Keep Looking George

George W. Bush, according to Bob Woodward, complained to his chief of staff, Andy Card, about not being able to find someone reliable to govern in Baghdad. "Where's George Washington?", he asked, "Where's Thomas Jefferson? Where's John Adams, for crying out loud?"

Where indeed? These were men who led a revolution against the occupation of, and government by, a foreign power in their precious homeland.

Now where would you find someone like that in Iraq?

These were men who went to war with the world's greatest military power and, after years of sacrifice and humiliation and with few battlefield victories to their credit, managed to undermine the will of that great superpower to continue in a war that could seemingly last for many, many years with no real victory in sight.

Now where would you find someone like that in Iraq?

These were men with meager resources and limited political and military experience between them. Their numbers were few, but as their revolution gathered momentum their numbers increased. People who had remained undecided, or were just too fearful to add their names into the fight, were soon on the streets and joining the revolution. Youngsters who had witnessed their parent's fear and timidity in the face of the occupation were soon swelling the numbers of those ready to fight for liberation.

Now where would you find someone like that in Iraq?

The military leadership of the occupying forces complained bitterly about the lack of military etiquette displayed by the revolutionaries. They hid behind trees and fired at the marching troops as they passed by, and then ran away to hide. The civilian population aided and abetted these rebels and often times misled the occupiers with false intelligence and subtle sabotage.

Now where would you find someone like that in Iraq?

Mr. Bush bemoans the fact that no single individual has stepped out of the crowd and, with charisma and strength, imposed his authority on the people and government of Iraq. No single man has appeared, who possesses the singular vision that would unite the divided Iraqis and allow the coalition forces to leave that forsaken country.

Now where would you find someone like that in Iraq?




Keep looking George. I have a feeling that the answer is out there somewhere.

Bye Bye To The Best Of Youtube

Piracy is the issue today. What exactly constitutes piracy? Harvard University offers one definition as: the unauthorized duplication of goods protected by intellectual property law (eg copying software unlawfully).

Anyone who has been around computers any time in the last decade knows that file-sharing sites have been sued out of existence by profit hungry conglomerates and penny conscious superstars. Ordinary people have been frightened out of sharing or copying music and motion pictures by the threat of prosecution which could see them imprisoned or fined into oblivion.

But it is our human nature to share. We offer newly discovered delicacies to our friends whenever and wherever we find them. We share news and information freely with our friends...it is our nature. Why then must we be hounded and intimidated into repressing this natural instinct to share interesting things with each other, by money hungry lawyers and corporate interests?

Huge companies are so jealous of their products that they wish to retain ownership beyond the point of purchase. If you download music from some sites, then their music will only play on one of their players. You cannot take music downloaded from their site and put it onto a disc to play on your stereo, or put onto an mp3 player...unless these players are made by the parent company of the original download site. This is all just greedy bullshit.

Take youtube for example. Youtube was, until recently, a fledgling company with limited resources and nothing in the bank. Millions of people all over the globe posted videos of themselves, their friends, and their favorite clips from movies and television. They posted these with no interest in making money and the companies whose programs were being clipped and posted had little objection to this fast-growing and popular practice...in fact it was viewed as good advertising for their products. But, a few weeks ago, Google, the web's mega-giant of a company, bought youtube for 1.6 billion dollars. The pundits in the cyber-press speculated that youtube would soon find itself inundated by lawsuits and suited lawyers all seeking copyright protection for their hard-done-by media clients.

Why did the media companies wait until Google bought this penniless start-up before threatening suit? Guess.

The reason I am leaving my usual subjects of Politics, Religion, and War aside for today is that I am quite upset. As many of you will know I use videos taken from the web and post them to my blog. This is a common and popular practice among bloggers. But today Google has started pulling thousands of video clips from youtube because of threatened lawsuits. Comedy Central, which produces, among other things, South Park and The Daily Show, has had its' lawyers write to youtube declaring that their client's copyrights are being violated. Poor things.

