The rain in Spain falls mainly on the ...?

Let's not generalize and call it an American thing. Maybe it's a Republican thing. Let's be even more specific, it must be a presidential candidate for the Republican party thing, as the lack of understanding of the world outside US borders does seem to be a recurrent theme. In a scene reminiscent of good ol' Dubya while running for president, John 'McBush' McCain didn't seem to know who the president of Spain was yesterday while being interviewed by a Florida affiliate of Spanish radio network Union Radio. When asked whether he would invite Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House if he won in November, McBush replied: "All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region." You know, he's not sure if Spain is a friend or not, let alone where Spain is located.



Of course McBush's handlers jumped to his defence, with his foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann claiming McBush's refusal to confirm that he'd meet with Zapatero was deliberate, lumping Zapatero together with 'radical' South American leftist leaders such as Chavez and Morales. Listen to the whole interview though, the interviewer tries to clarify McBush's statement many times. When she finally realizes the poor man is lost after the above quote she goes as far as saying: "I'm talking about the president of Spain". Really, it's lose-lose for the McBush spin camp. Either he confused where Spain was or who Zapatero was, or he feels that the friendship between Spain and the US is on a par with such countries as Venezuela and Bolivia, who have of course just recently expelled their respective American ambassadors. Maybe we should scratch the surface a little more to reveal another possible truth: The Bush doctrine will be continued if we see 4 more years of McBush. Four more years of "with us or against us". You see one of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's campaign promises in the Spanish presidential election was to pull Spanish forces out of Iraq, something he did upon entering office in 2004. Since that time, the relationship between the two countries has cooled considerably as Bush punishes a country and its leader for doing what the majority of the people wanted. But wait a minute, the man formerly known as McCain said back in an April interview that as president he would seek to repair relations with Spain. Now, I'm really confused, who is McBush and what does he believe?

Let's wind this up then with some sad geography facts. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, one-third of young Americans recently polled couldn’t locate Louisiana on a map and nearly half were unable to identify Mississippi. Step outside the US, and it gets worse as early in the illegal Iraq invasion, in 2002, one in seven, about 13%, of Americans between the age of 18 and 24, the prime age for military service, could find Iraq, while 17% could find Afghanistan. Four years of war later, with the accompanying TV coverage to 'educate' the masses, and 63% could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East, and 75% could not point out Iran or Israel. 44% couldn't find any one of those four countries. It's the attitude toward knowledge of the outside world that's most astounding as fewer than 30% thought it important to know the locations of countries in the news and just 14% believe speaking another language is a necessary skill. I guess it must be nice to live in a glass cage, you get what you deserve, go on, vote McBush for four more years of ignorance.

The Gambler

I've been trying to avoid putting in my 2 cents on the Sarah Palin VP choice by McBush, just reading and trying to digest who she is, after all the VP choice really doesn't mean much. Thing is, you look at liberal news, and you get the typical tripe, even going as far as the DailyKos story of her last pregnancy being a ruse to cover for her teenage daughter's pregnancy. Reading the other press, it's a constant stream of McCain's big gamble and I keep hearing that Kenny Rogers' over and over in my head, you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold'em..., singing the praises of the return of the Maverick McCain.

Being Vice-President actually makes you President of the United States Senate, and next in line in case the president kicks it and remember that McBush turned 72 the other day. Bearing in mind the random crap shoot that is the presidential election, here's my top 10 reasons to be physically sick about the Sarah Palin choice and how she'll help defeat Obama.

1. She's a hockey mom. This means something in possible swing states like Minnesota, Colorado, Ohio and Pennsylvania
   
2. She's pro-life. That whole "carried her child to term despite the knowledge that it would probably have Down Syndrome" thing really stirs up the fanatic Christian vote.
   
3. She will win over disaffected Clinton supporters. Those that wouldn't vote for anyone just because their candidate lost, now will be tempted to vote Republican, what's the difference, at least she's a woman!?
   
4. She was a TV sportscaster and a former beauty queen. How much more apple pie can you get?
   
5. Some people consider her a MILF, making her ideal to deal with terrorist organziations such as MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front)
   
6. Cindy McCain likes her because she has foreign diplomatic experience, honest. She's the governor of Alaska, the closest state to Russia, so she'll know how to deal with that threat!
   
   
7. She's a gun loving huntress. This is important because people feel more comfortable knowing that there's continuity, in this case a VP who's liable to shoot someone in the face.
   
8. She doesn't believe that global warming is caused by human activities unlike her running-mate, this calms some conservative fears about putting an environmentalist like McBush in the White House.
   
9. She just got a passport last year. Fewer than 1 in 6 Americans have one, she only got hers to visit the troops in Germany, so never fear, she's still as isolated as the rest of the electorate.
10. Oil, oil, oil. She'll drill and fight big oil at the same time! McBush actually opposes opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development, which sounds a little whacko-enviro to some conservatives. Enter Palin who supports drilling anywhere, oh yeah, and she hates polar bears.

One Nation, Three Votes

What do you say we forget this whole thing and get a beer?

When I suggested in May that a new process be used to select the Democratic nominee, the Clinton camp ignored me and in the end paid the price, losing to Obama. Now that the presidential campaign is in full swing it's hard to watch the coverage without asking yourself the question, "what the hell is it all for?" Events masquerading as 'town hall' meetings such as the Saddleback forum are created in thinly veiled attempts to woo the religious right, polls are conducted seemingly every few minutes, candidates criss-cross the country to speak at various events and fundraisers, all costing millions of dollars and wasting valuable time. And wait, the worst is yet to come, the party conventions, with the Democrats up first in Denver starting on Monday and the Republicans the following week in Minnesota. Before the accompanying blanket media coverage, I figured it's time to let everybody in on a secret, not that well kept mind you... it's all a giant waste of time, come November 4th, the results of the election will be determined by 3 voters.

