a rather vacuous contest between the duopoly political parties and having much the flavor and sense of the kind of advertising we see for burger chains or the two big soda pop companies. All rather dreary and definitely uninformative.
And, contrary to what was claimed the other day on this topic by Toby Harnden, always ready to exaggerate, the American debates have changed almost nothing real: you don’t get change from an exchange of fluff.
American television debates are not, nor have they ever been allowed to be, debates in any sense - they are joint press conferences.
They are scripted and tightly controlled. Times for responses are highly limited. The moderator is jointly agreed upon, and thereby is rather a marshmallow-like newsman, And the questions generally do not touch true controversies.
Past presidential debates are only memorable for the odd mistake, but candidates have always made mistakes, and I think they are often more powerful in print than on the evanescent television image.
There’s also silliness that enters the television debate, a good example being the impression Nixon made with five-o’clock shadow and sweating, and that is no way to judge a leader.
In effect the American debates are the perfect symbols of what national politics have become there: a rather vacuous contest between the duopoly political parties and having much the flavor and sense of the kind of advertising we see for burger chains or the two big soda pop companies. All rather dreary and definitely uninformative.
And, contrary to what was claimed the other day on this topic by Toby Harnden, always ready to exaggerate, the American debates have changed almost nothing real: you don’t get change from an exchange of fluff.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
A RUBBISH COLUMN ABOUT EDUCATION IN AFGHANISTAN
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY CORY ANDERSON IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
"Over the past decade, the international community has invested billions of dollars and sacrificed hundreds of men and women in a fragmented effort to stem an increasingly downward tide that has been evident for years."
Cory Anderson, this is complete rubbish.
First, Afghanistan has been torn apart for decades, going back to America's secret war against the Soviet Union in which a couple of billion dollars were spent on destruction.
Indeed, under the Soviet Union, many Afghans, especially women, did better than under the Northern Alliance which came afterward and which is again in charge thanks to America.
Second, it is an occupied country still, and every week bombs fall on civilians somewhere and destroy buildings somewhere.
Third, it is, and was, a poor place, and like all poor places in the world it features backwardness and low levels of education.
Fourth, if by some magic you educated every child to a high level starting tomorrow, the economy would have no place to absorb them. They would virtually all become candidates for emigration, effectively taking with them a costly investment somewhere else.
Fifth, in order to both educate and absorb educated people, an economy needs economic growth and plenty of it.
Sixth, if America had really wanted to assist Afghanistan, it would have dropped dollar bills, not bombs.
Seventh, may I suggest that you avoiding writing about matters in which you have almost no knowledge?
"Over the past decade, the international community has invested billions of dollars and sacrificed hundreds of men and women in a fragmented effort to stem an increasingly downward tide that has been evident for years."
Cory Anderson, this is complete rubbish.
First, Afghanistan has been torn apart for decades, going back to America's secret war against the Soviet Union in which a couple of billion dollars were spent on destruction.
Indeed, under the Soviet Union, many Afghans, especially women, did better than under the Northern Alliance which came afterward and which is again in charge thanks to America.
Second, it is an occupied country still, and every week bombs fall on civilians somewhere and destroy buildings somewhere.
Third, it is, and was, a poor place, and like all poor places in the world it features backwardness and low levels of education.
Fourth, if by some magic you educated every child to a high level starting tomorrow, the economy would have no place to absorb them. They would virtually all become candidates for emigration, effectively taking with them a costly investment somewhere else.
Fifth, in order to both educate and absorb educated people, an economy needs economic growth and plenty of it.
Sixth, if America had really wanted to assist Afghanistan, it would have dropped dollar bills, not bombs.
Seventh, may I suggest that you avoiding writing about matters in which you have almost no knowledge?
RESPONSE TO A COLUMN ON SOMETHING OR OTHER BY CANADA'S PRESTON MANNING
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY PRESTON MANNING IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Gee, where’s Preston’s picture?
The thing I enjoy about Preston’s columns is his new cool-guy look, clearly an effort to recapture his lost youth of the 1950-60s.
It is the only thing I enjoy about Preston’s columns.
His words are always tedious pontificating.
But I must say it is nice that some oil company with more money than it knows what to do with or Christian fundamentalist crackpot group gave Preston his very own little institute in which to play chief executive.
It’s so much better than having him in active politics.
Remember, Preston’s legacy to the nation is that nasty cretin we call our prime minister.
Gee, where’s Preston’s picture?
The thing I enjoy about Preston’s columns is his new cool-guy look, clearly an effort to recapture his lost youth of the 1950-60s.
It is the only thing I enjoy about Preston’s columns.
His words are always tedious pontificating.
But I must say it is nice that some oil company with more money than it knows what to do with or Christian fundamentalist crackpot group gave Preston his very own little institute in which to play chief executive.
It’s so much better than having him in active politics.
Remember, Preston’s legacy to the nation is that nasty cretin we call our prime minister.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
ON BARACK OBAMA'S BEING A PUZZLE
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY CLIVE CROOK IN THE FINANCIAL TIMES
"Barack Obama is a puzzle."
Yes, indeed, and I think you've described it well.
"His ambitions are genuinely progressive; his temperament is genuinely open-minded. It is a rare and confusing combination, and it explains a great deal."
Yes, again, but I think there's more to the mystery than that.
Pragmatism is of course a philosophy claimed by many Americans, even before it was explicated by William James.
But ideology has also always been a feature of American society, often extreme ideology and often colored with religious or quasi-religious beliefs.
That too shouldn't sit well with pragmatism, but apparently it does.
I put it down to two things in the end.
One is what the fine American historian Page Smith called - misusing a word by standards of our modern understanding - America's "schizophrenia."
There are countless examples of this dating back to the Founding Fathers blubbering about freedom while trading in slaves, what the great Dr Johnson called “drivers of negroes” talking about freedom.
Jefferson, that greatest of blubberers on freedom, supported the tyrant Napoleon trying to recapture Haiti, as well acting in a great many other anti-freedom loving ways.
Lincoln started a great bloody war rather than tolerate the South’s right to self-determination. Lincoln may be viewed actually as the founder of the military-industrial complex with his mighty armies and ironclads. Yet Americans think of him as Father Abraham, an epithet having almost nothing to do with Lincoln’s actual character and behavior.
Look at the America of the last half century. It has started numerous bloody wars, killing millions for almost nothing, and coups, yet it insists on using the language of peace and liberty and principles. It just does not compute.
The one national drive that dominates American history is the drive to empire, to expand and to run the lives of others. Naturally, this drive is not contained in the anthems and speeches, but it is always there, subordinating everything else.
So a kind of “schizophrenic” thinking just comes second-nature. Being part of the fabric of the society, it influences thinking in all matters, domestic as well as foreign.
You cannot spend the best part of a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon and at least fourteen intelligence agencies and pretend there is some unique freedom in America. That is absurd, yet most Americans desperately believe the absurdity.
"Barack Obama is a puzzle."
Yes, indeed, and I think you've described it well.
"His ambitions are genuinely progressive; his temperament is genuinely open-minded. It is a rare and confusing combination, and it explains a great deal."
Yes, again, but I think there's more to the mystery than that.
Pragmatism is of course a philosophy claimed by many Americans, even before it was explicated by William James.
But ideology has also always been a feature of American society, often extreme ideology and often colored with religious or quasi-religious beliefs.
That too shouldn't sit well with pragmatism, but apparently it does.
I put it down to two things in the end.
One is what the fine American historian Page Smith called - misusing a word by standards of our modern understanding - America's "schizophrenia."
There are countless examples of this dating back to the Founding Fathers blubbering about freedom while trading in slaves, what the great Dr Johnson called “drivers of negroes” talking about freedom.
Jefferson, that greatest of blubberers on freedom, supported the tyrant Napoleon trying to recapture Haiti, as well acting in a great many other anti-freedom loving ways.
Lincoln started a great bloody war rather than tolerate the South’s right to self-determination. Lincoln may be viewed actually as the founder of the military-industrial complex with his mighty armies and ironclads. Yet Americans think of him as Father Abraham, an epithet having almost nothing to do with Lincoln’s actual character and behavior.
Look at the America of the last half century. It has started numerous bloody wars, killing millions for almost nothing, and coups, yet it insists on using the language of peace and liberty and principles. It just does not compute.
The one national drive that dominates American history is the drive to empire, to expand and to run the lives of others. Naturally, this drive is not contained in the anthems and speeches, but it is always there, subordinating everything else.
So a kind of “schizophrenic” thinking just comes second-nature. Being part of the fabric of the society, it influences thinking in all matters, domestic as well as foreign.
You cannot spend the best part of a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon and at least fourteen intelligence agencies and pretend there is some unique freedom in America. That is absurd, yet most Americans desperately believe the absurdity.
HILLARY CLINTON "TOUGH AND TIRELESS" IN ARGENTINA
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY GIDEON RACHMAN IN THE FINANCIAL TIMES
Tough and tireless, yes, but to whose benefit?
"Turn the page" on the coup in Honduras?
When was the last time she or any American Secretary of State talked that way about a coup that the U.S. did not favor?
The Falkland Islands?
They belonged to Britain before Texas belonged to the US.
Before California.
Before Alaska.
And well before the US seized Hawaii against all the natives’ wishes. Their national petition was completely ignored in Washington as the US government annexed the place.
And the people in the Falklands are British in origin and in loyalty.
What you see here is the "special relationship" in action.
Tony Blair spent British lives and wealth on Bush's pointless crusades, and what does Britain get back?
You might think so elemental a thing as support in the Falklands.
But that's not how America operates. It takes what it wants from everyone, and blubbers about principles.
Tough and tireless, yes, but to whose benefit?
"Turn the page" on the coup in Honduras?
When was the last time she or any American Secretary of State talked that way about a coup that the U.S. did not favor?
The Falkland Islands?
They belonged to Britain before Texas belonged to the US.
Before California.
Before Alaska.
And well before the US seized Hawaii against all the natives’ wishes. Their national petition was completely ignored in Washington as the US government annexed the place.
And the people in the Falklands are British in origin and in loyalty.
What you see here is the "special relationship" in action.
Tony Blair spent British lives and wealth on Bush's pointless crusades, and what does Britain get back?
You might think so elemental a thing as support in the Falklands.
But that's not how America operates. It takes what it wants from everyone, and blubbers about principles.
MORE OLYMPIC NONSENSE: PRIDE IN SPORTS ACHIEVEMENT - BUT AT WHAT COST?
POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
"...it should be evident that cost calculations can't capture the impact of elite athletic competition..."
Please, Mr. Simpson, this is the most fatuous argument possible for wasting immense sums of money.
Sporting pride?
What about scientific-achievement pride?
What about pride in our primary education institutions?
Or pride in the quality of our libraries?
It does seem to me that these last are pretty clearly a little threadbare, and yet they are far, far more important than adult games.
Sporting pride comes from people who only see what's on the television screen for an hour or two.
They have no sense of the costs involved.
And from an economics point of view, that includes "opportunity cost," what you gave up to have a two-week blow-out signifying nothing.
$6 billion-plus would build about 250 first-class schools which would serve our children for the next couple of generations.
Or it would build a comparable number of great libraries.
Or still, if you chose not to build new institutions, it could have provided great upgrades to several thousand such institutions.
Or it would fund some genuinely world-important scientific research projects, bringing focus to Canada by some of the world’s best brains.
Instead we’ve got beer-soaked memories and a set of tinny-looking medals.
The Olympics is a mug’s game.
______________
And just look at the picture attached to this column: a group of pretty girls wearing ridiculous-looking hats - the kind of hats no one in Canada has ever worn - and, I'm sorry, but the poor women look like servers at some fast-food restaurant chain with a Northern theme.
Or how about the giant inflated Mountie? It resembled the things used at the openings of new car washes.
And that choice was particularly thoughtless considering in what low esteem so many today hold the Mounties, with Vancouver itself having been a focus of their criminal behavior.
What about the little Glow-Lite plastic candles everyone marched in with? Wal-mart Christmas merchandise, surely.
But we did not pay Wal-mart prices for any of this kitsch. It was all custom-designed and custom-made, and I’m sure it all cost a fortune.
Bad taste at sky-high prices.
"...it should be evident that cost calculations can't capture the impact of elite athletic competition..."
Please, Mr. Simpson, this is the most fatuous argument possible for wasting immense sums of money.
Sporting pride?
What about scientific-achievement pride?
What about pride in our primary education institutions?
Or pride in the quality of our libraries?
It does seem to me that these last are pretty clearly a little threadbare, and yet they are far, far more important than adult games.
Sporting pride comes from people who only see what's on the television screen for an hour or two.
They have no sense of the costs involved.
And from an economics point of view, that includes "opportunity cost," what you gave up to have a two-week blow-out signifying nothing.
$6 billion-plus would build about 250 first-class schools which would serve our children for the next couple of generations.
Or it would build a comparable number of great libraries.
Or still, if you chose not to build new institutions, it could have provided great upgrades to several thousand such institutions.
Or it would fund some genuinely world-important scientific research projects, bringing focus to Canada by some of the world’s best brains.
Instead we’ve got beer-soaked memories and a set of tinny-looking medals.
The Olympics is a mug’s game.
______________
And just look at the picture attached to this column: a group of pretty girls wearing ridiculous-looking hats - the kind of hats no one in Canada has ever worn - and, I'm sorry, but the poor women look like servers at some fast-food restaurant chain with a Northern theme.
Or how about the giant inflated Mountie? It resembled the things used at the openings of new car washes.
And that choice was particularly thoughtless considering in what low esteem so many today hold the Mounties, with Vancouver itself having been a focus of their criminal behavior.
What about the little Glow-Lite plastic candles everyone marched in with? Wal-mart Christmas merchandise, surely.
But we did not pay Wal-mart prices for any of this kitsch. It was all custom-designed and custom-made, and I’m sure it all cost a fortune.
Bad taste at sky-high prices.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
TIGER WOODS' "APOLOGY" - A SCRIPTED LAS VEGAS SPECTACLE WITH A CAST OF THOUSANDS - PLUS A LAUGH-A-MINUTE SIDESHOW OF "SEX THERAPISTS"
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN THE INDEPENDENT
Please, tiresome man, just go away.
I don't want to hear or see another headline about your personal life.
All this noise about a man who plays golf?
I don't know what kind of ridiculous effort Woods is undertaking, but a scripted apology with a cast of thousands looking on is about as insincere as it gets, just another cheap Las Vegas show.