Youtube no money...no lawsuits. Google gobs of money...salivating lawyers and corporate execs lining up to sue.

So I won't be posting any more videos from The Daily Show it seems...they have all been pulled from circulation. This is a crying shame. The thing that made youtube such a fast-growing and popular web phenomenon is fast being killed by corporate greed. So bye-bye youtube. It was nice knowing you.



But it is all about.......

Hey Hey We're The Monkeys!!!

Years ago, when I was a student studying cultural-anthropology and social-psychology, I read a book called The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris. The publisher describes the book thusly:

"A startling view of man, stripped of the facade we try so hard to hide behind." In view of man's awesome creativity and resourcefulness, we may be inclined to regard him as descended from the angels, yet, in his brilliant study, Desmond Morris reminds us that man is relative to the apes--is in fact, the greatest primate of all. With knowledge gleaned from primate ethnology, zoologist Morris examines sex, child-rearing, exploratory habits, fighting, feeding, and much more to establish our surprising bonds to the animal kingdom and add substance to the discussion that has provoked controversy and debate the world over. Natural History Magazine praised The Naked Ape as "stimulating . . . thought-provoking . . . [Morris] has introduced some novel and challenging ideas and speculations."

I came across this amusing video and I was immediately remindid of Morris's wonderful book.

Enjoy.

Dance Monkeys Dance...By Ernest Cline

When Will We Ever Learn?

Yet another Muslim cleric has managed to alienate his community from the greater society in which it prospers. This time the cleric, Sheikh Taj el-Din Al Hilali, referred to women who do not wear the hijab as "uncovered meat".

He was giving a sermon in Sydney, Australia when he made his offensive remarks. Basically he was saying that women who do not cover up, and sway provocatively, were the ones to blame if they get raped.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park and the cats come and eat it whose fault is it? The cats or the uncovered meat?"

So he recommended that women should cover up or stay inside. This defense of rape isn't something new, nor is it necessarily uniquely Muslim. This excuse for rape has been put forward by lawyers, defendants, and even a few judges over the years, and women have fought long and hard campaigning against it. But to have it put forward by a so-called spiritual leader in a sermon is outrageous.

The attitude that women are somehow to blame when they are the victims of sexual assault is completely ludicrous. But it is an attitude that has been around for a very long time and the struggle to expel it still goes on.

The myths that somehow women "ask for it" by dressing sexily, or that when they say "no" they really mean "yes", or that most rapes are committed by sex-crazed strangers, are still widely believed. But they are just that...myths.

For a more information you should visit this website.

Now some people in Australia are saying that this cleric, who has apologized for his remarks, should be deported back to Egypt. I think that the opinions expressed by this cleric are uneducated and harmful, but they are opinions that are expressed everyday by a large number of people, secular and religious, all around the world.

Rape is a violent, criminal act. There may be reasons why men commit this horrendous crime, but there is certainly no excuse. Sheikh Taj el-Din Al Hilali was wrong to make his remarks, of that there is no doubt, and to deliver them as part of a sermon designed to influence and guide his congregation is shocking.

He needs educating...perhaps we all do.

Time For A Change

Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed frequently and for the same reason. --Anonymous

Politics of Fear: Election Time Again

Things don't seem to be going too well for our conquering hero and his political cronies these days. The War in Iraq is, if not lost already, well on it's way to becoming all-out anarchy and civil war. The military alliance with Britain is on the verge of crumbling: A poll released today by the Guardian newspaper in London reveals that 60% of British voters want their troops withdrawn by the end of the year.

An article in the Telegraph, another leading British newspaper, carries comments by the Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett:

The growing pessimism in Whitehall over the prospects for Iraq's future came as the country's deputy prime minister, Barham Salih, urged Britain and the US not to "cut and run".

Mrs Beckett, after talks in London with Mr Salih, accepted that the invasion of Iraq might come to be judged as a "foreign policy disaster" for Britain. Daily Telegraph

The prospect of a fragmented Iraq, with each fragment battling for supremacy and resources with the others, and drawing neighboring countries into the chaos, is looming. The so-called government of Iraq is now in real danger of being forced, sooner rather than later, of actually having to govern.