That's right, in 2000, 9 people decided who it would be, this time, Emily in Nevada, Olivia in New Hampshire and William (Billy to his friends) in Virginia will decide who's going to be the next president of the United States. In case you missed it, the president of the US is determined by what's known as the electoral college. In this arcane system, the winner is determined by whoever manages to receive the most electoral votes. Each state is allocated a number of votes more or less based on its population, California the most with 55 and little states like the Dakotas, 3 each. If you receive the majority of votes in, say, Oregon, you get all 7 of Oregon's votes, making the votes of all those who voted for another candidate completely irrelevant in the final count (*see below). This is done on a state-by-state basis, and the winner is determined by who gets the most electoral votes. As has happened in the past it is quite possible for the winner of the election to actually receive less votes than the loser (in fact it's happened 4 times: 1824, 1876 and 1888 and of course 2000). Now, the fact is a majority of voters in the US are either Republicans or Democrats and it wouldn't matter if Krusty the Clown was their party's candidate, that's who they will vote for. Additionally, most states tend to be either Republican or Democrat states, for example California will be Democrat and Oklahoma will vote Republican. Of course these preferences change over time, slowly, but why are we wasting so much energy on this when we already know most of the results?

With 538 electoral college votes up for grabs, a candidate has to secure 270 to become the next president of the USA. Of those, 174 electoral votes are locked up for the Republicans (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming), while 207 are virtually assured to vote Democrat (California, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin). For all practical purposes, these states don't matter, don't waste your time thinking about them, there are only 12 competitive states which can influence the result one way or the other.

We've got 157 electoral votes left, of which Obama needs 63 and McBush 96 for victory. Minnesota has gone Democrat the last 8 elections so I'm gonna give Minnesota to the Democrats, using the same logic, North Carolina goes Republican having voted that way the last 7 times. Colorado and Ohio have both gone Republican the last couple of elections and McBush leads them both, so Republican for both. Obama is polling ahead by 5 points in Pennsylvania, more in Michigan and they've both gone Democrat the last 4 elections, while in Florida, McBush leads, done, done and done. While we're at it, let's give New Mexico to Barack.

Leaving us with only three states to decide the election, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia. Now, assuming the polls are correct (yes, I know, a very large assumption), these states are all practical dead heats, which I will take the liberty to extrapolate until election day, meaning we have a draw in all three of these states moments before the close of the polls. Enter Emily, Olivia and William, and with them, the fate of a nation.

So, here's my proposal, let's skip the conventions (PLEASE!), air some old re-runs of the Dukes of Hazard instead of the TV debates, dedicate the news coverage to news, really, just focus our energy on improving the world instead of this silly election. If we'd have adopted my plan for the primaries combined with this new approach, billions of dollars (over a billion for the campaigns, maybe $100 million for the conventions, then there's the cost of holding elections!) could have and would be saved. If you look at the environmental angle, think of all the flyers, posters and confetti that have been and will be printed, hung and tossed. Obama announced his VP choice with a text, why don't we just call up Emily, Olivia and William and ask them what they think and be done with it?

(*)Maine and Nebraska allocate two electoral votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. Note that since these rules were adapted, neither state has ever split their electoral votes.

Still Cheering Dubya!?

"Are those the American fighters finally here to protect us?"
Georgian President Saakashvili takes cover in Gori

Can you name the capital city with an avenue named after George W. Bush, and where they still gather in their Freedom Square to cheer his name although his and his country's policies led directly to their recent humiliation? Of course we can only be talking about Tblisi, the Georgian capital, a city I visited a few years back and swore to one day return. While they have beautiful mountains, girls and great wine, they have been the victim of the one of the greatest political miscalculations since Neville Chamberlain's back in 1938 (OK, maybe more like Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait).

So why did Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili decide to attack (not the right word when it is your territory) South Ossetia last week? Surely they knew the Russians far out-gunned them and wouldn't stand idly by as Georgian tanks rolled into Tskhinvali. Some say timing, with the world's focus on Beijing, maybe the Russians wouldn't notice. Some say they were provoked, the stakes were being upped by the Russians and they had tanks rolling south, it was now or never. More likely was the thought that statements such as these would lead to an actual American response:
Dubya - The Russian invasion of Georgia is "disproportionate and unacceptable"
Cheney - The Russian invasion "will not go unanswered"

Dubya - Great powers don't go about "toppling governments in the 21st century"

Many observers have been trying to draw a parallel between the Nazi invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938 and the current crisis. Sure there are similarities, but the fact is that we now live in 2008, a completely different world where just recently it was an accepted fact that the great powers should show restraint in dealing with other nations. Where the strong don't impose their will on the weak and where it was the world's responsibility to protect those weaker nations. And finally, as Dubya said, great powers don't go about "toppling governments in the 21st century". Alas, this is 2008, not 2003 and countries such as Georgia who have chosen to throw their lot in with the US (see NATO aspirations, 2000 troops in Iraq), must now pay part of the price for being part of the "New World Order". Condoleezza Rice visited Georgia just last month and although she claims to have privately warned Georgia not to use force against Russia in a war they couldn't win, the outward signs from the States cried out for war. Advisers sent to build up the Georgian military; excercises last month with 1,000 US troops; pushing hard for NATO ascension; loudly supporting Georgia's territorial dispute over Russian claims of the separatist enclaves.

