| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Time magazine finally gets around to covering the war in Congo which has killed an estimated 4 million people in the last 8 years. It may have taken them a while, but kudos to Time for actually covering an enormously tragic human story which the rest of the American media have ignored.
The Associated Press recently reported that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wants a referendum to make him President for the next 25 years. Many American media people, including Air America's otherwise brilliant Rachel Maddow, ate up the story: uncritically parroting the premise that Chavez was yet another Latin American President for Life.
Turns out, it's not that simple. Rather, Chavez has proposed an extension of Presidential term limits. He would be subject to the same Presidential elections at the end of each 6 year term, but wouldn't be limited to two terms. Chavez doesn't want to be Fidel Castro, he wants to be the Franklin Roosevelt of Venezuela. And given the staggering poverty of Venezuela, they could use a FDR right about now.
Also, it should be noted that Chavez isn't entirely serious about this proposal. Chavez is using this proposal to force his opposition into actually participating in the upcoming elections. In Venezuela opposition parties have a history of boycotting elections when it looks like they're going to get creamed. Their withdrawal is intended to de-legitimize elections that they lose. In this case, the opposition party is led by the very business interests that impoverished Venezuela for decades. Chavez is attempting to force them to run candidates by threatening an extension of Presidential term limits. Given Chavez's overwhelming popularity in Venezuela, a non-term-limited Hugo Chavez is the last thing his political opponents want to face down for the next quarter century.
That said, we have mixed feelings about Hugo Chavez. He seems to be reforming his country in the ways that it needs to be reformed. Like so many Latin American countries, Venezuela has been dominated by right-wing pseudo-dictatorships which have run their countries into the ground at the behest of American free-market theorists. These economic experiments have been unmitigated disasters for the people of these countries, without exception. The recent wave of leftist victories in Latin America may prove to be the liberation which they need.
Because he places national interests above the interests of international business, Chavez has been the favorite bete noir of proponents of so-called "free trade". Business interests loathe Chavez and his nationalization of the oil industry. Not only have his opponents forced a recall election, which Chavez handily won, he was the victim of an attempted coup--which was immediately supported by Condolezza Rice, just before Chavez broke free to retain his office as the elected leader of his country. American conservatives so despise Chavez that pseudo-Christian evangelista Pat Robertson even called for his assassination. Other white-ringers are more coy, merely painting him as the burgeoning Fidel Castro. Some particularly idiotic conservatives have tried to peddle the story that Hugo Chavez gave a $1 million donation to Al Queda right after 9-11. Notice that these rumors are being manufactured out of "free trade" think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the American Enterprise Institute. In fact, Michael Falcoff of AEI has created some of more amusing anti-Chavez fairy tales.
Why is Chavez so hated by "free market" forces? His nationalized oil industry is thriving and serves as an example of success. With the billions that Chavez is earning from the recent gas hikes, he is financing anti-poverty programs and bolstering Venezuela's infrastructure. All without loans from the World Bank. All without contracts to Bechtel or Halliburton. That cannot be tolerated. Such a model of independence flies in the face of corporate colonialism which has preyed on the third world for the last fifty years.
What makes us uneasy about Chavez is his justifiable paranoia and seemingly boundless power. Agents of the United States have targeted Chavez for assassination in the past and are undoubtedly plotting an attempt every day. Understandably, Chavez is no fan of the United States. We hope that his rational fear of the US and devotion to his own country does not give way to the irrational caricature that business interests would like us to believe is the true Hugo Chavez. Paranoid politicians rarely give up the power which they think will protect them.
The rightwing press will holler about Chavez; they will even fabricate what they cannot distort. The msm will follow their lead, as they always do: class interests inevitably collaborate. Just remember that, for now anyway, Hugo Chavez is not the enemy of the American people, he is the enemy of Exxon/Mobil, Conoco/Phillips, and Chevron/Texaco. And those entities, my friends, are the real enemies of the American people.
So we wish Chavez well, and could pay him no greater compliment than to consider him the FDR of Venezuela. We hope that he avoids the likes of interning Japanese citizens for the sake of national security. Only American Presidents can get away with that.
After a rash of "honor" killings, after the assassination of artists, after the burning of Parisian suburbs, and after a bloody furor over cartoons, Europe may start to get serious about its foolish immigration policies. It is not the end of tolerance, it is the beginning of intelligent preservation.
