¡no more of the same!

just one word: distraught ...

2009-01-05T20:21:00.000+11:00

.. distraught at the filthy, criminal Israeli depredations in Gaza, and the total lack of any (visible, effective) opposition.

It is utterly disgusting how the so-called 'leaders' of the 'civilised world' do nothing (visible, effective) to stop USraeli murder for spoil.

And possibly the worst aspect is the way the propaganda is pushed, i.e. by the public broadcasters as well as the 'commercial' MSM. Boo! Hiss! I have seen McGeough's "Incursion in November was the last straw" and now "Mission revealed: destroy Hamas," McGeough is to be congratulated for showing us some cracks in the Israeli pushed-paradigm lying façade.

It really makes me spit, hearing or reading the cruel fiction about how 'poor, little Israel' has to 'defend itself from Hamas,' while what is actually going on is Israeli genocidal murdering theft of all things Palestinian. Brutal, murdering Israeli tanks and aircraft against Palestinians armed with little more than stones! A few 'penny rockets' are nothing, against 'world's best' Israeli tanks and aircraft! Brutal, murdering Israeli tanks and aircraft against mostly the unarmed, more often than not the harmless old, women and children! Penned into Gaza, also by their corrupt brother-Arabs along their southern border, the poor Palestinians simply have no escape. Defenceless fish in a barrel! It's beyond deplorable, it's simply, filthily criminal - and that on the Nuremberg scale.

How can they *all*, i.e. perpetrators, apologists and (crooked!) politicians & MSM + even public broadcasters almost everywhere be Oh, so blatantly bad? And the sheople® 'let' themselves be (comfortably!) deluded.

One could say that they, all those who do not *strenuously protest*, are bringing disgrace - on the whole human race.

The press in general and the public broadcasters in particular must be eternally damned for retailing the outright lies coming from the Israeli PR machine; know you that 'PR' is itself a misleading term first deployed by the author of perhaps the definitive book on propaganda, Bernays. We the sheople are being swamped to the point of drowning in Bernays-style, lying propaganda - to the ghastly purpose of perpetrating mass-murder for spoil.

Any and all who shrug, don't do anything, therefore by default accepting, allowing these horrible crimes to continue make themselves accessories to those crimes. One simply must protest, somehow, and in the loudest possible way. Might does not make right, never has and never will. No more murdering, thieving war! What are we humans, just another sort of crude animal? If something more noble, then war in all its forms must be banished and that means from exactly now; no more bloody war!

Dear reader - one must either protest, loudest - or accept part-responsibility for these most dastardly of crimes that the Israelis are currently inflicting on the poor, hapless Palestinians - and have been so inflicting, for 60+ looong, bloody years. Gotta be stopped; someone's gotta stop 'em.

[cross-posted]

every j*w on the planet ...

2009-01-02T21:11:00.003+11:00

.. just as every trigger-puller in the IDF ...

.. and (possibly worst) every Israeli order-giver ...

are all 'responsible' for the 60+ year carnage inflicted on the poor, hapless Palestinians.

But it's not 'just' those 'primary' irresponsibles, there're more 'layers' of criminal deceit, namely coming from the so-called 'opinion leaders,' prime amongst whom are many politicians of all 'stripes,' and then there's the main-stream media (MSM), including the public broadcasters.

-=*=-

It is well known - to those who care to look - that the entity referred to as Israel is occupying land basically stolen from the 'original' legal owners, namely the Palestinians. The combination of Jews and/or Zionists, whoever they are and who cares what they call themselves, have perpetrated a fraud on the world as they've inflicted murdering theft on the poor, hapless Palestinians to steal their land and water. (Like the US murdering to steal Iraqi oil, why can't these rotten, murdering crooks just *buy* stuff?)

Firing what amounts to a few 'penny-rockets' at their tormentors does not justify the murdering onslaught of the risibly name IDF. Defence is incorrect for the offensive functions being carried out - for 60+ long (bloody!) years now. That's sheer and outright murder - on a genocidal scale.