Meanwhile, on the domestic scene, Bush and Co. are desperately trying to put on a good show for the voters, who will soon be casting their votes in the mid-term elections. Many pundits are predicting that the Democrats may take control of the House of Representatives and, perhaps, even the Senate. This circumstance has come about due to the administration's mis-handling of the Iraq War, the financial corruption of a large number of Republicans, and the lack of integrity and moral fibre exhibited by the Republican leadership with regards to the Foley sex scandal.

So, not one to let an opportunity to inject fear into the political arena, Mr. Bush has been parading around the country with dark predictions of death and disaster for the American people should, God forbid, the Democrats gain power. Fear-mongering has proven to be a vote-getter in the past for the Republicans, and they are not ashamed to use this tried and trusted tool in their desperate attempt to retain control of every section of national government.

Which brings me to today's little video. Again I have chosen Keith Olbermann to illustrate a point.

Olbermann's Comment on GOP Fear Ad

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Herman Goering

The Cost Of Freedom Seems To Be Liberty

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

Today I am posting two short videos that address the recently signed Military Commissions Act 2006 . This law suspends the rule of Habeas Corpus for anyone determined to be an enemy combatant by the president of the United States. The law also allows for the use of torture in the interrogation of detainees, who are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

The first of the two videos is a commentary by Keith Olbermann.

The Military Commissions Act 2006: America Dying In Silence



The second of these two videos is a short animation that illustrates the mentality of those that support this new law.

"Torture" And The New American Values



This is the kind of law that has been championed by despots throughout history. Hitler has his Kristolnacht, Lenin had his counter-revolution, Sulla had civil uprisings, and Bush had 9/11. All used real or imagined threats to implement new laws that would allow them powers never dreamed of in a democracy. But where does it end? What future president will decide that you or I are enemies and must be made to disappear?

Stay tuned.

The Week That Was: At Home and Abroad

This is a picture of Aishah Azmi, the teaching assistant who has recently lost her case for unfair dismisal for refusing to remove her veil while teaching. She now has plans to appeal her case to the European Court, claiming that she has been discriminated against because of her religion.

This has opened a whole new debate in the UK as to where exactly is the line that seperates religion from politics. Ms. Amzi's father was, until recently, a headmaster at the Muslim school attatched to the Markazi mosque in West Yorkshire. This mosque was attended by at least two of the suicide bombers that carried out the 7/7 attacks in London.

This is Islam as a poliltical movement. Islam is a religion that makes no differentiation between the political and religious lives of it's followers. That is why, in Islamic states, the people are governed by Sharia law which is admisistered by clerics.

The issue of debate is how far should religion be tolerated, in a multi-cultural society, when the religion seeks to overturn the laws of the state in order to promote it's own political agenda? Islamic fundamentalists are promoting their political agendas by testing the limits of tolerance and claiming that, whenever they are confronted, they are being persecuted for their faith. This is rich...where is the Islamic society that allows any other religion the freedoms that Muslims enjoy throughout the West? The fact is that, in the West, we are tolerant...perhaps to a fault. But there is a limit..and the debate that is now going on in British politics, and the society in general will, I hope, define it.

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

Meanwhile, in Iraq, the not so tolerant Sunni and Shia militias are continuing their bloody and hate-filled battles and are also keeping their muder squads and suicide bombers very busy indeed. So many people are dying that, since the UN reported that the number of casualties was much higher than official estimates, the government of Mr. Malaki has now sealed all casualty reports.

The recent situation in the city of Amara, since the handover of military authority to the Iraqi forces by the British, illustrates the inability of Mr. Maliki's so-called government to govern anything or anyplace outside the walled-in Green Zone of Baghdad in which it hides. The militias just strolled in to Amara, routed the Iraqi forces (at least the ones who were not already part of the militias), killed hundreds, and took over. The country as a whole is really controlled by the private armies of the clerics and warlords, who are battling amongst themselves for the spoils that they will claim once the allies pull-out (which may sooner rather that later).