Sex therapy? More ridiculous nonsense. It's about like the idiot Christian fundamentalists who use "therapy" on homosexuals to make them "normal."
Here is a man who should never have married, at least not to a woman who expects traditional fidelity.
The most honest thing he could do is grant her a generous divorce, but no he undoubtedly doesn't want to make the big payout.
He's also looking, undoubtedly, towards rejuvenating his sponsorship income.
This is a completely dishonest and insincere man, one who has lived years of the most extreme lies.
There is no cure for having that kind of character.
Please, tiresome man, just go away.
I don't want to hear or see another headline about your personal life.
All this noise about a man who plays golf?
I don't know what kind of ridiculous effort Woods is undertaking, but a scripted apology with a cast of thousands looking on is about as insincere as it gets, just another cheap Las Vegas show.
Sex therapy? More ridiculous nonsense. It's about like the idiot Christian fundamentalists who use "therapy" on homosexuals to make them "normal."
Here is a man who should never have married, at least not to a woman who expects traditional fidelity.
The most honest thing he could do is grant her a generous divorce, but no he undoubtedly doesn't want to make the big payout.
He's also looking, undoubtedly, towards rejuvenating his sponsorship income.
This is a completely dishonest and insincere man, one who has lived years of the most extreme lies.
There is no cure for having that kind of character.
THE FOOLISH USE OF AN UGLY EPITHET
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY DANIEL FINKELSTEIN IN THE TIMES
"Now it should never - never - be the case that arguing against the policy of the Israeli Government is regarded as proof of anti-Semitism."
Thank you, Daniel.
Unfortunately, your open mind does not characterize a good many defenders of Israel's excesses, including some well-known people.
It has become common to hurl the epithet "anti-Semite" at anyone criticizing Israel.
This foolish use of an epithet has two effects, at least.
First, it immediately sends the debate over Israel's foreign policies into the gutter, when there is indeed a large and important set of issues to debate.
Two, in the long term, the term "anti-Semite" will lose all genuine meaning.
This is already becoming the case with some other hideously over-used words, including “genocide” and “terrorist.”
"Now it should never - never - be the case that arguing against the policy of the Israeli Government is regarded as proof of anti-Semitism."
Thank you, Daniel.
Unfortunately, your open mind does not characterize a good many defenders of Israel's excesses, including some well-known people.
It has become common to hurl the epithet "anti-Semite" at anyone criticizing Israel.
This foolish use of an epithet has two effects, at least.
First, it immediately sends the debate over Israel's foreign policies into the gutter, when there is indeed a large and important set of issues to debate.
Two, in the long term, the term "anti-Semite" will lose all genuine meaning.
This is already becoming the case with some other hideously over-used words, including “genocide” and “terrorist.”
Friday, February 19, 2010
RICK SALUTIN ON HARPER'S POOR EXCUSE OF A FOREIGN POLICY AND ESPECIALLY HIS OBSESSION WITH ISRAEL
POSTED COMMENTS ON A COLUMN BY RICK SALUTIN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
These truly nasty men of Harper's are gradually destroying the entire fabric of Canada's international reputation.
Our reputation included fairness and balance in the Middle East, as elsewhere.
Harper has said many provocative and unpleasant things to his own people, including suggesting that Canadians who criticize Israel are anti-Semites, a vile repetition of a favorite attack on critics by apologists for Israel’s bloody excesses.
Peter Kent has always been a second-rater, a man not particularly astute or even interesting to listen to, now a junior minister with a junior mind at best. Where does he dare suggest we are committed to going to war for Israel, or anyone else for that matter?
Where in God’s name does he think he receives that kind of authority?
Of course, it is from his bully boss, Stephen Harper, who tells everyone in his creepy little party what to say unless they want a chair hurled at them in caucus.
I truly cannot believe that the Alberta-derived bunch of Harper's ministers and supporters – truly, mainly the classic WASP-types - are that attached to Israel.
And they cannot be seeking just votes with this inappropriate demonstration of loyalty to one small state, Israel: the Canadian Jewish community is in fact a fairly small one, I believe on the order of 1 to 2% of population.
So what motivates this foreign-policy obsession, for no other word is adequate?
I do recall Heather Reisman, who supported the Liberals, getting upset with them for not being enthusiastic enough about Israel. I believe they were only trying to be fair, but that is not how Ms Reisman saw it, and she was public in her criticism.
Ms Reisman is of course a successful and well-off business person, and Canada has produced several prominent Jewish families of great success and wealth.
Traditionally, many Jews supported liberal or progressive parties because of their own history of hardships and discrimination.
But the often ghastly human-rights behavior of the state of Israel now makes a terrible wedge issue for Canadians of Jewish descent, and politicians like Stephen Harper smell opportunity, opportunity for large campaign donations.
Effectively, Harper seems eager to trade the genuine long-term interests of Canada and all of its citizens, interests in maintaining a precious reputation for fairness and decency, for the short-term potential of substantial campaign contributions in the face of an ugly international situation.
Were I a Jewish Canadian concerned about Israel’s future, I would hardly be comforted by that kind of transaction in pretended loyalty.
________________
"As a country, we should stand against terrorism, not sit on the fence to placate barbarians."
Yes, absolutely.
The only trouble is that the person making that comment, like so many others these days, equates barbarians with Muslims.
Pure and absolute prejudice.
Everyone with eyes and ears and a working brain regards Operation Cast Lead as the purest barbarism.
And so too Israel's horrific attack on Southern Lebanon.
I do believe we have more to fear from an organized state sinking into barbarism than we do from malcontent individuals or even groups. Far more.
A state, moreover, armed with nuclear weapons and ugly stuff like nerve gas.
These truly nasty men of Harper's are gradually destroying the entire fabric of Canada's international reputation.
Our reputation included fairness and balance in the Middle East, as elsewhere.
Harper has said many provocative and unpleasant things to his own people, including suggesting that Canadians who criticize Israel are anti-Semites, a vile repetition of a favorite attack on critics by apologists for Israel’s bloody excesses.
Peter Kent has always been a second-rater, a man not particularly astute or even interesting to listen to, now a junior minister with a junior mind at best. Where does he dare suggest we are committed to going to war for Israel, or anyone else for that matter?
Where in God’s name does he think he receives that kind of authority?
Of course, it is from his bully boss, Stephen Harper, who tells everyone in his creepy little party what to say unless they want a chair hurled at them in caucus.
I truly cannot believe that the Alberta-derived bunch of Harper's ministers and supporters – truly, mainly the classic WASP-types - are that attached to Israel.
And they cannot be seeking just votes with this inappropriate demonstration of loyalty to one small state, Israel: the Canadian Jewish community is in fact a fairly small one, I believe on the order of 1 to 2% of population.
So what motivates this foreign-policy obsession, for no other word is adequate?
I do recall Heather Reisman, who supported the Liberals, getting upset with them for not being enthusiastic enough about Israel. I believe they were only trying to be fair, but that is not how Ms Reisman saw it, and she was public in her criticism.
Ms Reisman is of course a successful and well-off business person, and Canada has produced several prominent Jewish families of great success and wealth.
Traditionally, many Jews supported liberal or progressive parties because of their own history of hardships and discrimination.
But the often ghastly human-rights behavior of the state of Israel now makes a terrible wedge issue for Canadians of Jewish descent, and politicians like Stephen Harper smell opportunity, opportunity for large campaign donations.
Effectively, Harper seems eager to trade the genuine long-term interests of Canada and all of its citizens, interests in maintaining a precious reputation for fairness and decency, for the short-term potential of substantial campaign contributions in the face of an ugly international situation.
Were I a Jewish Canadian concerned about Israel’s future, I would hardly be comforted by that kind of transaction in pretended loyalty.
________________
"As a country, we should stand against terrorism, not sit on the fence to placate barbarians."
Yes, absolutely.
The only trouble is that the person making that comment, like so many others these days, equates barbarians with Muslims.
Pure and absolute prejudice.
Everyone with eyes and ears and a working brain regards Operation Cast Lead as the purest barbarism.
And so too Israel's horrific attack on Southern Lebanon.
I do believe we have more to fear from an organized state sinking into barbarism than we do from malcontent individuals or even groups. Far more.
A state, moreover, armed with nuclear weapons and ugly stuff like nerve gas.
OBAMA'S MIDDLE EAST EFFORTS JUST NOISE SIGNIFYING NOTHING
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY MICHAEL BELL IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
The American campaign-finance system keeps the Congress tied up in knots by special interests.
No special interest has a better organized and intensely systematic approach to Congress than America's apologists for Israel's excesses.
Your views as a Congressperson are tracked and tested.
If your views are considered not sufficiently in Israel's interests, your opponent receives contributions and help.
If your views are acceptable, you receive contributions and help.
It is all extremely focused, and it is all extremely effective.
Favored Congresspeople even receive goodies like deluxe vacations in Israel under the guise of studying aspects of society there.
The terrible problem is that the only power which can push Israel to a fair and decent settlement is, unfortunately, the United States.
And it is incapable of exercising its strength for good precisely because of the effects of the campaign-finance system.
Obama started by seeming determined to a fresh start. He was encouraging for those wanting to see fairness done, but The Lobby has already worn him down to an ineffectual voice on this great issue of our time.
The American campaign-finance system keeps the Congress tied up in knots by special interests.
No special interest has a better organized and intensely systematic approach to Congress than America's apologists for Israel's excesses.
Your views as a Congressperson are tracked and tested.
If your views are considered not sufficiently in Israel's interests, your opponent receives contributions and help.
If your views are acceptable, you receive contributions and help.
It is all extremely focused, and it is all extremely effective.
Favored Congresspeople even receive goodies like deluxe vacations in Israel under the guise of studying aspects of society there.
The terrible problem is that the only power which can push Israel to a fair and decent settlement is, unfortunately, the United States.
And it is incapable of exercising its strength for good precisely because of the effects of the campaign-finance system.
Obama started by seeming determined to a fresh start. He was encouraging for those wanting to see fairness done, but The Lobby has already worn him down to an ineffectual voice on this great issue of our time.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
WHY IS THE UK STILL THREATENING ISRAELI POLITICIANS ASKS PHILIP JOHNSTON? THE ANSWER PLUS A COMPARISON OF GUERNICA AND OPERATION CAST LEAD
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY PHILIP JOHNSTON IN THE TELEGRAPH
Why are we (the UK ) still threatening to arrest Israeli politicians?
Gee, I wonder?
Could it possibly be that they are war criminals?
In the recent past, an author from Britain served time in jail for "holocaust denial," a stupidity but hardly a crime for most minds, but it's okay to slaughter 1400 people, including 400 kids, in a refugee camp?
I was reading a biography the other day and came across a terrible fact.
Guernica, one of the 20th century's iconic horrors and the subject of a famous painting, had about 1600 people killed by German dive bombers.
That's almost the same death toll as Operation Cast Lead, yet in this case we are to ignore the savagery and pretend everything is just fine.
Why are we (the UK ) still threatening to arrest Israeli politicians?
Gee, I wonder?
Could it possibly be that they are war criminals?
In the recent past, an author from Britain served time in jail for "holocaust denial," a stupidity but hardly a crime for most minds, but it's okay to slaughter 1400 people, including 400 kids, in a refugee camp?
I was reading a biography the other day and came across a terrible fact.
Guernica, one of the 20th century's iconic horrors and the subject of a famous painting, had about 1600 people killed by German dive bombers.
That's almost the same death toll as Operation Cast Lead, yet in this case we are to ignore the savagery and pretend everything is just fine.
AMERICA'S RATHER DERANGED SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON SPEAKS ABOUT MILITARY DICTATORSHIP IN IRAN AND A NEW ARMS RACE
POSTED COMMENT TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Clinton's remark is pure farce.
The military of Iran is relatively small.
The United States on the other hand, now spends over $700 billion each year on its military, more than the total for all other countries on earth. That's far more than the total GDP of some countries.
Add to that the tens of billions more spent on at least 14 different intelligence agencies, and the size of the American military establishment is breathtaking.
Considering Obama ran with words about peace and now cannot be distinguished in his actions from George Bush, I do think it fair to say that it is the United States which to a large degree is governed by its military.
_________________________
The woman has become a tireless and rather deranged servant of Israel.
How can you have a bigger stock of nuclear weapons than the US already has?
And, please, the elephant in the room is Israel with its estimated 150-200 nuclear warheads. The entire Middle East is under its threat.
Why in God's name isn't Israel, with its genuine arsenal and not a hypothetical one, charged with inducing a weapons' race?
Recall her frighteningly insane declaration during her presidential campaign about incinerating Iran. That's over 70 million people. Absolute insanity.
Clinton's remark is pure farce.
The military of Iran is relatively small.
The United States on the other hand, now spends over $700 billion each year on its military, more than the total for all other countries on earth. That's far more than the total GDP of some countries.
Add to that the tens of billions more spent on at least 14 different intelligence agencies, and the size of the American military establishment is breathtaking.
Considering Obama ran with words about peace and now cannot be distinguished in his actions from George Bush, I do think it fair to say that it is the United States which to a large degree is governed by its military.
_________________________
The woman has become a tireless and rather deranged servant of Israel.
How can you have a bigger stock of nuclear weapons than the US already has?
And, please, the elephant in the room is Israel with its estimated 150-200 nuclear warheads. The entire Middle East is under its threat.
Why in God's name isn't Israel, with its genuine arsenal and not a hypothetical one, charged with inducing a weapons' race?
Recall her frighteningly insane declaration during her presidential campaign about incinerating Iran. That's over 70 million people. Absolute insanity.
CRISPIN BLACK ON BRAVE AND HONORABLE SOLDIERS BENFITING US ALL - AND THEN THERE'S WILL POWER
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY CRISPIN BLACK IN THE TELEGRAPH
"The brave and honourable spirit of Britain's soldiers will benefit us all."
I cannot believe that an informed person in the early 21st century writes such stuff.
Crispin Black sounds very much like a throwback to 1914.
I'm sorry, armies are sometimes necessary, but to speak of "the brave and honourable spirit" of professional soldiers simply doing their jobs rings hollow.
And that would be true even if what they were doing were not totally pointless, a political war to serve America's paranoia.
But Crispin insists on getting even more ridiculous:
"The daily exercise in Afghanistan of will-power and leadership serves the best human instincts."
“Will power” was a favorite of the late Mr. Hitler. It’s also popular in junk diet books.
The best human instincts are served by killing people in their own land for no good reason?