Every person on the planet who does not unconditionally condemn these lying, thieving Israeli murderers contributes to the crime, with very special mention of the public broadcasters; it's through the media that the lies are propagated, the tax-payer supported public broadcasters especially have no remit whatsoever to retail Israeli propaganda to the tax-paying public.

Stop the killing; no more murdering, thieving war!

PS Well, perhaps not quite "every Jew on the planet," but all those who do not do their utmost to stop the slaughter - as is happening in Gaza right now.

what we've learned ...

2008-12-14T09:39:00.003+11:00

  .. is an horrifying[1] shocker ...

    .. and US hubris was the last nail

-=*=-

G'day Bob,

to your point at which the empire crumbled (a real bewdy), I would add:

December 12 / 14, 2008
What is to be Done?
The End of the Washington Consensus

  «Wall Street’s financial meltdown marks the end of an era. What has ended is the credibility of the Washington Consensus - open markets to foreign investors and tight money austerity programs (high interest rates and credit cutbacks) to "cure" balance-of-payments deficits, domestic budget deficits and price inflation. On the negative side, this model has failed to produce the prosperity it promises. Raising interest rates and dismantling protective tariffs and subsidies worsen rather than help the trade and payments balance, aggravate rather than reduce domestic budget deficits, and raise prices.»
[counterpunch/Hudson & Sommers]

Economics are indistinguishable from the military, when it comes to discussing the so-called, self-termed 'world leader,' the US. It turns out that the only place the US is leading us is to rack and ruin, aka right down the gurgler.

Today is as good a day as any (i.e. bitter-sweet) to draw a line, although as the King Canute myth has it, life will (must) go on.

To make 3 Hs, add hypocrisy; say one thing and do another. Possibly the very worst, is to have (realistic!) expectations dashed. The expectations I 'carried' out of child-hood were, quickly summarised, truth and justice. From 'Bringing up Baby:' "Don't tell me lies!" - "You will share that (object) - or trouble!" Simplistic? Perhaps, but we're going for brevity here.

Less simplistic would be that the Enlightenment would show us the way.

Wrong!

Did not, does not. What we have are lies, cheating theft and murder.

-=*=-

Consider so-called representative democracy, an informed and engaged electorate votes, the elected representatives then rule (wisely!); of the people, by the people and for the people.

Wrong!

As actually implemented, the people are deliberately dumbed-down (they are lied to and effectively turned into sheople®), the representatives fail to properly represent; the systems are pre-set to ever further enrich mostly evil, vested interests.

I mentioned above the very worst being dashed expectations; the very worst failure in our so-called democracies are the lies, aka swamping us in deliberately, psychologically designed, evil propaganda, what I call the pushed paradigm. Many electorates, pioneered in the US but adopted more widely in the Anglo/Judaic sphere and further, have been deliberately deceived - the exact, designed purpose of the lies they tell us. As we found out from Howard, "All politicians lie!" - well, perhaps not exactly all, and none quite so badly as that grim example, but it's not just the politicians; the mostly corrupt and venal MSM transmits and often amplifies the lies. (Even 'our' AusBC and SBS get into the lie-transmission/amplification act; boo! Hiss!)

-=*=-

It has been said that GWBush&Co were/are incompetent, that had they done a better job, they could've 'won' in Iraq (murder for oil), say, or in Afghanistan (murder for a pipeline.) IMHO wrong; GWBush&Co were following a filthy, neocon/neoliberal agenda which specifically set out to rip ever more of the world's resources off, and to allocate the plunder to the already obscenely rich, mostly US fat-cats, and at the same time to drive the ordinary people of the world (including their own!) into penury, forcing them into a Malthusian hell. This was well-illustrated just the other day, when the US Senate refused to bailout the US auto industry, on the grounds that the UAW wouldn't agree to a drastic slashing of wages/conditions. When correctly gauged, GWBush&Co made great strides in their agenda. One other thing, it is/was not only GWBush&Co, the rot has permeated the US for yonks, hardly a US president has anywhere near clean hands. One could say none.