Like Vietnam, once the allies begin to leave, the real military and political powers will emerge to claim their booty. The oil fields of Iraq are the prize and, unless the allies are willing to stay and fight for decades, they will eventually become the property of the leaders of the provincial militias.

And these two chaps, whose individual and collective credibilities are at all time lows, are begining to face the fact that they can no longer rely on simply scaring the voters into following their blundering policies. They are both having to contend with generals who are publicly questioning their "strategies" as to not only conducting the war, but winning it. They have both realized that simply saying "stay the course till victory" does not in itself constitute a "strategy". So now the public, and politicians of their own and opposing parties, are begining
to question their competence and leadership. About time..I say.

Space: A New American Policy

The picture on the left is the front page of one of Britain's leading newspapers. The main story, as you can see, is all about the new policy, signed by Mr. Bush recently, in which America asserts its' rights to dominate space.

The article goes on to say:

"The Bush administration has staked an aggressive new claim to dominate space - rejecting any new treaties that seek to limit the United States' extraterrestrial activities and warning that it will oppose any nations that try to get in its way."

"A new policy recently signed by President George Bush, asserts that his country has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for its own national interests."

"The new policy further warns that the US will take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities "and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile" to those interests. The document adds: "Space activities have improved life in the United States and around the world, enhancing security, protecting lives and the environment, speeding information flow serving as an engine for economic growth and revolutionising the way people view their world and the cosmos."

"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power."

There is quite a bit more to the article and I would recommend reading it. The new policy is, in effect, a Monroe Doctrine for the space age. The policy would allow the USA to sabotage or destroy satellites that belong to other nations and which may prove to be military assets. It would also deny access to space to any nation that may be hostile to the political or economic interests of the USA. It would also allow the USA to develop weapons or counter-weapons and to deploy them in space to insure American military supremacy. The policy insures Americas "Superpower" status both on and off the planet.

With modern weaponry and communications being heavily dependent upon satellite technology, the ability of the USA to destroy the technology that other nations have placed in space is essential to American dominance. Also, with at least 40 nations on the planet capable of developing nuclear weapons and missile technology, the USA, in accordance with it's preemptive approach to military action, will view space as a military asset...and one which it has no intention of sharing.

I can only say this: Help us Obi-Wan!!!

United Kingdom:The Melting Pot Simmers

The news in the UK recently seems to have become preoccupied with religion. Not long ago Jack Straw, the former foreign Minister who did a splendid job selling the invasion of Iraq to the public, remarked in a local paper that Muslim women should remove their veils when they visited with him in his surgery (politicians in the UK hold "surgeries" when they visit their constituencies). He said that the veils made him feel uncomfortable. He also said that communication between people is very difficult when you can't read the other persons face.

His remarks set off yet another flurry of protests and a barrage of religious debates. Just when the furor was dying down a Muslim teacher was suspended for refusing to take off her veil while she was teaching. She said she felt uncomfortable in front of her male colleagues and students without her veil, and that the veil was no hindrance to her teaching. But the local education authority disagreed. Then another government official, Phil Woolas, whose brief includes race relations, chucked his two pennies worth into the mix. In an interview with the Sunday Mirror he said:

"She cannot teach a classroom of children wearing a veil. You cannot have a teacher who wears a veil simply because there are men in the room.
"She is denying the right of children to a full education by
insisting that she wears the veil."

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has warned that Muslims may be creating a self-imposed Apartheid. In an interview with Sky News he said:

"We have to give some real thought to making sure society does not develop along parallel lines,"

Meanwhile British Airways has become embroiled in a public outcry for insisting that employees should only wear religious symbols beneath their uniforms. Nadia Eweida, who works for the BA check-in team, was forced to take unpaid leave for refusing to take off her crucifix necklace while on duty. She refused to take it off or cover it up and so she was sent home. Then yet another former Minister, with yet another two cents worth, waded into the battle. Anne Widdicombe, former Home Office Minister, called for all Christians to boycott British Airways.