I don't know which is worse, the author for writing such words or The Telegraph for giving them space.
"The brave and honourable spirit of Britain's soldiers will benefit us all."
I cannot believe that an informed person in the early 21st century writes such stuff.
Crispin Black sounds very much like a throwback to 1914.
I'm sorry, armies are sometimes necessary, but to speak of "the brave and honourable spirit" of professional soldiers simply doing their jobs rings hollow.
And that would be true even if what they were doing were not totally pointless, a political war to serve America's paranoia.
But Crispin insists on getting even more ridiculous:
"The daily exercise in Afghanistan of will-power and leadership serves the best human instincts."
“Will power” was a favorite of the late Mr. Hitler. It’s also popular in junk diet books.
The best human instincts are served by killing people in their own land for no good reason?
I don't know which is worse, the author for writing such words or The Telegraph for giving them space.
THE FENCE CONTROVERSY AND THE VANCOUVER OLYMPIC CAULDRON
POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
See what up close?
Some pipes with gas-fed flames at the end?
What a terrible aesthetic deprivation that is.
_______________
"The cauldron will be open to the public Monday March 1st..."
I think that says it all, about the torch, about the flame, about this ugly pile of ductwork, and about the Olympic nonsense.
The cauldron will be open - a phrase right out of cheap science fiction movie.
_______________
"...all we get for the symbol of the games is a chain link fence"
Not quite.
You get a chain-link fence with a pile of galvinized ductwork behind it belching flames.
The image, to my mind, is nothing so much as some part of a factory or sour-gas plant.
See what up close?
Some pipes with gas-fed flames at the end?
What a terrible aesthetic deprivation that is.
_______________
"The cauldron will be open to the public Monday March 1st..."
I think that says it all, about the torch, about the flame, about this ugly pile of ductwork, and about the Olympic nonsense.
The cauldron will be open - a phrase right out of cheap science fiction movie.
_______________
"...all we get for the symbol of the games is a chain link fence"
Not quite.
You get a chain-link fence with a pile of galvinized ductwork behind it belching flames.
The image, to my mind, is nothing so much as some part of a factory or sour-gas plant.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
THE NEW AMERICAN OFFENSIVE IN HELMAND AFGHANISTAN FINDS LITTLE ORGANIZED RESISTANCE
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Why would the Americans meet organized resistance from the Taleban?
First, the Taleban are poorly-fed peasants in sandals and turbans, carrying WW11-vintage weapons like AK-47s.
The Americans, and their assistants, are beef-fed monsters in Kevlar armor and high-tech combat boots, carrying costly weapons and supported by satellites and radars and communication systems and missiles.
It isn’t a war in any sense, unless you count Hitler’s Wehrmacht in 1939 rolling over Polish horse cavalry with Panzer Divisions supported by dive bombers and powerful artillery by Krupp, but even that infamous event was less lopsided than this kind of unleashing of hell.
I do think by now, the Taleban have learned a few things, too, over the years of facing such forces. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong didn’t defeat America by going at it in conventional battles.
Only Americans believe that fleets of helicopters and Hellfire missiles and thousands of armored men and armored vehicles can genuinely change anything anywhere.
Of course, they can kill plenty of people, in many cases innocent civilians, as they killed eight just the other day.
The people being killed are native Afghans, although the press likes to blur that truth by using the phony word “insurgents.”
The people doing the killing are occupiers.
There’s nothing to cheer for here.
It's all simply naive and stupid and pointless.
Why would the Americans meet organized resistance from the Taleban?
First, the Taleban are poorly-fed peasants in sandals and turbans, carrying WW11-vintage weapons like AK-47s.
The Americans, and their assistants, are beef-fed monsters in Kevlar armor and high-tech combat boots, carrying costly weapons and supported by satellites and radars and communication systems and missiles.
It isn’t a war in any sense, unless you count Hitler’s Wehrmacht in 1939 rolling over Polish horse cavalry with Panzer Divisions supported by dive bombers and powerful artillery by Krupp, but even that infamous event was less lopsided than this kind of unleashing of hell.
I do think by now, the Taleban have learned a few things, too, over the years of facing such forces. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong didn’t defeat America by going at it in conventional battles.
Only Americans believe that fleets of helicopters and Hellfire missiles and thousands of armored men and armored vehicles can genuinely change anything anywhere.
Of course, they can kill plenty of people, in many cases innocent civilians, as they killed eight just the other day.
The people being killed are native Afghans, although the press likes to blur that truth by using the phony word “insurgents.”
The people doing the killing are occupiers.
There’s nothing to cheer for here.
It's all simply naive and stupid and pointless.
THE STORY BEHIND THE SHOOT-DOWN OF A MISSILE BY AN AMERICAN AIRPLANE-MOUNTED LASER
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN FROM THE AP IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
This report sounds dramatic, as it was intended to by the American forces supplying the press releases.
It is simply propaganda for the military-industrial complex.
Interestingly, key bits of information are left out.
Why? Because they would be embarrassing.
This "weapon," as it exists, is regarded as militarily insignificant even by Mr. Gates of the Pentagon.
It must be quite close to its target, a situation unlikely ever to happen in the real world.
Its target must be a slow take-off, liquid-fuel missile.
A modern solid-fuel missile cannot be stopped by this clunky gadget.
There are also many countermeasures which can be taken. I believe, for instance, that the person who has commented that a mirror-coating on a missile renders the laser useless against it is correct.
Anyway, can you imagine keeping a fleet of these clunky machines in the air at all times? Of course not.
This report sounds dramatic, as it was intended to by the American forces supplying the press releases.
It is simply propaganda for the military-industrial complex.
Interestingly, key bits of information are left out.
Why? Because they would be embarrassing.
This "weapon," as it exists, is regarded as militarily insignificant even by Mr. Gates of the Pentagon.
It must be quite close to its target, a situation unlikely ever to happen in the real world.
Its target must be a slow take-off, liquid-fuel missile.
A modern solid-fuel missile cannot be stopped by this clunky gadget.
There are also many countermeasures which can be taken. I believe, for instance, that the person who has commented that a mirror-coating on a missile renders the laser useless against it is correct.
Anyway, can you imagine keeping a fleet of these clunky machines in the air at all times? Of course not.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
JEFFREY SIMPSON SPEAKS OF OLYMPIC TORCH MEMORIES - MINE AREN'T QUITE SO SENTIMENTAL
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Yes, indeed, the memory will remain.
Ugh, I'm sorry, Jeffrey Simpson, but nothing about the Olympics is a bigger waste of time and money and publicity than the torch run.
Imagine the immense costs and logistical problems of lugging this goofy-looking object around every backwater of Canada?
It all started, as it always does, with the immense silliness of flying a flame in an airliner from Greece. Pure idiocy.
And it ended this time in the hands of a man who has lived for years in the United States.
But he's a celebrity, a celebrity raised in Canada.
My God, what a magical moment as he stood there in what looked like a fireman's coat with red mittens trying to roast a marshmallow at a camp fire.
The damned torch looks like nothing so much as a cheap prop in a science fiction movie. It truly is a homely object, something most people wouldn’t pick out of a neighbor’s recycle box.
And the picture going with this column touchingly shows an athlete holding a plastic mini-torch, resembling a Christmas ornament dollar-special at Wal-mart.
My, it is all stuck in memory, even if we have to pay the immense cost of this ridiculous Las Vegas show, and we don’t have the money.
Yes, indeed, the memory will remain.
Ugh, I'm sorry, Jeffrey Simpson, but nothing about the Olympics is a bigger waste of time and money and publicity than the torch run.
Imagine the immense costs and logistical problems of lugging this goofy-looking object around every backwater of Canada?
It all started, as it always does, with the immense silliness of flying a flame in an airliner from Greece. Pure idiocy.
And it ended this time in the hands of a man who has lived for years in the United States.
But he's a celebrity, a celebrity raised in Canada.
My God, what a magical moment as he stood there in what looked like a fireman's coat with red mittens trying to roast a marshmallow at a camp fire.
The damned torch looks like nothing so much as a cheap prop in a science fiction movie. It truly is a homely object, something most people wouldn’t pick out of a neighbor’s recycle box.
And the picture going with this column touchingly shows an athlete holding a plastic mini-torch, resembling a Christmas ornament dollar-special at Wal-mart.
My, it is all stuck in memory, even if we have to pay the immense cost of this ridiculous Las Vegas show, and we don’t have the money.
FURTHER TO NOISES IN THE MIDDLE EAST
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COMMENT IN PATRICK MARTIN'S COLUMN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Israel was indeed created by force.
And a good deal of that force was the purest form of terror from gangs like Stern and Irgun.
Innocent villagers were murdered to terrify the Arab population into running.
And they did run, but not far enough for Israel.
Later, Israel engineered the Six Day War to grab still more of the Palestinians' land, and it was a black operation that was hugely successful.
Ever since, despite countless UN Resolutions, Israel has continued a program of slow-motion ethnic-cleansing in those occupied lands.
Gaza, essentially a giant refugee camp from Israel’s terrors and wars, by the testimony of at least one former prime minister, has always been an Israeli nightmare. Israel seems now to have discovered the solution: starve and bomb them till they leave, using the pathetic excuse that a democratically elected government, many of them professional men of high repute, is nothing but a gang terrorists.
Israel’s intentions are clearly to take over virtually all of the land that was Palestine, minus the Palestinians.
Israel also coveted Southern Lebanon, and made every effort to hold on to it for years after invading until the Hezbollah drove them away.
Neither Hezbollah in Lebanon nor Hamas in Gaza has ever invaded Israel (nor are they even capable of doing so), but as we all know Israel has invaded them repeatedly, murdered thousands and seems ready to do so again.
And we are all supposed just to watch quietly while violent crimes are committed over and over again, and our illustrious prime minister actually threatens us with treating criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism.
It is simply a human-rights nightmare.
Israel was indeed created by force.
And a good deal of that force was the purest form of terror from gangs like Stern and Irgun.
Innocent villagers were murdered to terrify the Arab population into running.
And they did run, but not far enough for Israel.
Later, Israel engineered the Six Day War to grab still more of the Palestinians' land, and it was a black operation that was hugely successful.
Ever since, despite countless UN Resolutions, Israel has continued a program of slow-motion ethnic-cleansing in those occupied lands.
Gaza, essentially a giant refugee camp from Israel’s terrors and wars, by the testimony of at least one former prime minister, has always been an Israeli nightmare. Israel seems now to have discovered the solution: starve and bomb them till they leave, using the pathetic excuse that a democratically elected government, many of them professional men of high repute, is nothing but a gang terrorists.
Israel’s intentions are clearly to take over virtually all of the land that was Palestine, minus the Palestinians.
Israel also coveted Southern Lebanon, and made every effort to hold on to it for years after invading until the Hezbollah drove them away.
Neither Hezbollah in Lebanon nor Hamas in Gaza has ever invaded Israel (nor are they even capable of doing so), but as we all know Israel has invaded them repeatedly, murdered thousands and seems ready to do so again.
And we are all supposed just to watch quietly while violent crimes are committed over and over again, and our illustrious prime minister actually threatens us with treating criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism.
It is simply a human-rights nightmare.
Friday, February 12, 2010
OBAMA AND THE GRIM SHADOW OF AMERICA'S TORTURE PRISONS - AND THE BRUTAL FACT ONLY DREAMERS AND FOOLS BELIEVE IN CHANGE IN AMERICA
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY JOHANN HARI IN THE INDEPENDENT
Yes, absolutely, the secret prisons in Afghanistan, and those in other places, cast a grim shadow across Obama’s smiling face.
I believe that decisions like keeping America’s torture gulag operating abroad are the greatest source of people's disappointment with Obama.
But I'm afraid people were being unrealistic to expect much else.
America is an empire, not a dreamy "shining city on a hill," but a rather brutal society which feels entitled to run the affairs of others in all parts of the planet.
It does this through a combination of its immense economic and military might.
America’s own population lives under a version of Social Darwinism, as relatively few people abroad fully appreciate. There is relatively little sympathy or patience for the concerns of foreigners, a simple but brutal fact.
The American establishment – the intelligence industry, the Pentagon, the defense contractors, and the huge multi-national corporations – do quite literally form a government within a government.
That is not a left-wing fantasy or a slightly paranoid delusion – after all, it was a Republican president and former general, Eisenhower, who first sounded the warning. It is the ineluctable result of this stupendously wealthy and largely unaccountable set of institutions.
A great many dark and devious men hold high positions in this establishment, and they have billions at their disposal plus a general population which is passive in accepting their actions.
Think only of the pointless holocaust in Vietnam. Countless billions wasted, an estimated 3 million Vietnamese murdered in an orgy of killing, and a devaluation of the dollar afterwards to help pay the bill. All of it done for nothing more than the fears and prejudices of that establishment.
The last American President who truly challenged that establishment died on November 22, 1963.
Obama wants to be the elementary civics-class textbook version of a president, the kind of president which the establishment tolerates from either party, not end up being either driven from office in shame or worse.
To talk with genuine expectations about change of any real consequence today in America is utterly naïve. It’s just about as meaningful as talking about change in the France of the late eighteenth century with its dukes and cardinals and princes, whose carriages simply thumped over the bodies of peasants who happened to be in their way.
Yes, a revolution did happen then, but try that in an empire with a military establishment pushing two million, all armed with unbelievably powerful weapons and a set of at least fourteen intelligence services which spy on every phone call and e-mail and even check the books you read at the library.
The French Revolution will never be repeated, and the pathetic American libertarians who naively believe that holding on to their beloved rifles and pistols secures their freedom surely only bring a quiet chuckle from those who know better.
Yes, absolutely, the secret prisons in Afghanistan, and those in other places, cast a grim shadow across Obama’s smiling face.
I believe that decisions like keeping America’s torture gulag operating abroad are the greatest source of people's disappointment with Obama.
But I'm afraid people were being unrealistic to expect much else.
America is an empire, not a dreamy "shining city on a hill," but a rather brutal society which feels entitled to run the affairs of others in all parts of the planet.
It does this through a combination of its immense economic and military might.
America’s own population lives under a version of Social Darwinism, as relatively few people abroad fully appreciate. There is relatively little sympathy or patience for the concerns of foreigners, a simple but brutal fact.
The American establishment – the intelligence industry, the Pentagon, the defense contractors, and the huge multi-national corporations – do quite literally form a government within a government.