The result of the Georgian gamble in South Ossetia is becoming clear. Russia is in a position to dictate the terms of peace, and they don't look good for Georgia (or the EU and the west for that matter). Outlining his terms, Putvedev referred to the Georgian president as a lunatic: "The difference between lunatics and other people is that when they smell blood it is very difficult to stop them," Medvedev said. "So you have to use surgery." The Russians are demanding a legally binding agreement in which the Georgians renounce the use of force in dealing with the two breakaway pro-Russian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and that Georgian forces withdraw entirely from the regions and no longer form part of the joint "peacekeeping" contingents there. In addition, they are insisting that the two regions be allowed to vote on whether they want to join Russia, a poll that would definitely result in a yes, prefiguring a possible annexation. Georgia has been part of the peacekeeping force in South Ossetia for 15 years, but the Russians are adamant that they not return. "They shot their brother Russian peacekeepers, then they finished them off with bayonets, so we are not going to see them there any more," said Dmitri Rogozin, ambassador to NATO in Brussels.

So, the end result of the Georgian foray will be the loss of 20% of their land as both Abhkazia and South Ossetia fall deeper into the control of Russian forces and eventually have the added credibility of a referendum. Maybe the west will begin to realize that they have poked the Russian bear one too many times with a stick, (Kosovo, Ukraine, missiles in Poland...). Maybe the world will recognize that the past 5 years has seen the complete neutering of any authority the UN had (ie. the Iraq invasion sin security council consent, Kosovo declaring independence sin UN blessing), and will try to rebuild its legitimacy. As usual, the results will probably less obvious. In retaliation for Israel selling arms to Georgia (yes, $300 million worth), the Russians will sell more to Syria and Iran. The US presidential race is slightly influenced as both candidates spew rhetoric about what should be done. Remember McBush's top foreign policy advisor Randall Scheunemann lobbied for Georgia for four years, earning his firm $900,000 in payments from that nation. Or maybe the Russians will take advantage of this and move into Georgia for real, as it is reported they may be doing now. Stalin's statue in the centre of Gori could be under Russian control again sooner than we think.

And the non-loser is...

Sitting over a couple of beers a few months ago, conversation turned to the US presidential election. Being in a bar in Poland, I was the only North American represented in the discussion and the only one to predict a John McBush victory. My European friends all shared the same viewpoint; the US was ready for change, in need of change and the populace would make the sane decision and vote for Barrack Obama come November. What they didn't, and most people don´t realize is that the winner won't be the man who wins, but the one who doesn't lose.

Flashback to 2004, the electorate is forced to choose between two men; John Kerry, Massachusetts senator, and George W. Bush, the incumbent. The signs are obvious, change is necessary. The war in Iraq is at a low point, John Kerry is a Vietnam war hero, Bush a draft dodger; Kerry is an intellectual, Bush is a ...well, insert your own adjective here. Enter Karl Rove, political master of the black arts. It's the terror, stupid instead of the economy, or the war as he helped Dubya ride a patriotic wave to re-election in 2004. The focus of the campaign was Kerry's flip-flop on a war funding bill and "moral values", two ripe targets for the Christian heartland. Enter the attack on Kerry's service in Vietnam (the infamous swift boat issue) and the gay marriage amendment appearing on the ballot in 11 states.

Fast forward to 2008 and the latest news is the attack style adds of the McBush camp. Why the sudden change from the straight talk express? This year evil once again has a name and it's Steve Schmidt, Rove's protege, who cut his teeth running the 2004 Republican war room and guiding the re-election campaign of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schmidt was brought in last month to jumpstart the ailing McBush effort. Therefore the latest spat over negative ads really comes as no surprise, victory can only be had by bringing down the man known as "THE ONE" in the McBush camp. Obama will be attacked mercilessly from here on in.


McBush goaded Obama into visiting Iraq, so when Obama went one better and his World Tour '08 made him look like a rock star, enter the Spears/Hilton comparisons. I guess it was hoped by the Republicans he'd make a big mistake, he didn't, so now we hear some manufactured story about not visiting wounded soldiers. Obama's popular in Europe, so I'm sure American TV (read Fox News) will be filled with anti-Europe tirades. Don't forget that Obama's half-black, the race card will be played. That middle name thing will be interesting too, Hussein isn't all that popular in the heartland.

Come October, if nothing else is dug up by then, there will be the replay of the Reverend Wright story, over, and over and over again until TV viewers across the land are convinced that he and Obama are one and the same. If all else fails my friends, power being so addictive that the Republicans won't let it go, there will be a "terrorist" attack. I know, I know, now I've definitely crossed the line into conspiracy theories, but it's one bet I'm willing to make, anything to ensure this:


Remember that the US is not a true democracy. It uses the electoral college and just influencing a few voters to vote one way (or not to vote at all) in a few key states is all that is needed for victory. More on that in a later post...

Oh yeah, that war

It's not just opium that's growing...

The US, UK and it's NATO allies have been conducting a war in Afghanistan for getting on seven years now. The stated intentions were to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power. In this world of "internet time" and instant gratification, it feels like this war is moving in quicksand, or worse yet, maybe in reverse. The first two goals are probably further away from being accomplished than 2001, with Osama harder to find than Waldo and al-Qaeda stronger than ever. It did feel like the third goal was accomplished for good since Dec. 9, 2001 when the Taliban reportedly lost their final territory, but the last year or so has seen a resurgence in their power.