The problem - and possibly our salvation - is that GWBush&Co performed sooo badly, that the rest of the world (well, some of us, we the truth-seekers) noticed. And when the enemy (the wannabe hegemon, its illegitimate sprog, the poodle with dag) are recognised, diagnosed, seen for what they truly are and the ghastly, murdering criminal things they do, then plans can be made to counter that enemy.

-=*=-

The Beatles wrote "And, in the end, the love you take - Is equal to the love you make."

Q: What did the US make, with Israel as the illegitimate 2nd fiddle (and especially in the case of Iraq, the UK as poodle with Aus as dag?)

A: Lies, cheating theft and murder.

-=*=-

Fazit: Reform the systems, save the planet - or doom.

-=*end*=-

PS In plain text: Our so-called 'leaders,' our so-called 'betters,' have turned the world on its head. Instead of leading us to maximise human happiness, the best deal for the most people, they have worked almost exclusively to enrich themselves - essentially by crooked means (i.e. not 'fair prices' but what (the max) the market will bear, 'super' profits aka resource-rent, a swinish list of foul malfeasance), right up to and including murder for spoil (Iraq, ex-Palestine), all the while encouraging the devil to take the hindmost. A ghastly proof is the 'health' system in the US, which will bankrupt people and/or outright deny (unfunded) necessary life-saving treatment. In order for these villains to enrich themselves, they have deliberately deceived us, a truly filthy - treasonous - thing to do.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] horrify
verb (-ies, -ied) [with OBJ.] (usu. be horrified) fill with horror; shock greatly: they were horrified by the very idea | [as ADJ.] (horrified) the horrified spectators | [as ADJ.] (horrifying) a horrifying incident.
DERIVATIVES
horrification noun
horrifiedly adverb
horrifyingly adverb [as SUBMODIFIER] horrifyingly flimsy boats.

ORIGIN late 18th cent.: from Latin horrificare, from horrificus (see HORRIFIC). [Oxford Pop-up]

horrify

Øverb
1 she loved to horrify us with tales of ghastly happenings
FRIGHTEN, scare, terrify, petrify, alarm, panic, terrorize, scare stiff, scare to death, fill with fear, scare someone out of their wits, scare the living daylights out of, throw into a panic, make someone's hair stand on end, make someone's blood run cold; informal scare the pants off, make someone's hair curl; Brit. informal throw into a blue funk, put the wind up; Irish informal scare the bejesus out of; N. Amer. informal spook; vulgar slang scare shitless, scare the shit out of; archaic affright

2 Lucien was horrified by her remarks, but said nothing
SHOCK, appal, disconcert, take aback, confound, dismay, outrage, scandalize, offend, throw off balance; disgust, revolt, repel, nauseate, sicken; informal rattle, faze, knock sideways, knock for six; archaic pother.
See AWKWARD SYNONYMS at dismay.
-opposite(s): PLEASE. [New Oxford Thesaurus of English]

shocking! criminal! pity ...

2008-12-10T09:21:00.001+11:00

.. they're all barking up the wrong tree

-=*=-

The sensation of the day is that the Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) has tried to 'flog' Obama's Senate seat.

Mass outrage! The FBI, Fitzgerald, arrests, the whole box-and-dice.

The pity - IMHO - is that no one puts any effort into bringing those lying f**kers 'responsible' for the deaths of upwards of 1mio Iraqis, 'mass-murder for oil,' to justice.

temporary setback ...

2008-12-09T18:27:00.003+11:00

  .. or part of a trend?

-=*=-

Try this (the later bits, i.e. from December:)

Central Asia
Dec 9, 2008
NATO scuttles US plan to encircle Russia
By F William Engdahl

  «Translated into real political language, Washington has undergone a stunning setback in its agenda of encircling Russia with NATO. Despite the fact that president-elect Obama retained Bush Administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and named a person to be Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who has strongly supported bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, key European NATO members, led by Germany and France, blocked what must be a unanimous membership decision.»
[atimes/Engdahl]

(Wouldn't it be nice to see a 'next positive step;' i.e. the abandoning of a (phoney! Aggressive!) missile 'defence' system in Poland & the Czech Republic, eh?)