That is not a left-wing fantasy or a slightly paranoid delusion – after all, it was a Republican president and former general, Eisenhower, who first sounded the warning. It is the ineluctable result of this stupendously wealthy and largely unaccountable set of institutions.
A great many dark and devious men hold high positions in this establishment, and they have billions at their disposal plus a general population which is passive in accepting their actions.
Think only of the pointless holocaust in Vietnam. Countless billions wasted, an estimated 3 million Vietnamese murdered in an orgy of killing, and a devaluation of the dollar afterwards to help pay the bill. All of it done for nothing more than the fears and prejudices of that establishment.
The last American President who truly challenged that establishment died on November 22, 1963.
Obama wants to be the elementary civics-class textbook version of a president, the kind of president which the establishment tolerates from either party, not end up being either driven from office in shame or worse.
To talk with genuine expectations about change of any real consequence today in America is utterly naïve. It’s just about as meaningful as talking about change in the France of the late eighteenth century with its dukes and cardinals and princes, whose carriages simply thumped over the bodies of peasants who happened to be in their way.
Yes, a revolution did happen then, but try that in an empire with a military establishment pushing two million, all armed with unbelievably powerful weapons and a set of at least fourteen intelligence services which spy on every phone call and e-mail and even check the books you read at the library.
The French Revolution will never be repeated, and the pathetic American libertarians who naively believe that holding on to their beloved rifles and pistols secures their freedom surely only bring a quiet chuckle from those who know better.
NEO-CON TOM FLANAGAN CLAIMS HARPER IS "FIXING" CANADA'S SENATE STEP BY STEP
POSTED REPONSE TO A COLUMN BY TOM FLANAGAN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what you mean by "fix."
I think I understand what Mr. Flanagan means by "fix," and it is just as loaded with hidden meaning as Bill Clinton's dishonest question.
___________________
Canada’s Senate should either be left as it is or abolished.
An elected Senate is just copying what was done in America, Mr. Flanagan's home and native land.
Anyone familiar with the history of the American Senate knows that it has served only to slow progress and serve the interests of the wealthy. It is always on the side of war and empire and the interests of the military-industrial complex.
It indeed has no other purpose. Two elected bodies is a formula for failure.
I do believe that that does not represent what the great majority of Canadians would choose.
But then what does a Neo-con like Flanagan care about what people choose?
He's really talking about the interests of a small minority fundamentally changing our government without due procedure.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what you mean by "fix."
I think I understand what Mr. Flanagan means by "fix," and it is just as loaded with hidden meaning as Bill Clinton's dishonest question.
___________________
Canada’s Senate should either be left as it is or abolished.
An elected Senate is just copying what was done in America, Mr. Flanagan's home and native land.
Anyone familiar with the history of the American Senate knows that it has served only to slow progress and serve the interests of the wealthy. It is always on the side of war and empire and the interests of the military-industrial complex.
It indeed has no other purpose. Two elected bodies is a formula for failure.
I do believe that that does not represent what the great majority of Canadians would choose.
But then what does a Neo-con like Flanagan care about what people choose?
He's really talking about the interests of a small minority fundamentally changing our government without due procedure.
A STUDY WHICH SHOWS THOSE WHO DON'T ENJOY READING BY FIFTEEN ARE UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED
POSTED RESPONSE TO AN EDITORIAL IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Yes, this study result strikes me as quite valid, but I'm afraid it has little to do with our schools.
It's a bit like saying those with intelligence and some mix of initiative will succeed.
My observations of children who like to read suggest little of it comes from the class room.
Of course, a good class room can further the love and skill further, but the truth is that a good many of our elementary teachers are themselves non-readers (you only have to listen to their conversations) or indeed people who have no idea about how to teach children to read.
Yes, this study result strikes me as quite valid, but I'm afraid it has little to do with our schools.
It's a bit like saying those with intelligence and some mix of initiative will succeed.
My observations of children who like to read suggest little of it comes from the class room.
Of course, a good class room can further the love and skill further, but the truth is that a good many of our elementary teachers are themselves non-readers (you only have to listen to their conversations) or indeed people who have no idea about how to teach children to read.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
PALIN AND CRIB NOTES ON HER PALM - HARDLY A BIG POINT BECAUSE SHE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY WITH OR WITHOUT NOTES
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN THE NEW YORK TIMES
The problem certainly is not the crib notes on Sarah Palin’s palm, although it makes a funny anecdote after her blubbering about teleprompters.
The problem is that Sarah Palin has absolutely nothing to say, with or without notes.
Almost every word that comes from her mouth is completely predictable. And all of it is as vacuous as the applause soundtrack from a 1950s television sitcom.
Organizations might just as well buy a DVD of her past appearances and play random selections.
Imagine giving this hare-brain a hundred thousand dollars to come and say nothing?
Ah, that's America, land of opportunity.
And, of course, when dear Sarah bounces around and waves her hands like a Baptist preacher at a tent meeting, she sees nothing from the podium but real folks in the audience, not beltway insiders.
This, as she works tirelessly to become one of those very beltway insiders.
What a truly tiresome theme, a re-tread of Newt Gingrich and Lamar Alexander and Phil Gramm plus countless other past opportunists devoid of content.
How is it that America has an endless appetite for such regurgitated tripe?
The problem certainly is not the crib notes on Sarah Palin’s palm, although it makes a funny anecdote after her blubbering about teleprompters.
The problem is that Sarah Palin has absolutely nothing to say, with or without notes.
Almost every word that comes from her mouth is completely predictable. And all of it is as vacuous as the applause soundtrack from a 1950s television sitcom.
Organizations might just as well buy a DVD of her past appearances and play random selections.
Imagine giving this hare-brain a hundred thousand dollars to come and say nothing?
Ah, that's America, land of opportunity.
And, of course, when dear Sarah bounces around and waves her hands like a Baptist preacher at a tent meeting, she sees nothing from the podium but real folks in the audience, not beltway insiders.
This, as she works tirelessly to become one of those very beltway insiders.
What a truly tiresome theme, a re-tread of Newt Gingrich and Lamar Alexander and Phil Gramm plus countless other past opportunists devoid of content.
How is it that America has an endless appetite for such regurgitated tripe?
Monday, February 08, 2010
STILL MORE ABOUT THE GOOFY TEA PARTY: THIS TIME JOHN IBBITSON WRITES ABOUT AMERICAN ANTI-STATUS QUO MOVEMENTS
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY JOHN IBBITSON IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
John Ibbitson,
You really do have it entirely wrong.
I'm surprised at how much so. Perhaps it's your American-wannabe inner-self seeking expression?
There is nothing new, and certainly nothing genuinely anti-status quo, about the goofy Tea Party.
Good Lord, Sarah Palin - George Bush with a sex change - was there, and they were applauding that total airhead as she waved her arms around like a Baptist tent preacher.
And surely, you understand that there is nothing new about Palin except the color of her hair.
In fact, the Tea Party is the same tiresome bunch we've heard from dozens of times before in the U.S.
It's a re-run of a re-run of a re-run there: back to political basics and origins.
It's almost a hobby amongst the U.S. Right Wing, every once in while, we get a bunch of them with a new set of slogans.
This latest group of clowns reminds me of Lamar Alexander working desperately towards the Republican nomination in 2000, by going around in a red lumberjack shirt and offering the profound suggestion of a part-time government.
Likely it was a custom-made lumberjack shirt since good old Lamar is a multi-millionaire. Of course, in one sense, old Lamar was only talking about formalizing the de facto reality: America does have a part-time government if you count the time spent soliciting money.
Were you aware that one of their speakers at the convention also called for the re-establishment of literacy tests for voting? It's the old code phrase for eliminating black votes.
Anti-status quo? Yes, if you count going backward a century as being anti-status quo.
John Ibbitson,
You really do have it entirely wrong.
I'm surprised at how much so. Perhaps it's your American-wannabe inner-self seeking expression?
There is nothing new, and certainly nothing genuinely anti-status quo, about the goofy Tea Party.
Good Lord, Sarah Palin - George Bush with a sex change - was there, and they were applauding that total airhead as she waved her arms around like a Baptist tent preacher.
And surely, you understand that there is nothing new about Palin except the color of her hair.
In fact, the Tea Party is the same tiresome bunch we've heard from dozens of times before in the U.S.
It's a re-run of a re-run of a re-run there: back to political basics and origins.
It's almost a hobby amongst the U.S. Right Wing, every once in while, we get a bunch of them with a new set of slogans.
This latest group of clowns reminds me of Lamar Alexander working desperately towards the Republican nomination in 2000, by going around in a red lumberjack shirt and offering the profound suggestion of a part-time government.
Likely it was a custom-made lumberjack shirt since good old Lamar is a multi-millionaire. Of course, in one sense, old Lamar was only talking about formalizing the de facto reality: America does have a part-time government if you count the time spent soliciting money.
Were you aware that one of their speakers at the convention also called for the re-establishment of literacy tests for voting? It's the old code phrase for eliminating black votes.
Anti-status quo? Yes, if you count going backward a century as being anti-status quo.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
THE GOOFY TEA PARTY AGAIN - AND THE CLOWN SARAH PALIN - AND THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY KONRAD YAKABUSKI IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Oh, please, any group which can become excited by a certified airhead like Sarah Palin is pathetic.
The Tea Party is just one more in a long list of fad right-wing movements in America, most of them deliberately employing the language of revolution to make themselves sound consequential.
Well, they are all about as revolutionary, and as interesting, as the latest version of dish soap from Procter and Gamble.
And this author, Konrad Yakabuski, too, has a childishly limited understanding of the American "revolution."
"...driven by the same distrust of the ruling class that inspired the Revolution."
That statement is simply not true. It represents the American 8th grade civics-class version of the "revolution."
Americans in the colonies were a pretty privileged group in the world of 1776. Everything we read from foreign observers tells us how good and healthy and free their lives in fact were. From life expectancies, smart people like Franklin calculated how quickly the population would become large.
Britain - in the Seven Years War (aka, French and Indian War) - had even eliminated the worrying threat of the French encroaching into the Ohio Valley.
But when Britain wanted Americans to help pay for that war with some new taxes - a perfectly reasonable expectation – we first saw Americans acting like rude kids being served spinach for dinner, a behavior which has continued down to this day.
Indeed, the financial crisis which just threatened the world comes from the same dark place in the American soul: “I want it all, and I want it now.”
Britain also irritated the colonists by keeping rules about land speculation and against disturbing the natives in the Ohio Valley, an unpleasant get-rich-quick practice in which George Washington was a leader, surveying other people’s land and later selling it to new immigrants from Europe.
And it still further irritated the colonists – actually infuriated them – by imposing the Quebec Act, arousing the ugliest anti-Catholic rhetoric you could imagine, truly gutter stuff.
These are the true origins of the American Revolution, an event which is far more accurately called a revolt since it was an effort to overthrow an imperial power, not local government by locals.
None of the rhetoric about liberty and justice had much to do with it, unless you agree that people who trade in slaves make any sense in talking about such concepts.
Selfishness writ large.
And just so now, the clownish Tea Party.
Oh, please, any group which can become excited by a certified airhead like Sarah Palin is pathetic.
The Tea Party is just one more in a long list of fad right-wing movements in America, most of them deliberately employing the language of revolution to make themselves sound consequential.
Well, they are all about as revolutionary, and as interesting, as the latest version of dish soap from Procter and Gamble.
And this author, Konrad Yakabuski, too, has a childishly limited understanding of the American "revolution."
"...driven by the same distrust of the ruling class that inspired the Revolution."
That statement is simply not true. It represents the American 8th grade civics-class version of the "revolution."
Americans in the colonies were a pretty privileged group in the world of 1776. Everything we read from foreign observers tells us how good and healthy and free their lives in fact were. From life expectancies, smart people like Franklin calculated how quickly the population would become large.
Britain - in the Seven Years War (aka, French and Indian War) - had even eliminated the worrying threat of the French encroaching into the Ohio Valley.
But when Britain wanted Americans to help pay for that war with some new taxes - a perfectly reasonable expectation – we first saw Americans acting like rude kids being served spinach for dinner, a behavior which has continued down to this day.
Indeed, the financial crisis which just threatened the world comes from the same dark place in the American soul: “I want it all, and I want it now.”
Britain also irritated the colonists by keeping rules about land speculation and against disturbing the natives in the Ohio Valley, an unpleasant get-rich-quick practice in which George Washington was a leader, surveying other people’s land and later selling it to new immigrants from Europe.
And it still further irritated the colonists – actually infuriated them – by imposing the Quebec Act, arousing the ugliest anti-Catholic rhetoric you could imagine, truly gutter stuff.
These are the true origins of the American Revolution, an event which is far more accurately called a revolt since it was an effort to overthrow an imperial power, not local government by locals.
None of the rhetoric about liberty and justice had much to do with it, unless you agree that people who trade in slaves make any sense in talking about such concepts.
Selfishness writ large.
And just so now, the clownish Tea Party.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, ESTABLISHMENT DARLING, ATTACKS GORE VIDAL - AND GRAHAM GREENE ON WHAT A WRITER'S RESPONSIBILITY IS - AND 9/11 FACTS
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN THE INDEPENDENT
This isn't an attack.
Gore Vidal is a crackpot, a rather delightful and entertaining one.
Christopher Hitchens, however, has become something much more unpleasant, and far more dangerous, than a crackpot.
Hitchens is now a relentless defender of the establishment, eloquent and wordy certainly, but serving interests a genuine writer should never serve.
Graham Greene said it so superbly:
"You remember Thomas Paine’s great apothegm, ‘we must take care to guard even our enemies against injustice,’ and it is there – in the establishment of justice – that the writer has greater opportunities and therefore greater obligations than, say, the chemist or the estate agent."
No matter what you believe about 9/11, it is simply a fact that there are many unanswered questions.
I do not think that that fact means the government was involved, but it could not be clearer that the government is hiding things.
Just the simple facts that structural steel used there required twice the temperature that aviation fuel burns at 3000 versus 1500 degrees), that most of the force of the impact and explosion was depleted by blowing out the other side, and that we have pictures of survivors standing by the entrance hole tell us clearly there was not enough energy to cause those collapses.
The recorded images of the collapse are, almost to a certainty, images of a controlled demolition, not a "pancaking" down of floors. Indeed, the central core was so immensely strong – overbuilt from an engineering point of view – that even if the floors could have “pancaked” down, the core would have been left standing.
And there are so many other questions.