So, what's gone wrong? Well, in a nutshell, the US was too busy in Iraq and the rest of the world was too busy being pissed off with the US to realize how desperate the situation was becoming. I guess they forgot that this is Afghanistan, a country that hasn't been kind to foreign imperialism for a good 2500 years since Darius the Great extended his influence over the region. Ok, maybe the US could be forgiven for forgetting this, but the British? The first Anglo-Afghan war (they've had a few now) from 1838 to 1842 was a disaster for them with the low-light coming in the form of a massacre of about 16,000 retreating British military personnel and civilians. And really, the Americans should remember that it was them who helped supply Mujahidin fighters in their struggle that saw the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan. The list of military debacles within it's borders is truly impressive, but the binding factor that binds them together is the intense tribalism that is constantly pushing the country apart.

No, it's not going to change. The same forces that have been driving Afghanistan up the failed state charts the past few years (8th in 2007, up from 10th in 2006 and 11th in 2005) will be around a lot longer than the NATO troops. The latest call for help is from a German NATO general who said that 6,000 additional troops are urgently required to control the situation. The funny part is that without these troops, he claimed the war would be prolonged. This follows the similar request for more troops from the outgoing commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) Gen Dan McNeill as he passed the baton to another American, Gen David McKiernan. The "success" of the surge in Iraq has led them to believe that more troops will help restore order in Afghanistan. The Soviets couldn't do it with 150,000 troops, today the Afghan army has about 58,000 and the ISAF number about 52,000, so even with 50,000 more soldiers on the ground they are doomed to failure just as the Russians almost 30 years ago.

Recent events only highlight the inability to bring the country under control. In Kandahar, home to the second largest air force base in the country, a prison break was orchestrated that freed over a thousand prisoners, with maybe 400 of them being Taliban fighters. Cross border fighting into Pakistan, with US air strikes killing Pakistani soldiers adds another dimension. The resurgence of the neo-Taliban threat is real as the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims are won over to the extremist elements, pushed by the ever growing war on terror. McBush claimed he'd stay in Iraq for 100 years, no when seems to notice they'll have to be in Afghanistan even longer.

When First We Practice To Deceive - Lies Part 2

Everything has to be paid for though in the end. Or does it? If there were only something that could keep investors interested in buying dollars... Of course it's oil, having replaced gold and completed the transition of the dollar, a fiat currency, into a quasi-backed currency. Of course you need people to trust that this will continue and that dollars will always be needed. Thus the boom and bust cycle of the past century, with the battle for oil at it's centre and war as it's engine.

Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control continents; who controls money can control the world - Henry Kissinger

Gallipoli was an early British loss in WWI trying to secure access to the oil fields of Baku (1/5 of the world supply at the time). I know that most textbooks claim that war was ignited by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, but in reality it was due to British fear of a German Berlin to Baghdad railway giving them land access to the oil of the region. Things haven't changed much for the past 100 years of the reign of oil as the lies leading up to the Iraq invasion have been exposed, the objective clear. Things aren't looking so good for the plan as the price per barrel of crude rockets to weekly new highs with talk of 'peak oil' which could cause a greater disaster than war; people getting out of their car...

The British may have deviously beat the rest to most of the Arabian peninsula after WWI, but it was America that grabbed the then unknown gem of the region, Saudi Arabia. The Brits, and by default much of the world they controlled, also put themselves immensely into debt with Wall Street to pay for the war. JP Morgan and the rest got rich on the spoils, with onerous demands on not only the vanquished Germans, helping ensure WWII, but the Brits too. While the British managed to maintain control over much of the Middle East until the next war could be fought, such conglomerates as Royal Dutch Shell and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company that became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and is now British Petroleum(BP) rose to power. Of course WWII had many causes, but not the least of which was the oil embargo imposed by the US on Japan, at the time it was reliant on the Americans for 80% of their oil. The end of the war brought us the Bretton Woods accords which sealed American hegemony for the next 30 years by linking the U$ to gold, and creating the IMF, World Bank and "managed" free trade through GATT. At the time the US held most of the world's gold reserves, so all was good with big business on Wall Street. The Marshall Plan to rebuild western Europe also gave a huge boost to the oil companies as it ensured growing demand for crude.

The American relationship with Saudi Arabia has proven crucial ever since the government of Ibn Saud was recognized by the US in 1931. Standard Oil began searching for oil in the 30's and by 1938, the Arabian American Oil Company, later to become Aramco, first struck the black gold in commercial quantities. The relationship has had a long and winding path, but both countries have played each other for their own interests; the Saudi's needing protection, and the American's needing cheap oil. Thanks to Bretton Woods, the dollar was as good as gold, and people bought it for almost 30 years. Predictably however, America printed more dollars than there was gold to back it, which worked until the French and a few others began demanding the US pay back gold for dollars it brought to the US Treasury. Of course they couldn't pay and on August 15th, 1971 Nixon ended the repayment of gold, in essence declaring insolvency. Needing to do something, the US along with money managers struck a deal with OPEC, of which Saudi Arabia was a founding member, to exclusively price oil in US dollars in return for American guarantees to protect the kingdoms of the Persian Gulf against the threat of invasion or domestic coup. At the same time, the price of oil was allowed to increase from about $3.50 to $39.50 so the oil producing nations could buy American debt. source - The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets (Cornell Studies in Political Economy)

