January 23, 2011
December 19, 2010
Need more be said…
November 16, 2010
Imagine a sheriff offering the head of a criminal gang the following deal: ‘If you agree to stop stealing from your neighbours for three months, I’ll give you cutting edge weaponry and block any efforts by other law enforcement authorities to restrain your criminal activities.’
November 7, 2010
May 30, 2010
Change you can believe in, but actual change…
Well that’s just not going to be happening anytime soon. Like they say the prove is in the pudding.
And that prove was there for all to read with the release of the “National Security Strategy” by the White House.
Under the heading of , “Strengthen the Power of Our Example”:
The increased risk of terrorism necessitates a capacity to detain and interrogate suspected violent extremists, but that framework must align with our laws to be effective and sustainable. When we are able, we will prosecute terrorists in Federal courts or in reformed military commissions that are fair, legitimate, and effective. For detainees who cannot be prosecuted—but pose a danger to the American people—we must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards. We must have fair procedures and a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified. And keeping with our Constitutional system, it will be subject to checks and balances. The goal is an approach that can be sustained by future Administrations, with support from both political parties and all three branches of government…@
….”For detainees who cannot be prosecuted—but pose a danger to the American people” …what exactly does that mean ?
O, on second thoughts I get it now… its kinda like what Dubya use to do, i.e , no-crime-no-proof-no-problem-lock-em-up,hell throw away the keys.
Or as Glenn Greenwald states…
Welcome to the one party state of A-merry-ca
May 14, 2010
Since Obama became President, drone attacks against targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan have reached levels far and above anything during the George ‘Dubya’ Bush administration.
I suppose this reality should not come as much of a shock. Push button warfare from afar, being the ultimate fantasy/wet dream of the U.S. What better way to project American power and without risking American lives.
American lives being the most precious & exceptional…’O’ to be born American.
And who ever said , you can’t have your cake and eat it to ?
To add insult to injury Obama thought it acceptable to joke about Predator Drone attacks .
Why Obama, why…? And here I thought things would be different.,such were my ‘naive’ hopes.
That said, it is worth remembering that the Democrats were not so much against war as a solution. Rather their beef with Dubya et al was more over issues of management and methods of prosecuting the war(s).
Who cares about the “collateral damage”…
Judging by past & current realities not the American government, whether Democrat,Republican, Obama or Bush.
Any honest assessment, by a caring human being that is, would quickly come to the conclusion that the supposed gains of these hundreds of drone attacks are few if any. Particularity when one factors in the number of innocent victims killed.
If anything these attacks anger and radicalize the very people that the U.S & NATO claim to be helping.
And on it goes, the politicians drone on,the war machine drones on-constantly re-inventing ways to kill & profit- the little people reap the whirlwind…
Also read ‘Of Drone wars and Buffalo Urine‘ @ Foreign Policy in Focus
Some of the designers of the current counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan, David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum, have denounced it as a “technology” fix that has alienated Pakistanis by chalking up a kill ratio of 50 civilians for every targeted Taliban or al-Qaeda leader. “Every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement,”
July 10, 2009
Somebody’s gonna be in trouble when the “little Miss’s” gets a whiff of this…
UPDATE; the video tells the whole oogle story,Sarkozy you dirty dog,you…
February 24, 2009
Seems some one pissed in Andrews Coyne’s cornflakes .
This is Just. So. Embarrassing. If there is anything less attractive than the anti-American streak in our national character— a trait made worse, one suspects, for our neighbours’ sunny indifference to our seething — it is our tendency to prostrate ourselves before American celebrities. And they don’t get any more celebritous than Barack Obama. Okay, I get that he’s a likeable fellow. He avoids excessive partisanship, he comes across as thoughtful and decent, he connects with people — yes to all that.
So on one hand Canadians are supposedly anti-American yet here they are “prostrating” themselves before an American President,so which is it ?
I find all this openly worshipful behaviour more than a little disturbing. I don’t like it when I see it directed to rock stars — What possesses people to chant their names in unison? Is it not enough to be a slave? Why do you have to advertise it? — but I really mistrust it when it slops over into the political arena. And is it not all just a bit more loathsome for being attached to a foreign leader? Could we be more craven? Usually we reserve such spinelessness for Quebec separatists
Could we be more craven ?…Is it not enough to be a slave?…wtf is he talking about ?
What is it people hope to achieve by such behaviour? What do they hope to prove? Is it all just a form of conspicuous consumption — an opportunity to flaunt their taste in political leaders, to bathe, somehow, in his reflected coolness? Do they suppose that Obama is in doubt about the degree of public affection he arouses? That he is insecure, and needs to be reassured? Or is it just blind, unthinking infatuation, a rush of blood to the head (and other parts) such as prompts teenage girls, mysteriously, to scream aloud at the sight of a Jonas brother?
Again what the hell is he trying to say ? Come on Andrew spit it out,don’t let your cynicism and contempt for ordinary people particularly Canadians hold you back.
This need for heroes, this cult of charisma — and we in the media are the worst offenders, though for more explicable motives — is not merely empty and shallow. It is dangerous. At the very least, it is a distraction. At the worst, it is a kind fascism. It appeals to all that is hollow within us, and — worse — within them. Was that not the least attractive thing about Trudeau: the glamour?
“Need for hero’s”….”its a kind fascism”…?
“Unhappy the land that has no heroes,” Brecht wrote. “Unhappier still the land that has need of heroes.” [ @ ]
How ironic that Coyne the conservative, quotes Brecht the communist ,but then on second thought perhaps it is not.After all many conservatives resort to such rhetorical mumbo-jumbo.
That is… taking unconnected bits out of context, lumping them together with other unconnected out of context bits and or concepts,stirring all the bits together with a pinch or two of ahistorical musing ,as a “binder”,then throw the mix against the wall,if it sticks well then it must be right.
Anyway gotta go…off to therapy,self-esteem issues, being Canadian and all.