Most of the perpetrators were Saudis, and, crucially important, had legitimate visas for the US. Who issued those? The Israelis knew about them and were curious, following them around with a large gang of agents who were arrested and deported afterward.
What was going on? A CIA training operation gone sour? A much larger plot than the men in the planes, including others who planted explosives at the building bases? Who knows, but we do know we have not been told the truth.
And as for the fourth airliner, there is absolutely no question but it was shot down by an American fighter plane. The debris field was vast and could not possibly have resulted from the official fantasy story of “let’s roll,” a story concocted to save the government from a monstrous set of lawsuits.
Yes, Christopher Hitchens is not a writer in the truest sense of the word, he is the kind of talented scribbler who has always served those with power.
This isn't an attack.
Gore Vidal is a crackpot, a rather delightful and entertaining one.
Christopher Hitchens, however, has become something much more unpleasant, and far more dangerous, than a crackpot.
Hitchens is now a relentless defender of the establishment, eloquent and wordy certainly, but serving interests a genuine writer should never serve.
Graham Greene said it so superbly:
"You remember Thomas Paine’s great apothegm, ‘we must take care to guard even our enemies against injustice,’ and it is there – in the establishment of justice – that the writer has greater opportunities and therefore greater obligations than, say, the chemist or the estate agent."
No matter what you believe about 9/11, it is simply a fact that there are many unanswered questions.
I do not think that that fact means the government was involved, but it could not be clearer that the government is hiding things.
Just the simple facts that structural steel used there required twice the temperature that aviation fuel burns at 3000 versus 1500 degrees), that most of the force of the impact and explosion was depleted by blowing out the other side, and that we have pictures of survivors standing by the entrance hole tell us clearly there was not enough energy to cause those collapses.
The recorded images of the collapse are, almost to a certainty, images of a controlled demolition, not a "pancaking" down of floors. Indeed, the central core was so immensely strong – overbuilt from an engineering point of view – that even if the floors could have “pancaked” down, the core would have been left standing.
And there are so many other questions.
Most of the perpetrators were Saudis, and, crucially important, had legitimate visas for the US. Who issued those? The Israelis knew about them and were curious, following them around with a large gang of agents who were arrested and deported afterward.
What was going on? A CIA training operation gone sour? A much larger plot than the men in the planes, including others who planted explosives at the building bases? Who knows, but we do know we have not been told the truth.
And as for the fourth airliner, there is absolutely no question but it was shot down by an American fighter plane. The debris field was vast and could not possibly have resulted from the official fantasy story of “let’s roll,” a story concocted to save the government from a monstrous set of lawsuits.
Yes, Christopher Hitchens is not a writer in the truest sense of the word, he is the kind of talented scribbler who has always served those with power.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
ON THE ISSUE OF MERIT PAY FOR TEACHERS
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY ERIN ANDERSSEN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
True merit pay for teachers must cut both ways.
The better teachers should get more than average while the poorer teachers should get less than average.
That is the only intellectually defensible way to do this.
Of course, the truly poor ones – of which there are many – should be let go.
How much chance is there that the teacher's union - at its heart the cause of most of our educational woes - would support that? None.
As for only paying bonuses, that really is a bribery system. Because the education system is so much larger and complex in the US, it is only natural that bribes would come into being.
After all, American states and cities outbid each other in concessions to keep or receive industries.
In a large American metropolis, typically there are many school boards, ranging from immensely well-financed ones in breathtakingly wealthy suburbs to piteously financed ones in some urban centers (truly rural schools in the US are often terribly poor too).
In a place like Chicago area, there are suburbs with PhDs teaching high school and with facilities comparable to a private quality college. Then there are science labs in some Chicago neighborhoods where the Bunsen burners do not work.
Paying these bribes is just one more mechanism for the well-off to assure themselves all the very best. Poor boards are not able to compete.
It's just one more form of Social Darwinism in a country which specializes in such arrangements.
Another argument against this idea is a strong one too. The fact is, in Ontario, we have no in authority competent to judge the quality of teachers. Principals are afraid, often rather limp-wristed, and they are just teachers themselves who in many cases sought a way out of the classroom.
Once a graduate lands a permanent job in Ontario, his or her teaching is never examined or assessed. There are no specialist teams competent to do this anyway, as there once were.
Going right up the Ontario hierarchy, we have pretty much nothing but ex-teachers who’ve escaped the classroom. That’s how we get superintendents and even directors with little capacity for management or sound judgment.
True merit pay for teachers must cut both ways.
The better teachers should get more than average while the poorer teachers should get less than average.
That is the only intellectually defensible way to do this.
Of course, the truly poor ones – of which there are many – should be let go.
How much chance is there that the teacher's union - at its heart the cause of most of our educational woes - would support that? None.
As for only paying bonuses, that really is a bribery system. Because the education system is so much larger and complex in the US, it is only natural that bribes would come into being.
After all, American states and cities outbid each other in concessions to keep or receive industries.
In a large American metropolis, typically there are many school boards, ranging from immensely well-financed ones in breathtakingly wealthy suburbs to piteously financed ones in some urban centers (truly rural schools in the US are often terribly poor too).
In a place like Chicago area, there are suburbs with PhDs teaching high school and with facilities comparable to a private quality college. Then there are science labs in some Chicago neighborhoods where the Bunsen burners do not work.
Paying these bribes is just one more mechanism for the well-off to assure themselves all the very best. Poor boards are not able to compete.
It's just one more form of Social Darwinism in a country which specializes in such arrangements.
Another argument against this idea is a strong one too. The fact is, in Ontario, we have no in authority competent to judge the quality of teachers. Principals are afraid, often rather limp-wristed, and they are just teachers themselves who in many cases sought a way out of the classroom.
Once a graduate lands a permanent job in Ontario, his or her teaching is never examined or assessed. There are no specialist teams competent to do this anyway, as there once were.
Going right up the Ontario hierarchy, we have pretty much nothing but ex-teachers who’ve escaped the classroom. That’s how we get superintendents and even directors with little capacity for management or sound judgment.
NOISES IN THE MIDDLE EAST: IS MURDER INCORPORATED PREPARING A NEW WAR?
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY PATRICK MARTIN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Murder Incorporated has been making all kinds of threatening noises lately.
Threats towards Iran.
Threats towards Syria.
Threats towards Southern Lebanon.
And there's the effort to starve the Palestinians out of Gaza while daily stealing more of the property of others in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
We have a very ugly and threatening situation developing.
Syria is absolutely right to say that if a war starts, Israeli cities would be targets. It is the only way for Israel's savage leaders to reconsider whatever it is they appear to be planning.
After all, Israel and the U.S. have never hesitated to bomb and shell cities.
Israel used an artillery siege on Beirut in the 1980s. In recent years it has bombed Beirut and dropped ghastly cluster bombs.
Israel caused the deaths of thousands in just the city of Beirut in the 1980s. The U.S. slaughtered civilians in cities all over Iraq, especially in Baghdad. And it regularly bombs civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Its holocaust of Hanoi was one of the most bloodthirsty events of the second half of the 20th century.
The U.S. is the only power capable of restraining Israel's aggression, but it refuses to do so. Policy under Obama, just as under Bush, seems virtually set in Tel Aviv.
Murder Incorporated has been making all kinds of threatening noises lately.
Threats towards Iran.
Threats towards Syria.
Threats towards Southern Lebanon.
And there's the effort to starve the Palestinians out of Gaza while daily stealing more of the property of others in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
We have a very ugly and threatening situation developing.
Syria is absolutely right to say that if a war starts, Israeli cities would be targets. It is the only way for Israel's savage leaders to reconsider whatever it is they appear to be planning.
After all, Israel and the U.S. have never hesitated to bomb and shell cities.
Israel used an artillery siege on Beirut in the 1980s. In recent years it has bombed Beirut and dropped ghastly cluster bombs.
Israel caused the deaths of thousands in just the city of Beirut in the 1980s. The U.S. slaughtered civilians in cities all over Iraq, especially in Baghdad. And it regularly bombs civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Its holocaust of Hanoi was one of the most bloodthirsty events of the second half of the 20th century.
The U.S. is the only power capable of restraining Israel's aggression, but it refuses to do so. Policy under Obama, just as under Bush, seems virtually set in Tel Aviv.
MORE ON THE TEA PARTY: THIS AN ARTICLE SO POORLY INFORMED IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED - BUT PERHAPS IT FITTINGLY SUMS THIS SILLY BUNCH
POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY TOM VELK IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Tom Velk, this is a remarkably poorly informed piece.
First, you start with a straw-man argument.
The fact is no one on earth thinks the Tea Party represents rebels.
In fact, they are the same tiresome bunch we've heard from dozens of times before in the U.S.
Back to political basics and origins.
It's a fad amongst the U.S. Right Wing, every once in while, we get a new bunch of them with slogans.
It's been typical for them to use words or phrases like “manifesto” or “revolution” so that they grab attention and sound like something other than the retro-grade folks they are: Patriots with four-car garages.
The Tea Party will disappear within a year or two. It has nothing to offer. Good God, just consider they’re using the brainless Sarah Palin as a keynote speaker. Kind of says it all.
As for Jefferson, you seem unaware of the facts of his life. He said that the country needed some blood shed every twenty years or so to keep the Tree of Liberty nourished, and he wasn’t using poetic language. He supported the bloody French Revolution right through The Terror, leaving behind some pretty awful statements.
Jefferson actually shared qualities with Cambodia’s Pol Pot: he believed in the honest yeoman type and was against industrialization and opposed Hamilton’s sophistication in finances. He was repressive as in the revolt of Haiti and his horrible embargo of England and his Inspector Javert-like pursuit of Arron Burr.
Altogether a confusing and rather unpleasant man.
_______________________
"4. Describing America's growth in the 19th century: "the giant did not grow by conquest (except of a figurative sort)" The War of 1812 was an attempt to do just that; The Mexican War? the forced death March of natives from Florida; the many 'Indian Wars' of conquest."
Yes, indeed. Don't forget the Spanish-American War intended to steal Cuba and other properties.
Then there's the theft of Texas.
The theft of New Mexico and California.
The story of Hawaii is a very sad one. America stole the place after the British were gone and ignored the pleas of natives who even petitioned Congress and were completely ignored.
Don't forget the many bloody uprisings in the "Empire of Liberty" stretching back to putting down the Whisky rebellion to the ghastly mass slaughters of blacks in the 1920s in Oklahoma and Florida and other places. Bodies by the hundreds dumped into mass graves and their property stolen.
Actually, America's record, for those who know it, very much resembles Germany's rise in the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries.
Only the fact that the places America attacked and pillaged were thinly populated prevents its record from being one of deaths in the many millions like Germany's.
Of course, its ruthlessness goes right up to the fire bombing and atomic bombing of Japan and its mass murder in Vietnam with perhaps 3 million victims left behind. And a million victims in Iraq.
It ain't a pretty record.
I really think the editors of the Globe need to do a much better job in selecting the people they print. This piece is uninformed trash.
Tom Velk, this is a remarkably poorly informed piece.
First, you start with a straw-man argument.
The fact is no one on earth thinks the Tea Party represents rebels.
In fact, they are the same tiresome bunch we've heard from dozens of times before in the U.S.
Back to political basics and origins.
It's a fad amongst the U.S. Right Wing, every once in while, we get a new bunch of them with slogans.
It's been typical for them to use words or phrases like “manifesto” or “revolution” so that they grab attention and sound like something other than the retro-grade folks they are: Patriots with four-car garages.
The Tea Party will disappear within a year or two. It has nothing to offer. Good God, just consider they’re using the brainless Sarah Palin as a keynote speaker. Kind of says it all.
As for Jefferson, you seem unaware of the facts of his life. He said that the country needed some blood shed every twenty years or so to keep the Tree of Liberty nourished, and he wasn’t using poetic language. He supported the bloody French Revolution right through The Terror, leaving behind some pretty awful statements.
Jefferson actually shared qualities with Cambodia’s Pol Pot: he believed in the honest yeoman type and was against industrialization and opposed Hamilton’s sophistication in finances. He was repressive as in the revolt of Haiti and his horrible embargo of England and his Inspector Javert-like pursuit of Arron Burr.
Altogether a confusing and rather unpleasant man.
_______________________
"4. Describing America's growth in the 19th century: "the giant did not grow by conquest (except of a figurative sort)" The War of 1812 was an attempt to do just that; The Mexican War? the forced death March of natives from Florida; the many 'Indian Wars' of conquest."
Yes, indeed. Don't forget the Spanish-American War intended to steal Cuba and other properties.
Then there's the theft of Texas.
The theft of New Mexico and California.
The story of Hawaii is a very sad one. America stole the place after the British were gone and ignored the pleas of natives who even petitioned Congress and were completely ignored.
Don't forget the many bloody uprisings in the "Empire of Liberty" stretching back to putting down the Whisky rebellion to the ghastly mass slaughters of blacks in the 1920s in Oklahoma and Florida and other places. Bodies by the hundreds dumped into mass graves and their property stolen.
Actually, America's record, for those who know it, very much resembles Germany's rise in the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries.
Only the fact that the places America attacked and pillaged were thinly populated prevents its record from being one of deaths in the many millions like Germany's.
Of course, its ruthlessness goes right up to the fire bombing and atomic bombing of Japan and its mass murder in Vietnam with perhaps 3 million victims left behind. And a million victims in Iraq.
It ain't a pretty record.
I really think the editors of the Globe need to do a much better job in selecting the people they print. This piece is uninformed trash.
Friday, February 05, 2010
THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE POLITICAL MESS: A KEY FACT NOT WIDELY APPRECIATED OUTSIDE THE U.S.
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY CLIVE CROOK IN THE FINANCIAL TIMES
One of the key facts in understanding American health care and the lack of support for serious reform is not widely understood outside of the United States.
That fact is that under the existing regime, the comfortable middle class almost universally receives very good health care.
Those who work at good corporate or government jobs receive good to superb insurance as a benefit.
This fact effectively removes society's most vocal and politically influential group of people from the debate. In fact, it actually puts them on the side against any change: "I've got mine, and I don't want it mucked up," is genuine if unspoken thinking.
The people who suffer most are the underemployed or those consigned to lives with low-level jobs - the great majority of clerks and retail employees and people who work at service work of many descriptions. They receive either no insurance or, often, insurance which is so poor in its coverage and rules that it can be close to useless. In effect, they are hard-working people who cannot afford to buy costly private insurance and have little prospect for a change in their circumstances over their lifetimes.