Like kids in a candy store the US government had been on a spending spree, particularly under LBJ. Claiming that America could afford both guns and butter, he escalated the war in South-East Asia and launched the Great Society movement. By 1979, gold had skyrocketed to over $800/ounce and interest rates reached 21% to fight inflation. The only way to safeguard dollar hegemony is military threat, and the 80's brought us rapid growth in military spending under Reagan. The petrodollar-recycling system allows the Federal Reserve to effortlessly expand global credit to enforce US financial control and continue massive debt-financing to pay for US military control. If petrodollar-recycling begins to break down, then financial and military control will also begin to decline. When Saddam Hussein began demanding payment for oil in euros in 2000, the US had him removed. To pay for it, the US simply has to print more money, which can continue as long as people are willing to buy dollars, which is why the fashionable lie of the past few weeks is that the US is committed to a strong dollar and will fight inflation. As long as people buy it, the cycle will be allowed to continue, and, if McBush is elected in the fall, US troops can take out the next threat, Tehran. But will it stop there, the axis of oil includes Iran, Venezuela and Russia. Could Caracas be next, or how about Moscow? When great powers begin to decline, they almost invevitably resort to war and beligerency, thereby accelerating their demise. Source - The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000

Of course oil politics has had it's obvious fallout. The radical Islamic movement was born out of resentment of American influence in the Middle and Near East, while at the same time returning immense financial benefits to big business. However, these benefits have also given rise to a thirst for ever greater returns, greed. We are witnessing what can only be called a commodity shock as oil and other resources, most importantly the food we eat, are seeing prices rise out of control and the main culprit is price speculation. As the G8 meeting wrapped up in Osaka yesterday, news of an Italian plan for regulation of this market leaked out. Of course the US and British opposed it as this would be seen as putting constraints on the free market system, the main pillar that globalization is built on. Sounds like part III of lies will have to wait until the next post.

What A Tangled Web We Weave - Lies Part I

They stand in front of the cameras and microphones with crooked smiles plastered to their faces as they tell the people what it's thought they want to hear. No, the sky isn't falling, yes, there will be a better tomorrow. The past 30 years or so has brought with it a new world order, one that promises a better future for everyone, but the reality is in sharp contrast. The facts seem to tell me that not only is the sky falling, the earth is also about to open up and swallow us, due in no small part to the fact that people seem to accept the lies that they are told. I don't have the slightest idea why we seem to keep buying the lies, but I do know that now that Hillary is out of the picture, the real campaign for the presidency will start in earnest, which will bring with it a whole new level of BS.

Let's start with the economy stupid. The biggest lie, and the one that is almost universally accepted, is that the Republicans and their candidate represent fiscal responsibility, an idea somehow pulled from their "belief" in small government. Or maybe it's still belief in Alan Greenspan who had to be pulled out of the closet to get the public ready for increasing interest rates during an "economic slowdown". Stagflation fears. The "spiral" in prices feared needs to come as we've, America in particular, spent ourselves too far into debt. Us, as individuals, and them as the government can't continue the borrow and spend ways of the past century or so. The red ink has been picking up pace since the 80's when Reagan spent the reds into the ground. But he also pumped up the monster that is the military complex to unsustainable levels while ordering the people to spend as recklessly to keep the economy ticking. The man who invented "Reagonomics", David Stockman, has been indicted for stealing people's money, but that is what the American government, most pronouncedly during Republican reigns, has done. Stockman later repented, decrying the policies he helped create, but we'll get more of the same if McBush gets elected.

The past 3 decades have brought us so much. Taxes on the rich have fallen, while taxes on the rest have risen with predictable results. Measured in 2005 dollars the net worth of the top 2% of American families more than doubled from just over $1 million to over $2 million from 1984 to 2005 while the bottom quarter saw their worth actually fall. In fact, the poorest 10% have a negative net worth. The US national debt has increased from $930 billion in 1980 to $9.5 trillion today. Consumer credit in the US has risen to over $2.5 trillion, adding around $10 billion a month. All for what? A better life? A new TV, or better yet, a new God Car. The neo-cons have completed their transformation of McCain into McBush and he is now a die-hard tax cutter for the rich, doling out the odd stimulus cheques so we can at least go to the mall once a month. Leaving the rest of us to work more to pay for the extravagances. The phenomenon isn't confined the the US, Europe is in similar straits, and the powers that be have decided that people simply have to work more, and have therefore raised the maximum number of working hours to 65 from 48. Of course, this only matters if you're lucky enough to have a job. Well, you need enough money to put gas in the car and food on the table. Oh yeah, those costs are rising too ... which brings us to part 2 of lies tomorrow.

League of Democracies, Us vs Them

Picture it. John "McBush" McCain and Nicolas Sarkozy standing side by side. Except instead of wearing normal suits and ties, they're wearing superhero suits. I picture Super Sarkozy as Superman and McBush as Ironman. (Sorry Prime Minister Brown, I don't think you'll be around long enough to try on the tights) Yes, it's the new and improved Justice League, but this time it's called the League of Democracies. I have to admit, I missed it the first time and second time around. Apparently John "McBush, McWar" McCain gave a foreign policy speech a little over a year ago and yet again a couple months ago in which he advocated the establishment of a new League of Democracies. So what is it you may ask? Well, you take the countries who you like, you bring them all together, slap a name on it, something with democracy in it, and use it to forward your foreign policy goals. The first two questions that popped into my head were why would we need it and who would be included, let's take a look shall we.

The obvious answer to the why question is the necessity the McBush campaign feels to distance themselves from the disastrous foreign policy followed for the last eight years by George W Bush. The dangerous mix of the "war on terror" and the "global freedom agenda" has been an utter failure, leaving the world a more dangerous place than ever and the image of America in ruins and even Joe Voter is beginning to understand this. So, combining the attack of Obama's diplomacy strategy with the idea of a new "modern" UN to cope with global problems, Joe Voter sees new hope, all without having to talk to the enemy. A few excerpts from McWar's speech of over a year ago, a speech in which he quoted Hamilton, Truman, Madison, T. Roosevelt and Reagan!:
"...our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom, knowledge and resources necessary to succeed. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we must work to persuade our democratic friends and allies that we are right."
"like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace. The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment... It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval."
All sounds pretty good, except for the fact that we already have a world body called the United Nations that's supposed to do all that. Looking past it's obvious flaws (hello security council veto power) wouldn't it make more sense to try to improve the model we already have, one that includes all nations, instead of excluding a whole group of nations from the process. Wouldn't this new league inevitably lead to the formation of an international counterweight, perhaps a real life axis of evil...?