Continuing the Russian theme; the next 'cab off the rank:'

South Asia
Dec 9, 2008
India, Russia regain elan of friendship
By M K Bhadrakumar

  «In sum, the Mumbai attacks may prove to be a watershed in Indian regional policies. Relations with Russia, China and Iran assume a new level of importance in New Delhi's regional strategies. The gravitation towards the SCO signifies the new thinking. Not too long ago, India visualized the SCO as primarily an "energy club". Actually, India's petroleum minister routinely represented India at the SCO summit meetings. Now, to envisage a crucial role for an SCO-led regional initiative on Afghanistan, New Delhi has indeed come a long way. Surely, Medvedev would have returned to Moscow quietly pleased that he met a long-lost friend.»
[atimes/Bhadrakumar]

Then, just to round the day off; win some, lose some:

1. Win? Pak 'militants' destroy nearly 200 NATO vehicles yesterday.

2. Win? Pak 'militants' destroy nearly 100 more vehicles.

3. Lose? Pak army attacks LeT base.

The Q: "Was the Mumbai outrage a false-flag/black-op?" is still wide open; we may never know. That the CIA and Mossad do such things, instigate such things, and that the CIA actually created Al Qaeda is IMHO not in dispute.

[cross posted]

incompetence ...

2008-12-06T09:11:00.001+11:00

.. of the absolute 'highest' order ...

.. 'war on terror,' CIA etc. just make things worse

-=*=-

I'm fed up. All we get is *more* violence.

Whatever it is that the US is doing, has been doing, is not working, but not 'just' not working; we've got militarised police, we've got grievously injured civil rights, we've got the so-called 'leaders of the free world' kidnapping, torturing and murdering - and all the while we're getting *more* violence, both against *and by* the US, not less. Also all the while, as they 'divert' themselves with their vile (invasive!) wars, the excess-CO2 caused climate-catastrophe gets ever closer, ever more unavoidable, as the US regime hands out US$trios(!!?) to Wall St. No money for any services, Oh, no! - No money for a health scheme, but *lots* for unproductive (counter-productive!) banksters.

Basically, daaarlings, I don't think they could make things worse if they tried; it probably means they *are* trying - to make it worse, and succeeding. Murphy says that if it can happen it will; the biggest force for evil in the world is obviously the US M/I/C-plex, with the I/J/Z-plex in clear 2nd place. All they can do is make and deploy guns, all the better to kill someone. Like, 1mio+ in Iraq, say (murder for oil!) - and 60+ years long in sadly now mostly ex-Palestine; no end in sight other than evermore murder for land and water.

They talk about 'peace-processes' - but all we see is more killing, more theft of others' sovereign resources.

Say one thing, do the opposite; so much for the self-termed 'Masters of the Universe.'

Hypocrites! Incompetents! Idiots! Fools!

Lying, murdering thieves.

every day, every hour, every minute - without ...

2008-12-04T14:09:00.003+11:00

.. the (effective!) action Oh, so urgently required ...

.. is another nail into our once jewel-like planet's coffin

-=*=-

Preamble: Our planet is being assaulted, pillaged and plundered[1,2,3]; we are confronted and ripped-off, not by 'simply' greedy but by excessively-so, greedy beyond avarice liars, cheats and murdering thieves. The lying overwhelms the people; the psychologically-refined propaganda turns otherwise innocent people into TV-comatosed sheople®, who in turn act-out the "Monkey see, monkey do" paradigm, with attention to "Best country in the world" - "See no evil" exceptionalism, turning themselves into witless (and hopeless!) passengers. We (the honest ripped-off people) are being swamped by evil, drowned in lies, as the planet is being abandoned to burning-up, due to the threatening excess-CO2 caused climate-change catastrophe, a shocking, avoidable greedastrophe®.

-=*=-

We do know the 'who,' the 'how' and the 'why;' what we don't know is two, namely Q1: How can the perpetrators be so utterly bad (suggested A: psychopaths), and Q2: Who is going to put a stop to the rot - and save our once jewel-like planet?