Of course, there are also the tens of millions who go entirely uninsured, but many of these are young and in a sense their plight isn't as serious as the underinsured.
So the total American population is highly segmented, as it were, into groups whose political importance also varies greatly. The politically important ones are pretty satisfied with their health care. The politically less important are generally not but tend to be inert.
When politicians are doing their electioneering (even outside of health care), middle class people are pretty consistently their target of first importance. They have the money, they have the voices, and they are statistically the most likely to vote. It’s fundamental part of “the calculus of consent.”
General ethical appeals have limited claim on many of them. America is not run as a society in which ethics, apart from self-interest, play a great role in politics. This is easily observed in many phenomena, but the words used by politicians and political commentators are especially revealing in this regard. People aren’t addressed as citizens or fellows but typically as consumers in America. There is a palpable theme of Social Darwinism that surges through most public affairs.
And, of course, as de Tocqueville observed a long time ago, “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” That characterizes every national election still, and Obama’s was no exception.
One of the key facts in understanding American health care and the lack of support for serious reform is not widely understood outside of the United States.
That fact is that under the existing regime, the comfortable middle class almost universally receives very good health care.
Those who work at good corporate or government jobs receive good to superb insurance as a benefit.
This fact effectively removes society's most vocal and politically influential group of people from the debate. In fact, it actually puts them on the side against any change: "I've got mine, and I don't want it mucked up," is genuine if unspoken thinking.
The people who suffer most are the underemployed or those consigned to lives with low-level jobs - the great majority of clerks and retail employees and people who work at service work of many descriptions. They receive either no insurance or, often, insurance which is so poor in its coverage and rules that it can be close to useless. In effect, they are hard-working people who cannot afford to buy costly private insurance and have little prospect for a change in their circumstances over their lifetimes.
Of course, there are also the tens of millions who go entirely uninsured, but many of these are young and in a sense their plight isn't as serious as the underinsured.
So the total American population is highly segmented, as it were, into groups whose political importance also varies greatly. The politically important ones are pretty satisfied with their health care. The politically less important are generally not but tend to be inert.
When politicians are doing their electioneering (even outside of health care), middle class people are pretty consistently their target of first importance. They have the money, they have the voices, and they are statistically the most likely to vote. It’s fundamental part of “the calculus of consent.”
General ethical appeals have limited claim on many of them. America is not run as a society in which ethics, apart from self-interest, play a great role in politics. This is easily observed in many phenomena, but the words used by politicians and political commentators are especially revealing in this regard. People aren’t addressed as citizens or fellows but typically as consumers in America. There is a palpable theme of Social Darwinism that surges through most public affairs.
And, of course, as de Tocqueville observed a long time ago, “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” That characterizes every national election still, and Obama’s was no exception.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
ARE THE VANCOUVER OLYMPICS TO BE A FINANCIAL DISASTER OR NOT? AND OTHER OLYMPIC MATTERS
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY GARY MASON IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
"But if you're going to suggest, as Olympic critics do, that the Games have cost $6-billion, at least have the decency to say that a good chunk of that amount – $4-billion, in fact – has gone to things that were going to get built anyway."
This is just a roundabout updating of Mayor Drapeau's infamous line about Olympics and deficits and having babies.
Of course, in the case of Montreal 1976, we were left with a whopper of a deficit, and some of the infrastructure was poorly designed and built in the rush, yielding far less utility in the future than structures carefully done over time.
There's no reason on earth a city the size of Vancouver, not really a terribly large city, would have been spending $4billion on infrastructure.
And the comment on the immense security cost, above, is on the mark: we are at the point where a public event requiring this much security is not worth it.
The excesses of the modern Olympics are beyond counting, but they may perhaps be best symbolized by the Olympic Torch Relay. It costs a fortune to pull off this meaningless quasi-barbaric ritual in a country the size of Canada.
And what are its origins? The 1936 Olympics in Germany, a country under great international pressure at the time over its suitability to host the Olympics and a country then given to lavish quasi-barbaric rituals.
The infamous Joseph Goebbels put the first Torch Relay into the modern Olympics, and we still mindlessly repeat it.
It has no connection to the origins of the Olympics, and, indeed, the entire modern excess called the Olympics has no relation to the ancient, relatively simple event.
Vancouver, as was China, is a gigantic, immensely expensive Las Vegas show, a glitzy, vacuous temporary temple to sports not even paid for by the people enjoying it.
"But if you're going to suggest, as Olympic critics do, that the Games have cost $6-billion, at least have the decency to say that a good chunk of that amount – $4-billion, in fact – has gone to things that were going to get built anyway."
This is just a roundabout updating of Mayor Drapeau's infamous line about Olympics and deficits and having babies.
Of course, in the case of Montreal 1976, we were left with a whopper of a deficit, and some of the infrastructure was poorly designed and built in the rush, yielding far less utility in the future than structures carefully done over time.
There's no reason on earth a city the size of Vancouver, not really a terribly large city, would have been spending $4billion on infrastructure.
And the comment on the immense security cost, above, is on the mark: we are at the point where a public event requiring this much security is not worth it.
The excesses of the modern Olympics are beyond counting, but they may perhaps be best symbolized by the Olympic Torch Relay. It costs a fortune to pull off this meaningless quasi-barbaric ritual in a country the size of Canada.
And what are its origins? The 1936 Olympics in Germany, a country under great international pressure at the time over its suitability to host the Olympics and a country then given to lavish quasi-barbaric rituals.
The infamous Joseph Goebbels put the first Torch Relay into the modern Olympics, and we still mindlessly repeat it.
It has no connection to the origins of the Olympics, and, indeed, the entire modern excess called the Olympics has no relation to the ancient, relatively simple event.
Vancouver, as was China, is a gigantic, immensely expensive Las Vegas show, a glitzy, vacuous temporary temple to sports not even paid for by the people enjoying it.
LAWRENCE MARTIN SAYS THE LIBERALS ARE GOING TO LET IGNATIEFF BE HIMSELF
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY LAWRENCE MARTIN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Let Ignatieff be himself?
God, what a treat that will be for voters.
Let him drone on in his drab tone.
Let him display his arrogant and stand-offish attitude.
Let him display his striped trousers and silk stockings while crossing his legs on podiums across the country.
Let him speak about relatively trivial points while the great issues of the sweep past him.
Let him blubber about the democratic values his entire sordid little political career in Canada has worked against.
Let him smile his sardonic smile and be self-satisfied about his changing his mind about past support for torture and mass murder in Iraq.
God, I wish the Liberal Party would come to its senses and dump this political albatross.
Let Ignatieff be himself?
God, what a treat that will be for voters.
Let him drone on in his drab tone.
Let him display his arrogant and stand-offish attitude.
Let him display his striped trousers and silk stockings while crossing his legs on podiums across the country.
Let him speak about relatively trivial points while the great issues of the sweep past him.
Let him blubber about the democratic values his entire sordid little political career in Canada has worked against.
Let him smile his sardonic smile and be self-satisfied about his changing his mind about past support for torture and mass murder in Iraq.
God, I wish the Liberal Party would come to its senses and dump this political albatross.
CLIVE CROOK DISPARAGES J. K. GALBRAITH'S ARROGANCE - AND RIGHTLY SO
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY CLIVE CROOK IN THE FINANCIAL TIMES
I too have read a number of Galbraith's books, and there is no doubt that he is an interesting writer, and while I disagree with a good deal of his thought, I welcome the thoughtful views of those who go against the academic establishment.
I have also met Galbraith, briefly, and heard him lecture, and there is equally no doubt that he was one of the most arrogant people I have ever met. He literally dripped arrogance. Not a pleasant experience.
Further thought.
It is not widely appreciated that Galbraith came from rural Ontario. His first academic work was at what was then called the Ontario Agricultural College (since changed into the University of Guelph).
I've always thought, in view of Harvard and the top Washington establishment, that he hid his embarrassment at that humble beginning with practiced arrogance.
Perhaps.
I too have read a number of Galbraith's books, and there is no doubt that he is an interesting writer, and while I disagree with a good deal of his thought, I welcome the thoughtful views of those who go against the academic establishment.
I have also met Galbraith, briefly, and heard him lecture, and there is equally no doubt that he was one of the most arrogant people I have ever met. He literally dripped arrogance. Not a pleasant experience.
Further thought.
It is not widely appreciated that Galbraith came from rural Ontario. His first academic work was at what was then called the Ontario Agricultural College (since changed into the University of Guelph).
I've always thought, in view of Harvard and the top Washington establishment, that he hid his embarrassment at that humble beginning with practiced arrogance.
Perhaps.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
CLIVE CROOK CAPTURES THE ECONOMIC ABSURDITY OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT BUDGETS - AND AMERICA'S GROTESQUE MILITARY EXPENDITURE
POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY CLIVE CROOK IN THE FINANCIAL TIMES
Yes, exactly.
Whether in war or foreign affairs or economics or trade, the basic problem is the American attitude of "I want it all, and I want it now."
Another word for this is entitlement.
I think there really is no cure for this sickness, just as it is virtually impossible to undo the damage to a person raised by parents who behaved as though they were his servants.
The only time we saw some deviation from this obsession was in the Great Depression, a learning experience comparable to repeatedly hitting one's head into a wall.
But, as we've seen, even depressions have been banned in America now. You can buy your way out, and go back to just what you were doing.
____________________
Yes, Wendell Murray, the American military expenditure is actually cancer-like in its growth, and only recently we were assured by the good Mr. Gates that there would be still more coming.
American politicians today sometimes harangue about China’s military expenditure, which at somewhere between 10 and 15% that of America’s (with four times the population), seems almost miniscule.
There is no rational explanation for this.
Consider the countless billions squandered in Vietnam - inflate it to present dollars and the sum is immense - and to what end?
Trillions were spent on the Cold War, almost all of it wasted. The Soviet Union finally collapsed based on the flaws in economics and logic embedded in its very foundation and structure, not owing to America's military might.
I think the practice reflects a combination of the American entitlement syndrome (we are entitled to make all others fear our might) and the Moby Dick obsession with chasing the white whale.
There always seems to be a white whale for America.
Spain’s remaining North American Empire of the 1890s, Communism for decades going back to the 1920s (when Hoover first showed his obsession with getting rid of anyone who could be regarded as a Communist), to Islam in recent times.
Does that reflect a basic paranoid trait in a good portion of the population, the legacy of the horrible Puritans? I’ve long thought so. I think Australia was lucky to get the convicts rather than the Pilgrims.
I do believe the world needs seriously to start re-thinking the role of the American dollar as reserve currency in light of the county’s proved record of irresponsibility. That role for the currency leaves Americans with an option no one else has in paying for its lack of control. Look what it did after Vietnam.
Yes, exactly.
Whether in war or foreign affairs or economics or trade, the basic problem is the American attitude of "I want it all, and I want it now."
Another word for this is entitlement.
I think there really is no cure for this sickness, just as it is virtually impossible to undo the damage to a person raised by parents who behaved as though they were his servants.
The only time we saw some deviation from this obsession was in the Great Depression, a learning experience comparable to repeatedly hitting one's head into a wall.
But, as we've seen, even depressions have been banned in America now. You can buy your way out, and go back to just what you were doing.
____________________
Yes, Wendell Murray, the American military expenditure is actually cancer-like in its growth, and only recently we were assured by the good Mr. Gates that there would be still more coming.
American politicians today sometimes harangue about China’s military expenditure, which at somewhere between 10 and 15% that of America’s (with four times the population), seems almost miniscule.
There is no rational explanation for this.
Consider the countless billions squandered in Vietnam - inflate it to present dollars and the sum is immense - and to what end?
Trillions were spent on the Cold War, almost all of it wasted. The Soviet Union finally collapsed based on the flaws in economics and logic embedded in its very foundation and structure, not owing to America's military might.
I think the practice reflects a combination of the American entitlement syndrome (we are entitled to make all others fear our might) and the Moby Dick obsession with chasing the white whale.
There always seems to be a white whale for America.
Spain’s remaining North American Empire of the 1890s, Communism for decades going back to the 1920s (when Hoover first showed his obsession with getting rid of anyone who could be regarded as a Communist), to Islam in recent times.
Does that reflect a basic paranoid trait in a good portion of the population, the legacy of the horrible Puritans? I’ve long thought so. I think Australia was lucky to get the convicts rather than the Pilgrims.
I do believe the world needs seriously to start re-thinking the role of the American dollar as reserve currency in light of the county’s proved record of irresponsibility. That role for the currency leaves Americans with an option no one else has in paying for its lack of control. Look what it did after Vietnam.
NORMAN SPECTOR MAKES SILLY CLAIMS ABOUT IGNATIEFF USING DUCEPPE
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY NORMAN SPECTOR IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
I have no use for separatism, but I think it more than fair to say that Mr. Duceppe is by a good measure the more statesmanlike of the three, comparing him with Harper and Ignatieff.
Duceppe also has demonstrated a solid concern for the kind of values most Canadians are comfortable with.
Harper is a nasty political accident, an extremist who has managed to enjoy power only owing to a set of circumstances beyond his control.
Ignatieff is not worth discussing. The man represents no values whatsoever. His voice is never even heard on important matters. And his past is a disgrace, whether speaking of his support for torture and mass murder or his receiving his position through anti-democratic manoeuvering. And to put the cap on it, he isn't even interesting to listen to, rather drab in fact.
The press, and columnists like Norman Spector, actually make far more out of the separatist affiliation of Duceppe than is warranted. He has no chance ever of achieving separation, the majority of Quebec’s people not supporting that end. But he has been a more respectable and, in my view, responsible member of Parliament than Ignatieff or Harper.
I have no use for separatism, but I think it more than fair to say that Mr. Duceppe is by a good measure the more statesmanlike of the three, comparing him with Harper and Ignatieff.
Duceppe also has demonstrated a solid concern for the kind of values most Canadians are comfortable with.
Harper is a nasty political accident, an extremist who has managed to enjoy power only owing to a set of circumstances beyond his control.
Ignatieff is not worth discussing. The man represents no values whatsoever. His voice is never even heard on important matters. And his past is a disgrace, whether speaking of his support for torture and mass murder or his receiving his position through anti-democratic manoeuvering. And to put the cap on it, he isn't even interesting to listen to, rather drab in fact.
The press, and columnists like Norman Spector, actually make far more out of the separatist affiliation of Duceppe than is warranted. He has no chance ever of achieving separation, the majority of Quebec’s people not supporting that end. But he has been a more respectable and, in my view, responsible member of Parliament than Ignatieff or Harper.