Which brings me to question number 2, who would be part of this new league? I wonder how they would decide on membership. Do you think there would be a slumber party at the White House and McBush, Sarkozy, Merkel et al. would stay up all night talking about boys, I mean other countries, which ones would be just right? If we take the number of countries that McBush threw out there of 100, how would we decide which 100 nations are democratic enough to join? Maybe they'd draw up a chart similar to say the one use by the Economist in their democracy index, or maybe the freedom of the world scores compiled by Freedom House. Let's take the Economist's list as it's much easier to read. I guess the 28 "full" democracies would be no-brainer choices (Sweden at number 1 and Iceland at 2, damn, I've gotta get to Iceland some day, also the happiest people in the world). If we're to get anywhere near 100, we also have to assume the 54 "flawed" democracies also get in there bringing our total to 82. This is a leap of faith though as we've got such democratic heavies as Timor Leste and Mali in there, plus the fact that Palestine and Israel would have to find a way to play nice together. This "coalition of the willing" still needs another 18 member to get to a hundred, and the pickings are pretty slim from here on in, what the Economist terms "hybrid regimes". OK, maybe a Turkey, a Ghana or even Tanzania, but Iraq? or Kenya? of course not Russia, it comes in at 102.

The biggest flaw in the reasoning is the idea that just because they are democracies, these nations will share the same interests on different fronts and will be able to work together as a whole by this virtue. The UN has international legitimacy because every nation in the world participates in its decisions. Democracies' legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed, once they act outside their borders, no such legitimacy applies. Yes, the UN needs to be reformed and re-thought to meet the challenges of the 21st century, but I'll take it any day over the idea of a League of Democracies.

Crouching Bear, Snarling Dragon

The first foreign visit by a newly elected president is a highly symbolic gesture. I remember a few years ago, well almost eight long and torturous years in fact, shortly after Dubya was "elected", the uproar caused in Canada by the fact that his first trip abroad was to see Vicente Fox in Mexico instead of the traditional visit to his northern neighbour. It was seen as a deliberate snub to the Canadian government and a move towards the south as the previous three presidents had begun a tradition of smiling to the north first. So what can be read into Russia's newly elected President's first foreign diplomatic trip? This weekend Putvedev is visiting China.

Sino-Russian relations are possibly at an all-time high. Both economies are booming and both are looking to flex their muscle. Apart they are strong, together they hope to bring down American hegemony, a fact the hasn't been lost by any of the American presidential candidates, even if the electorate has missed it. Maybe if we weren't so inured to Dubya's failings it might have been a bigger part of the news coverage, but George W truly scored a triple crown of incompetence over the past couple months of foreign trips. In addition to being rejected by King Faud in Saudi Arabia in his request for more oil and trying to compare Barack Obama to Nazi appeasers in Israel he was also rebuffed by outgoing Russian president Vladimir Putin in Sochi, on the Black Sea. So long Vladimir, remember me, I'm the guy who looked into your eyes and got a sense of your soul, let's be friends, let us point interceptor missiles your way. NO! Now, with Putvedev in China, along with his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao, they wasted no time signing a joint statement, marking the first time they have come together in denouncing the plan.

With the rise in US power since the end of the Cold War and fear of Islamic extremism in Central Asia, it should have come as no surprise that both Russia and China's unease would lead to closer ties. The Sino-Russian Treaty of Good Neighborly Friendship and Cooperation (yes, it's real name! Maybe I'll call it the SRTGNF&C),in 2001 marked a real turning point. Since then bilateral trade volume has surged from $10.67 billion in 2000 to $48.17 billion last year, with Putvedev stating a target of $60 billion for this year. Of that $48 billion, almost $7 billion of it is oil flowing into China, which will exponentially grow once the East Siberia-Pacific Ocean oil pipeline and its branch to China are completed. Of course all of this growth has been driven by the transformation of the USSR to capitalist Russia and the opening of the Chinese market to capitalism, as the west and especially America probably would have wished for 20 years ago. At the same time as buying Chinese goods and Russian oil, America has also done everything in it's power to improve their future prospects, seemingly investing in their future. While borrowing money mainly from China daily to fund a war whose most pronounced effect globally has been increasing terrorism and the price of oil from $25 to $135 a barrel. Driving the value of the dollar down, thus increasing the cost of importing, mainly from China to buy more crap and finance the debt. Oh, yeah, about that war on terror...

Ostensibly on the pretext of training for joint responses to terrorist threats (and extremism and separatism, hello Taiwan), the Russian and Chinese armies have been staging manoeuvres together since their inaugural Peace Mission 2005, a result of the war on terror and the aforementioned SRTGNF&C. The week of August 18-25 of that year saw joint war games involving 10,000 troops, cruise missile capable Russian heavy bombers and units of the army, navy, air force, marine airborne and logistics units from both countries. Week 2 saw an amphibious landing in Eastern China, not far from Taiwan. In what has been evolving towards an "anti-NATO" group, the SCO, or Shanghai Cooperation Organization (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), played host to more "anti-terror drills" in 2007 on an even grander scale. In addition, through this group, both China and Russia are seeking to increase their influence, and reduce American influence in Central Asia both economically and militarily. Not only are they securing oil supplies, they've gone so far as to demand the US military out of it's member countries, with Uzbekistan complying. Yes, the names may be unpronounceable, but they are important staging posts for the war in Afghanistan. Remember Nixon in China? Neither do I, but I've read that it was a trip designed to counter fears of Soviet hegemony in Asia, an attempt to enlist China's support in America's containment strategy. The present American administration seems to have done everything possible to push them together.