We are unabashed multiculturalists--we live in Silicon Valley and benefit from the wide variety of cultures which enliven and enlighten our community. However, we also never forget that, if governments are to exist at all, they not only have the right but the obligation to carefully select who they let into their country.
The consequences of Europe's importing of cheap labor, no questions asked, no obligations required, is to threaten the very foundation of liberal democracy. Of course, much of Europe's immigrant troubles are imperialist karma, with the populations of former colonies looking to the motherland after the invaders permanently destroyed their native homes.
Europe may not entirely grasp the concept of free expression, and old world attitudes (read neo-fascist) can register in the political mainstream, but let's not forget that most of Europe is forged in a socialist tradition that every American progressive should envy. Without the vast natural resources and natural isolation of the United States, most European countries have created remarkably free societies and robust economies, all the while insuring a vast social safety net: in human history, you rarely find governments which prioritize all three endeavors equally.
Europe's liberal immigration policies are as much a result of their progressive attitudes as every other aspect of their liberal societies. Immigration to Europe is necessarily inviting to those seeking political refuge as well as those seeking economic opportunity. Indeed, at times even the United States has exported some of its finest minds to European expatriation when our less than free society proved inhospitable to freedom. The same system which embraced and protected the world's great artists, scientists, and political thinkers has now become a portal for the enemies of civilization.
That said, the modernization of other Muslims, through immigration to Western countries, is not insignificant. For every disenfranchised Islamist living in a culture they despise there are hundreds of Salman Rushdies, Deeyahs, and other Muslims adjusting to modernity in their own way. This might be the way for modernity to seep back into the those Muslim countries of origin. Ultimately, young people will always reject the antiquated ways of their elders in favor of rock and roll.
Some reason needs to prevail over Europe's open immigration policies, and that reason should not be read as an end to progressive inclusiveness. It just means that a country has a right to decide who to allow into their homes.
With Denmark under fire, literally, for the decision by one of its private newspapers to publish cartoons critical of Islam, we think it's time to push back against religious oppressors.
While much of the support for Denmark thus far has come from white-ringers--who don't give a rat's ass about freedom, but never miss a chance to stick it to Muslims-- we need to establish support for our Danish brothers and sisters from our own radical edge. Denmark more greatly reflects our progressive worldview and idealistic culture than that of American conservatives. This should be our fight.
From the Boston Globe comes a good read : We are all Danes now.
It's worth remembering that while only a couple of the Danish cartoons were negative--provocatively cheeky, nothing more--the real offense to Islam is that the prophet Muhammad was rendered into artistic form. That being the case, just wait until the religiously outrageable find out that the prophet's image has been rendered onto and inside of the Supreme Court. Better get rid of it quick, before they do something crazy like kill thousands of Americans....
The majority of Muslims aren't as, well, devoted to their religion as others. American Muslims condemn the violent reactions to the cartoons. It's the same CAIR group which tried to get the Supreme Court's Muhammad statue removed. At least they tried through legal means. They even have a What would Muhammad do? page which attempts to refute the fundamentalists. Even the imams of Denmark, whose piety stirred up this hornet's nest in the first place, have decided to call a truce.
Finally, an American newspaper has stepped up to the plate and plans to reprint the controversial cartoons. The Philadelphia Inquirer will undoubtedly incur the wrath of the foaming mouth Muslims, but c'mon, most of those fuckers can't hate us any more than they do already.
It would seem logical to diversify the hate. If every thinking publisher in the free world were to publish the Danish cartoons, there would be too many targets and safety in numbers. As it stands, only papers in Denmark, Norway, Germany, France, Australia, and now Philadelphia have been brave enough to reprint the cartoons. The violent imbeciles who wish to murder for their religion might show some reluctance with the whole of world opinion against them. After all, if the best your god can do is the Saudi royal family, is he really someone worth devoting your anger to?
So, as Saudi Arabia and much of the Muslim world now call on a boycott of all Danish products we urge a pro-Denmark spending spree. We don't officially condone Danish pornography and our veganish propensities kinda dims our view of most Danish food products, so where does that leave us? You can't go wrong with Legos.
In following the ongoing tantrum that infantile Muslims are throwing because of Danish cartoons, we came across a seemingly ironic turn in Palestinian politics. Hamas, the fledgling political party which we have been told is a terrorist organization, is actually acting like a legitimate government, in contrast to the ousted Fatah party which, we have been told, was the moderate secular alternative.