A FITTING RESPONSE TO A PREVIOUS BIZARRE COLUMN BY ANTHONY JULIUS
RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY MELANIE MCDONAGH IN THE TELEGRAPH
Melanie McDonagh, you have captured perfectly a sense of Anthony Julius's piece.
The tone of Julius's piece actually struck me as a bit bizarre and off-the-wall.
Why, of all the things you could discuss would you choose this insignificant little remark?
Especially, when you consider the fact we understand today that the charming Diana was a very disturbed person. Are the little confidences of disturbed people to a professional the stuff of publicity? Of course, they are not.
His anecdote just touches the filth which floats around today like stuff on a waste pond: the endless shrill accusations that every critic of Israel is anti-Semitic.
It represents an obsession and a desperately unpleasant effort to cover Israel's atrocities.
Melanie McDonagh, you have captured perfectly a sense of Anthony Julius's piece.
The tone of Julius's piece actually struck me as a bit bizarre and off-the-wall.
Why, of all the things you could discuss would you choose this insignificant little remark?
Especially, when you consider the fact we understand today that the charming Diana was a very disturbed person. Are the little confidences of disturbed people to a professional the stuff of publicity? Of course, they are not.
His anecdote just touches the filth which floats around today like stuff on a waste pond: the endless shrill accusations that every critic of Israel is anti-Semitic.
It represents an obsession and a desperately unpleasant effort to cover Israel's atrocities.
THE RETIRING OF ANDY BARRIE FROM HIS MORNING CBC RADIO SHOW
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Andy Barrie certainly is a man of intelligence and some talents, but I think this very interview reveals why it is a good thing that he is leaving the morning show.
This interview focuses on personal matters, and that is precisely what Mr Barrie does on his show.
I know more about Andy Barrie's personal life and personal views than I do about anyone else on CBC Radio, indeed likely more than all the other people on CBC Radio together.
I know almost nothing personal about such outstanding CBC talents as Anna Marie Tremonti, Eleanor Wachtel, Bob McDonald, or Michael Enright.
But I know about Andy’s religious views, I know about Andy’s late brother, about his history in Montreal, about his history in the U.S., about Andy’s mother, about Andy’s late wife, about Andy’s health, and a good many other things.
I know too much about Andy, and especially his views. He cannot conduct a serious interview without making it almost as much about views or comments of his as the person being interviewed.
He inserts his views into almost everything, and I regard that as something of an abuse of listeners. I believe it was the third or fourth time he started in with the “I’m an atheist” stuff that I wrote in saying if I heard it once more, I’d puke. Not because I care in the least about atheism, but simply too much of the self-indulgent boy doing his adolescent bravado act
There is too much in Andy of the old Larry Solway days, the aggressive, opinionated telephone-in show host.
I like to hear the morning show for events, but I think it can only improve without the really huge ego.
Andy Barrie certainly is a man of intelligence and some talents, but I think this very interview reveals why it is a good thing that he is leaving the morning show.
This interview focuses on personal matters, and that is precisely what Mr Barrie does on his show.
I know more about Andy Barrie's personal life and personal views than I do about anyone else on CBC Radio, indeed likely more than all the other people on CBC Radio together.
I know almost nothing personal about such outstanding CBC talents as Anna Marie Tremonti, Eleanor Wachtel, Bob McDonald, or Michael Enright.
But I know about Andy’s religious views, I know about Andy’s late brother, about his history in Montreal, about his history in the U.S., about Andy’s mother, about Andy’s late wife, about Andy’s health, and a good many other things.
I know too much about Andy, and especially his views. He cannot conduct a serious interview without making it almost as much about views or comments of his as the person being interviewed.
He inserts his views into almost everything, and I regard that as something of an abuse of listeners. I believe it was the third or fourth time he started in with the “I’m an atheist” stuff that I wrote in saying if I heard it once more, I’d puke. Not because I care in the least about atheism, but simply too much of the self-indulgent boy doing his adolescent bravado act
There is too much in Andy of the old Larry Solway days, the aggressive, opinionated telephone-in show host.
I like to hear the morning show for events, but I think it can only improve without the really huge ego.
Monday, February 01, 2010
ON THE FINAL CHAPTER TO CANADA'S AFGHANISTAN MISSION - WHATEVER THAT IS
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY ROLAND PARIS IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
The final chapter of our Afghan mission?
And just what was our "mission"?
I doubt anyone in Canada can give a coherent definition of that so-called mission.
The government has blubbered again and again, as have some of its supporters, about making the purpose clearer to people, but they never have.
That is simply because there is no purpose, at least in the conventional meaning of the word.
The United States went there for vengeance and to kill as many people it regards as hostile as it can. It dragged along all the “help” its vast resources of finance, aid, and military could extract from the world, hoping to make the business look like something other than it is.
Even then, most countries, except for Tony Blair’s Britain, sent only token help to this supposedly world-important “mission.”
There never has been any other meaning, except in the columns of propagandists.
Canada's only purpose was to placate a mindlessly angry and paranoid United States with the knowledge that we'll help hold your overcoat while you're busy doing all that killing. We accidentally got assigned to a place where our troops suffered disproportionately
No other definition of our "mission" fits the facts. It is a dark and brutal and pointless chapter in our history.
________________
"...should have realized that the mission since the German Conference was to rebuilt Afghanistan and provide the necessary security for its people."
It doesn't get more unthinking and uninformed than that.
Afghanistan is not being "rebuilt."
The place was never a country in the sense that we understand it. It is simply a remote place which is the home to a number of tribes. There is traditionally no central government - and there effectively still is not - and there are no roads to speak of, and relationships are governed by a set of ancient tribal rules.
You cannot undo that in even a lifetime.
Because the economy is so primitive, it is little more than window dressing to build a lot more schools too. There is no employment for more educated people in a tribal society like that.
If we could by a wave of the hand, suddenly educate all the people of Afghanistan, all we would achieve is producing a lot of people who want to go somewhere else. The primitive economy cannot absorb them.
The "German Conference" was just one more in a long line of American tools to manipulate world opinion.
Had America cared the least about developing Afghanistan, it would have dropped dollar bills, not bombs.
How few people are even aware that the Taleban originally was created to provide clean government, at a time when the country was under the warlords of the Northern Alliance, who in their internecine fights were killing tens of thousands of people after the Russians left.
The Taleban’s original purpose had absolutely nothing to do with fighting the West.
Yes, they granted Osama's people a place to stay, but Osama had before that been someone who served American purposes, indeed, someone who visited the United States and received assistance.
After 9/11, the Taleban would have extradited Osama's people had the US offered one shred of evidence concerning his guilt, something they refused, and to this day, we've still not seen any.
America has managed the feat of making an enemy of the Taleban. Pointless because, whether we like it or not, they are part of the fabric of that country.
America’s total achievement, apart from killing tens of thousands more, includes the poppies, which the Taleban had suppressed, now blooming like wildflowers, and the Northern Alliance warlords rule their respective areas with all the corruption and violence and anti-progressive behavior as always.
A total disaster.
The final chapter of our Afghan mission?
And just what was our "mission"?
I doubt anyone in Canada can give a coherent definition of that so-called mission.
The government has blubbered again and again, as have some of its supporters, about making the purpose clearer to people, but they never have.
That is simply because there is no purpose, at least in the conventional meaning of the word.
The United States went there for vengeance and to kill as many people it regards as hostile as it can. It dragged along all the “help” its vast resources of finance, aid, and military could extract from the world, hoping to make the business look like something other than it is.
Even then, most countries, except for Tony Blair’s Britain, sent only token help to this supposedly world-important “mission.”
There never has been any other meaning, except in the columns of propagandists.
Canada's only purpose was to placate a mindlessly angry and paranoid United States with the knowledge that we'll help hold your overcoat while you're busy doing all that killing. We accidentally got assigned to a place where our troops suffered disproportionately
No other definition of our "mission" fits the facts. It is a dark and brutal and pointless chapter in our history.
________________
"...should have realized that the mission since the German Conference was to rebuilt Afghanistan and provide the necessary security for its people."
It doesn't get more unthinking and uninformed than that.
Afghanistan is not being "rebuilt."
The place was never a country in the sense that we understand it. It is simply a remote place which is the home to a number of tribes. There is traditionally no central government - and there effectively still is not - and there are no roads to speak of, and relationships are governed by a set of ancient tribal rules.
You cannot undo that in even a lifetime.
Because the economy is so primitive, it is little more than window dressing to build a lot more schools too. There is no employment for more educated people in a tribal society like that.
If we could by a wave of the hand, suddenly educate all the people of Afghanistan, all we would achieve is producing a lot of people who want to go somewhere else. The primitive economy cannot absorb them.
The "German Conference" was just one more in a long line of American tools to manipulate world opinion.
Had America cared the least about developing Afghanistan, it would have dropped dollar bills, not bombs.
How few people are even aware that the Taleban originally was created to provide clean government, at a time when the country was under the warlords of the Northern Alliance, who in their internecine fights were killing tens of thousands of people after the Russians left.
The Taleban’s original purpose had absolutely nothing to do with fighting the West.
Yes, they granted Osama's people a place to stay, but Osama had before that been someone who served American purposes, indeed, someone who visited the United States and received assistance.
After 9/11, the Taleban would have extradited Osama's people had the US offered one shred of evidence concerning his guilt, something they refused, and to this day, we've still not seen any.
America has managed the feat of making an enemy of the Taleban. Pointless because, whether we like it or not, they are part of the fabric of that country.
America’s total achievement, apart from killing tens of thousands more, includes the poppies, which the Taleban had suppressed, now blooming like wildflowers, and the Northern Alliance warlords rule their respective areas with all the corruption and violence and anti-progressive behavior as always.
A total disaster.
ON THE NOTION OF A MADE-IN-CANADA SOLUTION TO THE BURKA
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY SHEEMA KHAN IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Ms. Khan, there is to my mind only one made-in-Canada approach to this matter.
That is, let people do as they wish in their private lives and as they feel their religion directs them.
Anything else is state interference into private lives and religion, an abhorrent concept in which I am sorry to see France becoming involved.
I don’t like burkas, but I didn’t like nun’s heavy habits of only a few decades ago either. Some of them were godawful outfits, covering from head to toe and pinching the face in heavily starched material. I’m not too fond of the grotesquely ugly clothing strict Mennonite women wear too.
But it is all none of my business.
We had no complaints about those excesses. The complaints today reflect raw anti-Muslim prejudice, and we have no business accommodating that.
Over time, as people adjust to a new society, they or at least their children, will give up these ancient customs. It just takes time.
It was only a couple of generations ago that women from Eastern Europe, and actually many others, wore babushkas routinely. In the World War II period, it was stylish for women to wear veils on their hats. In Victorian times, women covered themselves in heavy dark clothing and wore hats with large heavy veils. All just common fashion, and all of it has disappeared.
If people out there are concerned about women’s rights, then look to the world’s many true horrors and do something about them.
Three million women a year undergo sexual mutilation in Africa. It is routine practice also in many parts of Africa for older men in a village to rape young girls.
In India, we have bride-burning and honor killing. We also have a ghastly tradition that marries off little girls to rich old men, so the family can get a little money. This horror is compounded by the fact that when the old man dies, the girl is left a widow, and there are terrible rules which apply to her for the rest of her miserable life, including never marrying again and even the clothes she must wear and the food she must eat. Tens of millions of widows in India live under this tyranny.
The world is full of genuine horrors and abuse, never mind what someone wears by custom.
Ms. Khan, there is to my mind only one made-in-Canada approach to this matter.
That is, let people do as they wish in their private lives and as they feel their religion directs them.
Anything else is state interference into private lives and religion, an abhorrent concept in which I am sorry to see France becoming involved.
I don’t like burkas, but I didn’t like nun’s heavy habits of only a few decades ago either. Some of them were godawful outfits, covering from head to toe and pinching the face in heavily starched material. I’m not too fond of the grotesquely ugly clothing strict Mennonite women wear too.
But it is all none of my business.
We had no complaints about those excesses. The complaints today reflect raw anti-Muslim prejudice, and we have no business accommodating that.
Over time, as people adjust to a new society, they or at least their children, will give up these ancient customs. It just takes time.
It was only a couple of generations ago that women from Eastern Europe, and actually many others, wore babushkas routinely. In the World War II period, it was stylish for women to wear veils on their hats. In Victorian times, women covered themselves in heavy dark clothing and wore hats with large heavy veils. All just common fashion, and all of it has disappeared.
If people out there are concerned about women’s rights, then look to the world’s many true horrors and do something about them.
Three million women a year undergo sexual mutilation in Africa. It is routine practice also in many parts of Africa for older men in a village to rape young girls.
In India, we have bride-burning and honor killing. We also have a ghastly tradition that marries off little girls to rich old men, so the family can get a little money. This horror is compounded by the fact that when the old man dies, the girl is left a widow, and there are terrible rules which apply to her for the rest of her miserable life, including never marrying again and even the clothes she must wear and the food she must eat. Tens of millions of widows in India live under this tyranny.
The world is full of genuine horrors and abuse, never mind what someone wears by custom.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE TERRIBLE CASE OF OMAR KHADR - AND THE IGNORANT SAVAGERY OF SOME COMMENTS
POSTED RESPONSES TO AN EDITORIAL IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Do the right thing?
And just when in his entire career - except for events in Haiti where he would have appeared a fiend had he not responded - has Mr Harper done the right thing?
The Supreme Court had no choice here, and I think their decision a wise one.
The government has been complicit in denying a boy his rights, and in so doing, they assisted the buzz-cut thugs at Guantanamo in torturing a boy. (I remind readers that this poor boy had been shot, twice in the back, by American soldiers. He was tortured while these ghastly wounds slowly healed.)
The ethical and legal issues are clear here. There are no ambiguities.
But legality and ethics mean little to power-driven, compulsive personality like Harper.
Had the Supreme Court attempted to order a remedy, it would have pitched the country into a constitutional crisis.
They have done what they can in making it as clear as it can be that Harper has denied a Canadian the most basic rights.
That's the kind of man we call our prime minister, a politician who has done more than any other in memory to shame Canada and lower its former fine reputation in the world.
__________________
"Your boy's buddies DELIBERATELY targeted their own children."
That is simply ignorant beyond belief.
Since when are the acts of an accused judged by those of anyone else, whether known or unknown?