The American plan to balance this new alliance in Central Asia has been the velvet revolution idea, working off the successes in the Ukraine of the orange revolution and the rose revolution of Georgia. However, with the possible exception of Kyrgyzstan, it's been a complete failure, most notably in Uzbekistan where yet another American staged coup attempt went awry in 2005 in Andijan. Two other wild cards, both of whom are observer states in the SCO, are Iran and India. With Iran obviously tilting to the east, India's role of possible kingmaker is undeniable. Donald Rumsfeld might have said of the 2005 Peace Mission "...I guess I don't find it notable" and continued, "I mean, countries do that. We are obviously observing what's takes place, but I didn't see anything in it that was threatening to Taiwan or anyone else." However, America has taken notice, witness the latest good cop-bad cop game played by McBush and Bush before and during Bush's last visit with Putin in Sochi. The reality is, for those of us who missed it the first time around, a new cold war is definitely forming with most of the same players playing different roles.

A New Democratic Process

Obama lights up, Hillary throws 'em back and McBush, well, he'd try anything to get elected come November. If only we had a better method of choosing the president of the USA than this democracy thing that has obviously gone awry. Anybody who still has faith in the system that elected George W. Bush president back in 2000 hasn't been paying attention. In an election campaign where it somehow matters whether one wears an American flag pin all the time, it has become clear that we need a new and improved method of resolving these annoying elections. My proposal is a drinking contest.

Flashback to August 2004, both Hillary Clinton and John McBush McCain find themselves part of a congressional delegation visiting Tallinn, the capital of Estonia. Being in a Baltic country, what else could they do but partake in some of the local spirit, vodka. Well, the story goes that one thing leads to another and a shot contest develops between the two presidential hopefuls. True or not, the story ends with Clinton being the victor after around four shots each. Who knows when a situation may develop where the future President and his/her counterpart in Russia will be seated across from each other and the need to resolve a dispute evolves into a similar contest? Well, in case you missed it, Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated her shot taking ability in front of the cameras. Right before the Indiana primary, she had stopped for a drink and some pizza at a local den if iniquity when a shot of whiskey appeared before her. Now, there seems to be some problem with the fact that it was a shot of Crown Royal, the finest hooch from Canada, but the fact is she downed it like a champion.

Score one for Hillary. Hmmm, come to think of it, maybe there was a reason ol' George W won back in 2000... Try the Boozin' Bush quiz.

When Talking Became a Bad Thing

I must have missed the meeting. Can someone please tell me when we decided that discussing issues and problems became a bad thing? Watching John (McBush) McCain the other day I was struck by the way he thought he was putting down his potential Democratic rival in the November election by saying that if Obama were elected president, he would have an open dialogue with Iran. In case you missed it, at some point talking with people, and nations, about issues and disagreements was displaced by a new method of conflict resolution, namely bombs.

This change has been written about before, yet it still makes no difference. I've been having some fun looking back at articles written before the US invasion of Iraq and the sad thing is that we knew what was happening even then. America had decided to abandon the whole idea of diplomacy in order to make it look like they were doing something to fight the "war on terror". In the post 9/11 world where America needed help most, to build alliances and trust, they decided to throw it all to the wind and wage war. Why? Who knows, but for some reason it's no longer just OK to not care what the rest of the world thinks about their actions, it's a campaign strategy that is likely to attract voters!

Let's take the case of Iran. First, we have to try to imagine how they feel. America has invaded Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east. Imagine the case of a hostile power taking over Canada to the north and Mexico to the south, how would America react to being caught in this type of vice. Well, they would attack, but Iran knows that militarily they wouldn't stand a chance in a head to head confrontation, so you have to show strength in some other way. Iran chose the nuclear card. Maybe we have them, maybe we want them, in either case, don't attack us because we'll use them. Yes, Ahmadinejad has said a few wild a crazy things, but does that mean you can't talk with him? The White House has already in effect had the green light to invade Iran for 8 months since the passing of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment (Clinton voted for it by the way), and with only about the same amount of time left in office don't be surprised if Bush/Cheney try it before saying adios. Don't talk, invade, and if not now, McBush will. Maybe we all forget his fondness for old Beach Boys songs.

More proof of the neocon aversion to diplomacy is the reaction to former president Jimmy Carter's recent meeting with representatives of Hamas, a party that, you know, only won the last Palestinian elections. But the we don't like them, so we don't talk to them rule seems to hold as in Iran. Secretary of State Rice said," We had certainly told President Carter that we did not think meeting with Hamas was going to help... the United States is not going to deal with Hamas." And of course McBush had to get a dig in on Obama, who refused to condemn such a wild move as Carter's, talking. As well as using the word terrorist 3 times in 6 sentences, McBush said, "If Senator Obama is not decisive enough to condemn former President Carter, how can he be strong enough to deal with the threat they pose to America and to our allies?" Read: if you think talking is a good idea, your weak. Well, at least he pleased the Israeli lobby. No, we'll just continue to support Israel so they can continue to antagonize Hamas by bombing them, thus creating more terrorists and more attacks, so Israel will bomb them... I think you get it.