I am not going to voice an opinion on whether people should or should not be allowed to wear religious symbols at work, and neither will I say anything about how people dress. That is their business.

I don't care.

If a woman wants to hide away behind a veil because she is uncomfortable with men looking at her face, or if another person wants to wear a piece of metal around their neck depicting the painful murder of a human being , that is their business.

I don't care.

If politicians, who spend their lives jumping on and off bandwagons, wish to stir the public into religious frenzy in order to revive failed careers or ignite new ones, that is their business.

I don't care.

These are just the petty squabbles and minor skirmishes that often take place when cultures collide. As any society, made up of many different ethnic and religious groups, evolves, the apparrant differences between these groups will be amplified and eventually resolved. Time is the great healer...I hope.

But these differences can be blown out of all proportion when taken in the context of the greater conflicts that are raging in the world. Religion has divided and troubled the world for the last two thousand years, and it looks to carry on doing so for the foreseeable future..perhaps, if the faithful have their way, till the end of the world.

There is little room available in a cultural melting pot for absolutes...and religion is just such an absolute.

Iraq: A Quick Look At The News

There sure is a lot going on this week concerning the War in Iraq. Every day more and more people are beginning to voice doubts and concerns that were conspicuously absent in the heady days of Nuclear Saddam and his WMD's.

Even the Iraqis themselves seem to have come to a crossroads and have passed a law that will see autonomous regions emerge. This is, in effect, partition, and will do little to lessen the religious and ethnic divisions that are fuelling the current civil war. The natural resources of Iraq, and their distribution, will certainly ignite regional conflicts and will quite likely draw other nations in the region into the fray.

There has been a report, published in a leading British medical journal and disputed by both the American and British governments, that the Iraqi death toll, since the start of the invasion, may be as high as 650,000. This would amount to 2.5 percent of the population. This figure, added to the estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis who have fled the country, would indicate that the war to "liberate" Iraq (population 26 million) has almost decimated it. And, contrary to earlier reports from the White House, the mission has yet to be accomplished.

Yesterday the top British Army Commander, Gen. Richard Dannatt, voiced his opinion that the UK troops were making the situation worse in Iraq and should be pulled out. In an interview with The Daily Mail, a conservative leaning British national newspaper, he said:

"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning."

"I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."

Britain should "get ... out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems", he said.

Meanwhile, in the United States, James Baker, a long-time bureaucrat and prominant Republican, has co-chaired a bipartisan panel to reassess the strategy of the war. In a recent interview he expressed ideas that are not mere echoes of the Bush Administration's constant "stay the course" rhetoric. He has even suggested that the US should engage in talks with countries in the region that George W. Bush has so far refused to talk to, such as Iran and Syria. To quote from an article in the New York Times:

"I believe in talking to your enemies," he said Sunday in an interview on ABC television, noting that he made 15 trips to Damascus while serving Bush's father as secretary of state.

"It's got to be hard-nosed, it's got to be determined," Baker said. "You don't give away anything, but in my view, it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies."

"I think it's fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of 'stay the course' and 'cut and run,'" Baker said

There are very serious and difficult decisions ahead for the Iraqis and their neighbors, and the American and British governments.

1. How can an equitable and acceptable solution to the internal disputes and divisions in Iraq be accomplished?

2.What level of involvement, or non-involvement, by neighboring countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait, Turkey, and Russia will be helpful to the developement of a stable and succesfull Iraq and a more stable Middle East?

3. In the face of increasing violence and political instability, what strategic changes should be made by the United States and Britain in order to secure a long-term stability in the region?

We shall see.

Sam Harris: The View From The End Of The World

Author Sam Harris , whose book The End of Faith, I have recently read and highly recommend, is also the author of a book titled, The View From The End Of The World. The following presentation is a talk, given by the author in Dec 2005 in San Francisco, which outlines his thoughts and observations on the role of religion in the modern world.