And, Good Lord, if we're talking about targeting children, Israel just killed 400 of them. Has any Israeli soldier or general or politician been charged with anything?
This young man was fifteen when he was shot, arrested, and tortured.
And we now have evidence to a certainty that he did not even do what he was accused of.
But even if he had, so what?
America has sent thousands of mercenaries and idealists to various wars over the decades, going back to the Spanish Civil War.
Were they all to be tortured and held indefinitely in prison for their acts?
Moreover, he was a child, one pressed by ideological parents, and the United States and Canada are signatories to international conventions on child soldiers.
Clive G, no wonder you don't sign your name to your opinions. That's pretty well what one expects from the cowardly with savage ideas.
Do the right thing?
And just when in his entire career - except for events in Haiti where he would have appeared a fiend had he not responded - has Mr Harper done the right thing?
The Supreme Court had no choice here, and I think their decision a wise one.
The government has been complicit in denying a boy his rights, and in so doing, they assisted the buzz-cut thugs at Guantanamo in torturing a boy. (I remind readers that this poor boy had been shot, twice in the back, by American soldiers. He was tortured while these ghastly wounds slowly healed.)
The ethical and legal issues are clear here. There are no ambiguities.
But legality and ethics mean little to power-driven, compulsive personality like Harper.
Had the Supreme Court attempted to order a remedy, it would have pitched the country into a constitutional crisis.
They have done what they can in making it as clear as it can be that Harper has denied a Canadian the most basic rights.
That's the kind of man we call our prime minister, a politician who has done more than any other in memory to shame Canada and lower its former fine reputation in the world.
__________________
"Your boy's buddies DELIBERATELY targeted their own children."
That is simply ignorant beyond belief.
Since when are the acts of an accused judged by those of anyone else, whether known or unknown?
And, Good Lord, if we're talking about targeting children, Israel just killed 400 of them. Has any Israeli soldier or general or politician been charged with anything?
This young man was fifteen when he was shot, arrested, and tortured.
And we now have evidence to a certainty that he did not even do what he was accused of.
But even if he had, so what?
America has sent thousands of mercenaries and idealists to various wars over the decades, going back to the Spanish Civil War.
Were they all to be tortured and held indefinitely in prison for their acts?
Moreover, he was a child, one pressed by ideological parents, and the United States and Canada are signatories to international conventions on child soldiers.
Clive G, no wonder you don't sign your name to your opinions. That's pretty well what one expects from the cowardly with savage ideas.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
BRITAIN'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE U.S.
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN THE TELEGRAPH
The UK I always so admired seems largely to have faded to a memory.
What we have today - and have had for the last thirty or so years - is a parody of Great Britain.
No country can operate independently of the US, of course, because it is such a great hulking mass.
But that doesn't mean you have to act as its loyal household servant.
I am sorry, but a loyal household servant is an apt description of contemporary Britain.
That silly phrase "special relationship" is literally a
euphemism attempting to lend dignity to a relationship which has none.
Much of the disgust felt towards Tony Blair is owing to his completely obsequious relationship to a mental defective like George Bush.
Obsequious...and profitable. Blair has all the wealth he, and that ghastly fish wife of his, could ever have dreamed of now, most of it showering on his head from Americans or American-created institutions in gratitude for his service.
And what did Britain get? Dead soldiers, depleted finances, and a bad reputation.
The UK I always so admired seems largely to have faded to a memory.
What we have today - and have had for the last thirty or so years - is a parody of Great Britain.
No country can operate independently of the US, of course, because it is such a great hulking mass.
But that doesn't mean you have to act as its loyal household servant.
I am sorry, but a loyal household servant is an apt description of contemporary Britain.
That silly phrase "special relationship" is literally a
euphemism attempting to lend dignity to a relationship which has none.
Much of the disgust felt towards Tony Blair is owing to his completely obsequious relationship to a mental defective like George Bush.
Obsequious...and profitable. Blair has all the wealth he, and that ghastly fish wife of his, could ever have dreamed of now, most of it showering on his head from Americans or American-created institutions in gratitude for his service.
And what did Britain get? Dead soldiers, depleted finances, and a bad reputation.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON CAMPAIGN FUNDING: AMERICA'S DYSFUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
The American Supreme Court has always, except for a brief few decades during the 20th century, been an institution for freezing progress.
This view of corporate spending as free speech is, in many ways, comparable to the Dred Scott Decision before the Civil War.
Runaway slaves were still someone's property and needed to be returned.
So far as this decision goes, it's back to the political jungle, although, in truth, American politics never quite left it behind since even the spending reform was not that awesome.
Money in America simply overrides democratic process on average.
When America was founded, a privileged local aristocracy ruled. About 1% of people in Virginia could vote (only white males of a certain wealth). The Senate was appointed (till 1913). The President was elected by the Electoral College, an elite of those with money. The “popular” vote – the 1% - did not even matter, the College elites did (they still do, but at least their votes are apportioned).
Well, some of that has changed, but along the way, American politics also has adapted to maintain a political reality not far from that of 1789 in many ways: the way that is done is with money for marketing and advertising and “exposure.” Tons of it.
In economics, with imperfect competition, we know barriers to entry of a market are vital, and barriers include tons of advertising, paying stores “shelf money” to pack the shelves with your line of products, and slightly differentiating your product from someone else’s – all making it near impossible for upstarts.
American national politics, effectively a duopoly between two parties through many rigged local regulations, exploits all of these practices.
Of course, the money also buys “face time” after elections. In any large American state, it is literally impossible to meet a Senator, much less have some time, unless you are a large money-supplier.
The American Supreme Court has always, except for a brief few decades during the 20th century, been an institution for freezing progress.
This view of corporate spending as free speech is, in many ways, comparable to the Dred Scott Decision before the Civil War.
Runaway slaves were still someone's property and needed to be returned.
So far as this decision goes, it's back to the political jungle, although, in truth, American politics never quite left it behind since even the spending reform was not that awesome.
Money in America simply overrides democratic process on average.
When America was founded, a privileged local aristocracy ruled. About 1% of people in Virginia could vote (only white males of a certain wealth). The Senate was appointed (till 1913). The President was elected by the Electoral College, an elite of those with money. The “popular” vote – the 1% - did not even matter, the College elites did (they still do, but at least their votes are apportioned).
Well, some of that has changed, but along the way, American politics also has adapted to maintain a political reality not far from that of 1789 in many ways: the way that is done is with money for marketing and advertising and “exposure.” Tons of it.
In economics, with imperfect competition, we know barriers to entry of a market are vital, and barriers include tons of advertising, paying stores “shelf money” to pack the shelves with your line of products, and slightly differentiating your product from someone else’s – all making it near impossible for upstarts.
American national politics, effectively a duopoly between two parties through many rigged local regulations, exploits all of these practices.
Of course, the money also buys “face time” after elections. In any large American state, it is literally impossible to meet a Senator, much less have some time, unless you are a large money-supplier.
ON A COLUMN COMPARING AMERICA'S LEVEL OF ASSISTANCE TO HAITI WITH CHINA'S - A FOOLISH EXERCISE IN UNTHINKING PROPAGANDA
POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY FRANK CHING IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Frank Ching, this piece represents little thought and no analysis.
A waste of your keyboard time, I'd say.
It's the kind of nonsense one expects to hear from an American Secretary of State blubbering about the behavior of other countries.
China has a per capita income a small fraction of America's despite its new wealth in limited regions.
It has all the immense headaches of looking after 1.3 billion people, many of them still very poor.
Besides, Haiti, as one comment has noted, is America's "backyard."
America has worked for two hundred years in countless ways to keep Haiti at arm's length. It does not want hundreds of thousands of Haitian refugees.
That is the reason for its large assistance, not compassion or caring or anything else. Just power politics.
______________________
Actually, while people seem to be dazzled by the size of American assistance to Haiti, it is not a reaction which could follow from America's overall level of giving.
On a fair comparison basis with the rest of the world, it is simply a fact that America actually comes out rather stingy.
It gives far less than many others, and much of what it does give has nothing to do with helping people.
It gives its largest single assistance to the relatively advanced state of Israel, about $3 billion a year, mostly for military purchases.
It gives another roughly $2 billion to Egypt to keep it friendly towards Israel and prop up the dictator-president of thirty years there.
And so it is down the list.
Also, much of its foreign assistance to other poor countries is just a subtle way of buying votes in the UN and other international institutions.
Relative to its wealth, American foreign assistance is rather paltry.
__________________________
Further, have readers noted that part of America’s “assistance” is a large landing of heavily armed troops? There are ten thousand the last I read, and this was expected to rise to twenty thousand.
Can you imagine, just in terms of displacement of Haiti’s very capacity for landing supplies and distributing them, what a burden this must be?
How many Haitians did without fresh water or food or beds while this massive operation took place?
Ten thousand troops who expect hot pizza and Budweiser and showers each day, to say nothing of ammunition and technical gear?
The intention is clear to anyone who bothers to think about it.
Frank Ching, this piece represents little thought and no analysis.
A waste of your keyboard time, I'd say.
It's the kind of nonsense one expects to hear from an American Secretary of State blubbering about the behavior of other countries.
China has a per capita income a small fraction of America's despite its new wealth in limited regions.
It has all the immense headaches of looking after 1.3 billion people, many of them still very poor.
Besides, Haiti, as one comment has noted, is America's "backyard."
America has worked for two hundred years in countless ways to keep Haiti at arm's length. It does not want hundreds of thousands of Haitian refugees.
That is the reason for its large assistance, not compassion or caring or anything else. Just power politics.
______________________
Actually, while people seem to be dazzled by the size of American assistance to Haiti, it is not a reaction which could follow from America's overall level of giving.
On a fair comparison basis with the rest of the world, it is simply a fact that America actually comes out rather stingy.
It gives far less than many others, and much of what it does give has nothing to do with helping people.
It gives its largest single assistance to the relatively advanced state of Israel, about $3 billion a year, mostly for military purchases.
It gives another roughly $2 billion to Egypt to keep it friendly towards Israel and prop up the dictator-president of thirty years there.
And so it is down the list.
Also, much of its foreign assistance to other poor countries is just a subtle way of buying votes in the UN and other international institutions.
Relative to its wealth, American foreign assistance is rather paltry.
__________________________
Further, have readers noted that part of America’s “assistance” is a large landing of heavily armed troops? There are ten thousand the last I read, and this was expected to rise to twenty thousand.
Can you imagine, just in terms of displacement of Haiti’s very capacity for landing supplies and distributing them, what a burden this must be?
How many Haitians did without fresh water or food or beds while this massive operation took place?
Ten thousand troops who expect hot pizza and Budweiser and showers each day, to say nothing of ammunition and technical gear?
The intention is clear to anyone who bothers to think about it.
ON THE PROSPECTS FOR A DEAL WITH THE TALEBAN
RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN THE NEW YORK TIMES
It's about time.
The Taleban need never have been our enemy, regardless of what we think of their religious behavior.
No Taleban were involved in 9/11.
Saudis were. And they had valid U.S. visas.
The Taleban government would have extradited Osama had the U.S. supplied any genuine evidence of his involvement, but, no, the U.S. refused to supply any, in what is a universal practice for extradition requests.
No, America just had to invade and get some vengeance.
Well, you've had it. Time to go and let these people get on with their lives.
The Northern Alliance guys you put in place are mostly just as backward as the Taleban.
Only long-term economic growth will change Afghanistan, and you don't get that from bombs.
It's about time.
The Taleban need never have been our enemy, regardless of what we think of their religious behavior.
No Taleban were involved in 9/11.
Saudis were. And they had valid U.S. visas.
The Taleban government would have extradited Osama had the U.S. supplied any genuine evidence of his involvement, but, no, the U.S. refused to supply any, in what is a universal practice for extradition requests.
No, America just had to invade and get some vengeance.
Well, you've had it. Time to go and let these people get on with their lives.
The Northern Alliance guys you put in place are mostly just as backward as the Taleban.
Only long-term economic growth will change Afghanistan, and you don't get that from bombs.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
STEPHEN HARPER TWO-FACED? ACTUALLY NOT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HIS HAITI BEHAVIOR VERSUS HIS USUAL
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
I must say it is a bit delusional to draw conclusions about Harper's character from the Haiti disaster.
The fact is, and has always been, the United States works hard to keep Haiti at arm's length from American shores, and there's no compassion or humane sympathies involved.
Now if Stephen Harper is one thing it the most spineless of leaders towards the United States.
He is, by all reckoning, a card-carrying affiliate of the Right Wing of the Republican Party, a Gingrichite with a darker, less expansive personality.
So when he speaks about long term commitments to Haiti, he's just doing what the U.S. State Department expects, just as we're doing what the Pentagon expects in Afghanistan.
In the sense about which Jeffrey Simpson is talking, he actually is not two-faced. He is absolutely consistent.
Harper is very much two-faced in another sense. His is a deeply flawed character, taking no direction from anything other than his desire for power. That means his ethics in all things remain completely flexible, so much so as to be meaningless. His smiles are all deeply phony as are his compassionate words.
We have seen this quality expressed in him countless times now, and his proroguing Parliament to cover up his human-rights failings in Afghanistan is utterly devoid of ethics. The Sponsorship scandal, involving money misused out of patriotic motives, almost looks good compared to Harper’s disgusting ways with human beings.
I must say it is a bit delusional to draw conclusions about Harper's character from the Haiti disaster.
The fact is, and has always been, the United States works hard to keep Haiti at arm's length from American shores, and there's no compassion or humane sympathies involved.
Now if Stephen Harper is one thing it the most spineless of leaders towards the United States.
He is, by all reckoning, a card-carrying affiliate of the Right Wing of the Republican Party, a Gingrichite with a darker, less expansive personality.
So when he speaks about long term commitments to Haiti, he's just doing what the U.S. State Department expects, just as we're doing what the Pentagon expects in Afghanistan.
In the sense about which Jeffrey Simpson is talking, he actually is not two-faced. He is absolutely consistent.
Harper is very much two-faced in another sense. His is a deeply flawed character, taking no direction from anything other than his desire for power. That means his ethics in all things remain completely flexible, so much so as to be meaningless. His smiles are all deeply phony as are his compassionate words.
We have seen this quality expressed in him countless times now, and his proroguing Parliament to cover up his human-rights failings in Afghanistan is utterly devoid of ethics. The Sponsorship scandal, involving money misused out of patriotic motives, almost looks good compared to Harper’s disgusting ways with human beings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)