“You are our brothers,” Zahar told Father Manuel Musallam of the Holy Family Church.
Now that we think about it, maybe this isn't so strange after all. Hamas' overwhelming victory in the Palestinian elections must have come through at least some non-Muslim support, given that a substantial number of Palestinians are actually Christians, like Yassir Arafat's widow. Also, the Palestinian economy essentially turns on tourism and a Christian obsession with the Holy Land. Any legitimate government that took its governing seriously would have to protect Christians. And maybe Fatah was just as insane as Hamas all along.
While there have apparently been some attempted kidnappings of Westerners, we have yet to hear of someone being murdered for these cartoons. Fear not, there will be death. Apparently Allah smiles on murder, and frowns on cartoons.
And to think that Fox News is making good money out of trying to stigmatize the word "secular".
Much like the United States and Israel, in an age of uncertain security threats Palestinian voters have elected the least likely candidates to actually protect them. Religious terrorist organization/political party Hamas has carried Palestine's parliamentary elections with a significant defeat of the ruling Fatah Party--Yassir Arafat's legacy and notoriously ineffectual "moderate" party.
As seems the case in every democracy, voters tend to elect the scariest candidates to deal with their scary situations. The other historical fact is that right-wing governments, who only manage to rise to power in times of crisis, tend to only exacerbate their nation's problems rather than alleviate them.
The Bush/Rove clan know all too well what Hamas is now capitalizing on: the more scared the populace, the more likely they are to concede all of their expectations and hopes to thugs. Israel elected Sharon and his Likud scum and promptly stalled the burgeoning possibilities for peace in the Middle East. Inevitably, the elections of right-wing militarists in the US and Israel has guaranteed the rise of right-wing militarists in competing governments. That is the destiny of Imperialism, to insure the permanent role of war on the human race.
Welcome to the party Hamas. That makes Israel, the United States, and Iran who have all selected right-wing religious thugs to run their countries in the last decade. And they've all been run into the ground.
Canada's election results are in, and the Liberals are out.
We often bemoan our two-party system and how the venomously anti-democratic tendencies of the founding fathers have permanently saddled us with our worse or worser Republic. The Bush Administration's emergence to power in spite of the will of the majority of voters has borne out possibly the worst Presidency in our nation's history. In fact, the horrors of the Bush administration is guaranteed to be felt for many generations to come.
But our Electoral College starts to look positively representative compared to what is shaping up in the Canadian Parliament. With proportional representation Canada hosts a whopping four legitimate political parties--or at least four who receive ample votes for seats in Parliament. Three of those parties are certifiable lefties: Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, and the New Democrats. One of those parties is certifiably Conservative, although not anywheres as batshit insane as Stateside Republicans.
The ruling Liberal Party has been caught up in a corruption scandal and, as expected, that scandal drove their losses to the Tories. As the biggest vote-getter in the nationwide election, the Conservative Party will be the government, albeit a minority government. Check the results, with seats kinda reflective of voting percentages (Quebec gets to be, Quebec):
Conservatives: 124 (36%)
Liberals: 103 (30%)
Bloc Québécois: 51(10%)
New Democrats: 29 (17%)
Independent: 1
Add it all up and the lefties outnumber those paltry Tories 183-124 seats, or 57%-36%. If Canada had a two-party system, this would have been a liberal landslide. If Republicans could only land sub-40% numbers then, well, then you'd have Bill Clinton as President.
So Canada will have to suffer through these wretched Tories, for a while at least. The good news is that with such a hefty opposition, they're unlikely to push through their neo-Republican agenda. Nevertheless, they will be in a better position to shape their future political gains. As any good Bushie knows, nothing builds resentment towards big government like its incompetent management.
We should mention that the Conservatives' real stronghold seems to be in Alberta--which is not so much the Texas of Canada as it is, say, the Utah of Canada. Alberta's Tory block is probably driven by its nutty Mormon populace, an abomination we are not unrelated to.
What began with the accidental deaths of two immigrant youths at the conclusion of a police chase has ignited over a week of riots and chaos in the Parisian suburbs, and the seemingly unrelated disturbance in Denmark with Muslim immigrants.