I believe that any rational person today must question the belief systems that are bringing our world to the brink of destruction. We must also examine the motives of those that would use their own beliefs to supress, influence, and even control the lives of all the people of the world.

I will not go on about this today. The following audio-only presentation addresses these isuues quite eloquently enough for me. This talk is quite long, about an hour and twenty-two minutes, but don't let that put you off.

Sam Harris: An Audio-Only Lecture.

Mutually Assured Destruction: Who Cares?

I ended yesterday's blog with the idea that if your own destruction is assured as a result of your making a preemptive nuclear strike, then there is no earthly reason to fire the first nuke. This concept, coined during the Cold War, is called M.A.D. It was largely due to the MAD concept that negotiations were entered into between the Cold War antagonists, and treaties concerning the proliferation of nuclear weapons were eventually signed. In fact, the Arms Race ended when Mutually Assured Destruction was achieved.



But today things are a little different. With the USA being quite willing to engage in preemptive strikes in order to topple "unfriendly" governments, and the fact that the Bush administration is unwilling to engage in diplomatic discussions with these same "unfriendly" governments, a clear message has been sent and apparently received. That message is this: If you don't already have nuclear weapons we will invade your country and reduce it to rubble and rebuild it as a "friendly" state. If you don't already have nuclear weapons then you better get your ass in gear and get some. Hence the Iranian, North Korean, Pakistani, Indian, and Israeli scramble to acheive nuclear status and thereby deter any future enemy with the promise of MAD.

But will MAD work in today's world? Would any of these nations make a preemptive strike knowing that they themselves would be totally destroyed as a result? Would any of these nations drag their neighbors and allies into a war that could be the end of humanity itself. Would they risk destroying the environment in such a way that it could no longer sustain life at all?


Hhhmmm...Let me think...

The World Gone MAD...No Secrets Anymore

Well the mad little bugger has gone and done it. Kim Jong-il, the Dear Leader of North Korea, has successfully tested his country's first nuclear weapon. The last people on the planet to hear about it were, according to an article the Daily Telegraph, the North Korean people. But this is not entirely a surprise, it has become almost common practice for governments to withhold information from their own people that they are quite content to share with the rest of the world.

I remember well the book Spycatcher , written by Peter Wright. This book detailed the hunt for moles in the British Secret Service. The story was an old one, and not much of the information was new, but the British government banned publication in the UK. But the book was published in every other country on the planet. It seemed that the government was afraid that the British people were not to be trusted with the information.

There has been some question concerning George W. Bush's inclination to classify reports and studies that do not entirely agree with or support his own administration's perspectives on issues. But to simply classify any disagreement or dissent from the governments official stance is most definitely not democratic or useful. But, in these times of global networks and instant information, only a government like Kim Jong-il's could hope for absolute control over dissemination of news and information.

But, as far as nuclear technology is concerned, the secret is well and truely out.



But, what happens next?

Japan, the only nation on earth, so far, to have been hit with nuclear weapons, is sitting across a very narrow body of water from North Korea, and across a very wide body of water from it's strongest ally the United States. Will Japan amend off it's pacifist Constitution in the face of this new and very real nuclear threat? Will South Korea re-think it's "sunshine" policy of reconciliation and appeasemnt with North Korea, and adopt a more hardline approach? Both of these countries already have the technology and raw materials to reach parity with North Korea in a matter of months.

And what about these guys? Surely they will not be deterred from pursuing their own nuclear ambitions by the foot stamping and verbal recriminations echoing from the UN.

It would seem that a new day has dawned. A nuclear day. With the US, and what is left of her allies, contemplating preemptive strikes, and the possibility of China coming to the aid of her Communist prodigy, the world is indeed becoming a very dangerous place. But there remains one sure deterrent to the seemingly inevitible holocaust:

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)

Evolution Schmevolution

It is Monday, 9 Oct 2006.

The Koreans have tested a nuclear weapon.

The Republicans are pointing fingers and telling tales in order to cover up the cover-up surrounding the Foley scandal.