In an environment where the level of rhetoric has reached a point where you can criticize someone for being a proponent of negotiation, where else will the world's most powerful nation turn to besides more bombs. Today we heard from both Bush in the Knesset in Israel and McBush speaking in Ohio as they were doing some kind of two step manoeuvre that left me, and I hope others, flabbergasted. Bush's speech, if not libelous, was at least offensive to anyone listening who believes in diplomacy. In a speech marking the 60th anniversary of Israel in the Jewish state's parliament Bush said: “The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. .. Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
In a clear reference to Obama's plan to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians, Bush clearly linked the idea of the rise of Nazism in the 30's to the Palestinian dream of a homeland today. Why doesn't anyone mention that his administration's policies have created more terrorists in the past seven years than existed before his election? Meanwhile, in America, McBush was making equally farcical statements about the Middle East. The most disturbing part of his speech in fact wasn't that it included no details on how the predictions he was making were going to become reality, but the language that he used. Read carefully:"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role."
Notice the transition in verb tense from the passive to the active thus attempting to convince the listener in the reality of his words (sorry, I'm an English teacher). No details, just false hope for the gullible. Plus, I thought the war was won on June 5, 2003, almost 5 years ago, not 5 years in the future. Peace will have been restored without talking to the most important players in the region (Iran and Syria) and of course Al Qaeda, who did not exist in Iraq before American intervention, will have been wiped out. Anyone who buys this pipe dream and votes for four more years of empty promises deserves what they get.

McBush

As the Democratic party slowly kills itself in the months (or is it years) running up to the November election, the Republican party has been able to sit back and relax, already knowing John McCain will be on the ballot and secure in the knowledge that Obama and Clinton are doing their dirty work for them. With that in mind, their real work is the transformation of the man once known as John McCain into the man (monster?) that all real Republicans want, someone who will from here on be known as McBush.

Just who is this 71 year-old senator for the state of Arizona, and more importantly what does he believe in? The answers to this question could only be answered if you specified what period of time you were asking about, pre-presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, or the monster that is in the morphing process of becoming McBush. What's the big deal you may ask? Surely the American people won't be duped into voting for a Republican again after eight years of Bush. If you are so certain, your memory is worse than those who will vote for McBush in huge numbers come November as you've already forgotten the 2004 election. At the time I would never have imagined a world where America would vote Bush back into the White House, but they did, in what was a near landslide victory. War in Iraq? Who cares?! Economy sliding into recession? (see stagflation article below) Whatever! Osama Bin Laden nowhere to be found? A mere nuisance! All of this can only be explained by the magic of the American electoral system, one where money and power have far greater influence than ideas and wisdom. Convince the right people that having your man in the oval office will mean more money in their pocket for the next four years, and you win.

Let's rewind to 2001. President Bush pushes his plan for one of the biggest tax cuts in history to jump start the economy. At the time, the man still known as McCain said that he could not "in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans." This was a tax cut aimed directly at the rich, with cuts mostly to capital gains and dividends. He becomes one of only two Republicans to vote against the plan. Along comes 2003 and Bush needs to keep his rich supporters happy before the next election and therefore comes up with another tax cut to match the first. The man still known as McCain called this cut "irresponsible" and saying "At a time of war, at a time of economic stagnation, at a time of rising national debt . . . one might expect our national leaders to pursue policies calling for shared sacrifice to achieve shared benefits. Regrettably, that is not the case." This man went on to be one of only 3 republicans to vote against the cuts, $674 billion that mostly helped the affluent (surprise!). Fast forward to today and a country in far worse economic shape still stuck in a quagmire overseas which will still cost trillions more and we see the outcome of the transformation process. Not only would McBush make the tax cuts introduced by Bush permanent, but his economic plan will add more cuts. This is something that most people would have said was impossible to hear out of the mouth of the man formerly known as McCain (MFKM from here on). Part one of McBush's plan is the suspension of federal taxes on gasoline and diesel from the end of May to the beginning of September to encourage Americans to drive more over the summer holiday, just what the world needs, help for the oil companies. The next part of his plan is based on lowering taxes for the rich (those making between $65,000 and $130,000) and (surprise!) lowering corporate taxes. This plan has been viciously attacked almost across the media spectrum.

Now, I'm not arguing again Keynesian economics, yes, tax cuts can help to stimulate the economy, it's not only Republicans who believe in this principal. I liked this video of JFK explaining his cuts of 1963 to the American people:


I just want to know when the brain operation was performed, or if it's just some kind of slow morphing potion that they fed poor ol' MFKM. The hard core republicans were afraid of a couple of MFKM's "shortcomings", one that he may not of been as "fiscally responsible" as they would like, and two that he was an not an evangelical Christian. Remember that this is a party in which three of the candidates for president openly declared that they did NOT believe in evolution. Reading the transcripts of what was said in the debate on June 5, 2007 in New Hampshire hosted by Wolf Blitzer of CNN:

Senator McCain, do you believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the nation’s schools?

SEN. MCCAIN: No, I believe that’s up to the school districts. But I think that every American should be exposed to all theories. But I can’t say it more eloquently than Pastor Huckabee — Governor Huckabee just did, and I admire his description, because I hold that view.

The point is that the time before time — there’s no doubt in my mind that the hand of God was in what we are today. And I do believe that we are unique, and I believe that God loves us. But I also believe that all of our children in school can be taught different views on different issues. But I leave the curricula up to the school boards.

If you're interested in what Mike Huckabee had said earlier, the entire transcript is here. MFKM's response wasn't particularly controversial of course but I just wanted you to know what he thought before the transformation was complete.