For several centuries French Empire has dipped into Africa to strip it clean. The populations that France has despoiled for centuries have been welcomed into France as cheap laborers, to take the jobs and perform the services that the native French have subsidized themselves above. All the great French social programs and welfare which promotes capitalist risk-taking and artistic indulgence has nearly eradicated the once proud French working class. Most workers must now be imported, ostensibly because of the low European birth rate and future costs of social programs, but ultimately the immigrants of France are there to fulfill services which largely exist under the table to evade high taxation and regulation. Once in their new country, these immigrants receive no political voice, and contempt from the native French.
This runs contrary to the mind-numbing stupidity of American conservatives who are calling these European riots the rewards of multiculturalism. Perhaps the word multiculturalism holds another meaning for mooniebots other than as an antonym for nationalism. The riots are clearly not the result of France embracing the cultures of the colonies it formerly raped; this uprising continues a rich history of French rebellion against a power structure which ignores and marginalizes them.
Other American conservatives getting in on the act:
France has its own unique set of problems which has set this rebellion in motion and will not easily resolve them. What we do know, and can relate to, is that French police have a history of targetting and brutalizing its ethnic minority populations. And as we should know, that is always a formula for backlash.
The religious element is not a small factor in both the alienation of immigrants and their reaction. European nations continue to stock their workforce with foreign immigrants who will do the work the natives can no longer be bothered with. And the price they pay is a clash of cultures.
With a world of poor potential workers willing to emigrate to the austere living conditions of Europe, why do Europeans continue to import only those who despise their culture? Borders do matter, and if countries have any control over their own destiny they should be cautious in whom they welcome into their homes.
The French Empire destroyed and preyed upon peoples who could not keep them out. A trojan horse may yet avenge the sins of Imperial France.
Hubris is not, however, the undoing of Denmark. The notoriously tolerant Danes have welcomed the most notoriously intolerant into their culture, and that cancer will continue to grow.
Europe, why will you not learn? There are a billion Chinese who would enrich your culture; there are a billion Indians desperate for work; there are millions of unaffiliated Africans struggling to live. Europeans can and should be choosy where they are able to import their citizenry. From now on, please, let's shut down the pipeline to Crazyland. You can be tolerant and still close your doors to the psychotically religious. In fact, unless you do, you will no longer remain a tolerant culture.
We can't remember any other American President who creates such mayhem when he travels abroad. Granted, the Summit of the Americas (as well as almost any official post-Seattle commerce and trade policy gathering) will always be a magnet for the dispossessed and angry, but Bush seems to have raised the ire factor considerably.
We remember that Ronald Reagan was a gawd-awful President, but he had the luxury of playing foil to an even more evil international antagonist. But Reagan was always greeted with cheering international crowds, even when he simply gave intellectually vapid, self-promoting, moralizing speeches.
In Argentina, John King of CNN just stated that most of the crowds greeting President Bush are "professional protesters". Now, that particularly creative phrase is oft-repeated by those who are the subject of the protest, but the term is almost always a bald-faced lie or at least intentionally misleading.
We frequent political demonstrations regularly and have only ever witnessed one group of certifiable professional protesters.
First, let's define the phrase. We figure there are only two reasonable definitions which could fit.
With this criteria we must confess that while we have never met or heard of anyone getting paid to demonstrate (outside of strikes or labor actions, which is really about business anyway), we do know several lawyers, social workers, professors, and even a few doctors who make their way into the public fray on occasion. We feel safe in suggesting that a sprinkling of professionals hardly makes for a crowd of professional protesters.
So, to our thinking, the only documented case of real-life fully-notarized professional protesters came in Florida's election debacle of 2000. Republican congressional staffers, (all of whom were lawyers, lobbyists, or business hacks) hopped on chartered jets and flew down to Florida to angrily strong arm the ongoing recount, doing their best impression of spontaneous citizen outrage. These demostrators were both paid to protest and most were occupational professionals.
So the next time you hear an msm parrot sputter off about "professional protesters", remember the original bourgeious riot and the tragedy it wrought.
So now that John Bolton is safely under wraps (doing his best to undo the UN) talks with North Korea have apparently yielded some success.
Negotiating with dictators is always a difficult task, and we wonder how this could have been settled.
We should ask the question that nobody asked prior to the invasion of Iraq: Is it possible that this little dictator is all bluff? Is it possible that Kim Jung Il has no WMD's whatsoever and he's simply manipulating powerful countries into rescuing his dying country yet again? This is the same intelligentsia and parrotocracy that were of absolute certainty with Sadaam Hussein's WMD legacy.
Just asking....
gotta eat...