George W. Bush refuses to be cornered by Congress into actually appointing a director of FEMA who has proven qualifications in Disaster Management.

The Russians are quickly evolving a bizzare form of Totalitarianism that is a hybrid of Capitalism, Gangsterism, and Dick Cheneyism.

Iraq and Afghanistan are the same as ever...killings and dyings increasing every day.

Democracy, as a political system, is still having a hard time taking root in the Middle-East.

Religion, as a theological and political force, is still spinning the world in crazy circles and causing much more trouble than it could ever hope to solve.

So today I am posting a video that addresses, in a humorous way, the conflict between scince and religion. Enjoy.

The Daily Show: Evolution Schmevolution

False Intellegence and the Rush to War: Then and Now

37 years ago I was in Vietnam. I was in the US Army, stationed in a place called Phu Loi. It was 1969, I was 19 years old, and the war was all around me. I was 13 when JFK was killed, 14 when LBJ was elected, and 15 when the first combat troops were sent to Vietnam to wage war. (American troops in Vietnam, sent in by Kennedy in 1962, were considered only as advisers prior to 1965). I was 23 years old when the last American troops limped home without victory.

American casualties by wars' end numbered 58,226 killed or missing in action and 153,303 wounded. Vietnamese casualties numbered between 3 and 5 million, most of those were civilians. The war was said to have lasted for 10,000 days. For many it lasted much longer than that and, for some, it will last forever.

But this blog today isn't about Vietnam. It is about the lies that take us into war. On the 4th of August, 1964, it was reported that the North Vietnamese had fired upon American war ships in international waters. This was seen to be an overt act of war against the United States. A bill called the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed that allowed the president to conduct war without the necessity for Congress to issue a formal declaration. The president was given power beyond the constraints of the Constitution to wage unlimited warfare at his discretion. But all this was done on the strength of misleading information. It was reported in 2005 that the NSA had deliberately distorted intellegence reports passed on to policy makers concerning the Aug 4th incident. American ships were not fired upon that day.

Years later, Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense 1961-68) recalled the incident in his book The Fog of War. The following video, in which McNamara recalls the events, illustrates the lack of intellegence and judgement, and the rush to war.



Almost 40 years later another presentation of false intellegence and yet another demonstration of lack of judgement preceeded another rush to war. This more recent fiasco has also allowed another president to assume more powers than the Constitution allows. Not only is he able to wage war, he can also disregard international laws and treaties, suspend civil liberties of Americans, and incarcerate without charge or trial anyone he wishes...and engage in torture. All this power he has usurped and exploited in order to "defend" Americans.

The administration lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, Iraqi ties with Al Qaeda, and the imminent threat that America faced from Saddam Hussein.




How many children, who are just entering their teens today, will be fighting in Iraq, or somewhere else that the president determines poses an imminent threat, in five or ten years time? Are we in for another 10,000 day war...or perhaps even longer?

Why does Congress find it so easy to roll over and allow presidents to assume, and keep, power that they should never be allowed?

As Bob Dylan one said: The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.

Real Progress: Condi Style

Well I am sure that we are happy to see the former National Security Advisor, who refused to believe that Al Qaeda posed any real threat to the USA (before 9/11) , is back in the news.

As you will all know she is the current Secretary of State, having replaced Colin Powell, and she is on a whirlwind tour of the Middle East. She has been visiting with our allies and generally talking up the American efforts at building peaceful and successful democracies in their region. Not that we actually have any allies, apart from Israel, that would classify as democracies, successful or otherwise. But she has been doing her best.



She has just been visiting with our democratic allies the Iraqis, and she is happy to report that there has been great progress made despite the efforts of the insurgents, and the worldwide media, to paint anything other that a rosy picture. She says she has great confidence in Mr. Malaki, and has urged him to hurry up and settle the political differences in the government so that they might turn their full attention towards crushing the insurgency. Of course it doesn't help matters when most of the insugency is being financed and run by large portions of that same government...but hey...it's early days.

To take a quote from a New York Times article:

“What the American people see on their television screens is the struggle,” she said. “It is harder to show the political process that is going on at local levels, at provincial levels and indeed at the national level.” Iraqis, she said, are “making progress.”

This Condi quote above was made on 5 Oct, 2006. We believe her...don't we?


The following video was recorded in the summer of 2005.






That's progress for you!!

Daily Show Humor, FOX Fairly Unbalanced

Today I would just like to present two videos that approach the Foley scandal from two very different perspectives. First, I would like to present The Daily Show's take on the issue.





Secondly I would like to present the Fox News approach. Please note that Fox News has "accidently" presented Foley as a Democrat from Florida. Accidents will happen I suppose, even to a network that is as Fair and Balanced as FOX! Yeah Right.

Republicans: Seduced by Power

There are creepy goings-on in the darkened corridors of America's capitol. This city, where temptation lies around every corner, is used to the telling of lies, the peddling of influence, and the robust pursuit of money and power at the expense of honor and integrity. But now new depths of depravity have been plumbed, even for this most corrupting of cities.

Power, the most effective of aphrodisiacs, has long been used by the unscrupulous to prey upon the naive. But this is not new to Washington, a city quite used to sexual scandal. But now children
are not safe from the advances of sexual predators even in the hallowed halls of freedom.

Mark Foley, the congressman from Florida, has been exposed as one such predator. But even now that he has been driven out of Washington, he is scheming to avoid the consequences of his deplorable actions. He has checked himself into a rehab facility, according to his lawyer, and is undergoing treatment for behavior disorders brought about by alcoholism. Also, according to his lawyer, Mr. Foley has declared that he himself was molested as a teenager by a member of the clergy. In other words...Mr Foley is a victim and we should pity him rather than punish him. I believe that he is setting up a defense of the indefensible. He is setting up the spin in order to escape justice.

Elsewhere the few who knew about Foley's despicable behavior are scrambling to defend their own actions and inactions over the matter. Who knew what, and when did they know it, and what did they do about it? These are the questions that are being asked of the few who admit to knowledge of the crime. But it would appear that, in all the time they knew, they were more concerned with maintaining power than with the welfare of the children entrusted to them by families from all across America. The Republican party leadership has been involved in cover-ups before, mostly about influence peddling and monetary misdealings, but nothing as insidious as this. They seem to have fallen so far under the seductive influence of power themselves that they were willing to allow this level of corruption to win out over their duty of care to the children of America. So much for the self-proclaimed protectors of morality and freedom.

Republican Values

The Republican Party, apart from rubber-stamping every attack that Dubya has made on the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court, has shown itself to be a party that is corrupted, hypocritical, devious, racist, power-mad, greedy, and blind.



Over the last few years there have been the usual financial scandals. The ENRON collapse revealed the close ties between George W. Bush and "Kenny Boy" Lay. The Jack Abramoff/Republican connection has seen a few members of Congress under indictment and Abramoff himself on his way to jail. There is also ample evidence that Abramoff, the Republican Party Bagman, had very close ties to Karl Rove, a key Bush/Republican advisor. The Cheney/Haliburton connection is well documented and billions have been made by many of the Republican Party's largest financial contributors.



Now there is the Foley scandal, and the apparent attempted cover-up that followed, that has the insidious Republicans on the spin-to-win wagon. Who knew what, when did they know, and what did they do about it? It seems that the Republican leadership was more concerned with their own asses than they were about the children that fetch and carry for these powerful men. The children, all juniors in high-school, are pages, a feudal concept, that serve the congress. It seems that Foley, a Florida Republican, has been courting some of these young boys over the internet. He has resigned since he was exposed (no pun intended). He was also the Republican Party's leading voice in the "protecting our children" crusade.

The following video illustrates the hypocracy of this creep, and also the way that FOX news, a Republican Party propaganda tool, allows it's pundits to demonise the Democrats.



Why does America not see through these assholes?

Thank You NeoCon Men