The 'who:' Is the mainly US M/I/C-plex, with Israel, the UK and Aus (i.e. a self-selected subset of Anglo/Judaic regimes; the wannabe hegemon, its illegitimate sprog plus the poodle with dag). Note that a change of government does not appreciably change the policies. So much for so-called 'democracy,' so much for the people's choice.

The 'how:' Is the 'Washington Consensus' with its WB & IMF instruments; keyword 'neoliberal' with its so-called 'free' markets, privatisations, down-sizing, out-sourcing and off-shoring, ending with globalisation. Note well: when all quasi-legal methods fail, the perpetrators turn to violence; see Iraq, illegal invasion morphed into brutal occupation ('murder for oil'); see the "Economic Hit Man." In extremis, they go to 'murder for spoil;' see the sadly now mostly ex-Palestine, I/J/Z-plex murder for land and water, 60+ years now and still no end in sight. (So much for that particular 'peace process.')

The 'why:' Well, we've covered that; basically, greed. Out'a all control greed, greed beyond avarice. 'They' just can't get enough.

-=*=-

Intermezzo: Not only can 'they' not get enough, they cheat as well; see the current world-wide financial imbroglio, 101% created by the self-termed 'Masters of the (financial) Universe.' It wasn't enough that 'they' gave themselves almost an eternal 'free lunch' with their (otherwise worthless!) US fiat-dollar rip-off, 'backed' by oil for their double rip-off pleasure, they had to poison that well with their toxic clever-dick derivatives. Wham! The entire show may well collapse. 1929 and possibly, IMHO quite probably worse, here we come.

-=*=-

Update: As if all that wasn't enough, the most recent outrage - the 'terrorist' attacks on Mumbai, which are now being referred to by some as "India's 9/11." The possibility here is, that the US will use this outrage as an excuse to attack Pakistan, as another 'brick in the wall' the US M/I/C-plex is constructing around (massively oil-possessing!) Iran. (Looping - as usual - 'they,' the US fat-cat criminals just can't get enough!)

And all the time that all this carnage/theft/murder is going on, the greedastrophe gets ever closer and more unavoidable. Idiots!

-=*=-

The Enlightenment, the hope and aspiration of fair-thinking people everywhere (one might suppose), is being over-run by lying brigands, who chortle 'Economic Darwinism' as their fig-leaf for 'Law of the Jungle,' 'Might makes Right' murdering theft.

We return to Q2: Who is going to stop the rot - where are the adults?

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] assault —n. 1 violent physical or verbal attack. [POD]

[2] pillage —v. (-ging) (also absol.) plunder, sack. —n. pillaging, esp. in war. [French piller plunder] [ibid.]

[3] plunder —v. 1 rob or steal, esp. in wartime; loot. 2 exploit (another person's or common property) for one's own profit. —n. 1 activity of plundering. 2 property so acquired. [German plündern] [ibid.]

they ...

2008-11-25T08:51:00.003+11:00

.. have a screw (or three) loose

-=*=-

Consider this item:

«Oil prices soar towards $US55
Posted November 25, 2008 06:03:00

Oil prices have roared higher towards $US55 as equity markets surged on government action aimed at tackling a severe economic downturn.»
[AusBC/justin]

Some keywords used: 'prices soar,' 'roared higher,' 'equity markets surged,' 'rallied,' 'closed up a massive,' 'pumped billions,' and 'mammoth financial stimulus,' 'prices also benefited,' and 'cut production.'

'They' told us that the oil price 'soaring' to US$150 was 'supply and demand.' Then when it fell back to US$50, that was 'China and India reducing demand.' What utter bulls**t, it was the clever d**k speculators all along - apart, that is from the (illegal!) Iraq war effect. 'They' tell us many things; most, as it turns out, is just more bulls**t. The AusBC, as we can plainly see, is right in the s**t with the rest.

-=*=-

'They' (GWBush et al.) told us that "They hate us for our freedoms!"

'They' (GWBush et al.) lied.

'They' (GWBush et al.) screeched "We will disarm him!"

'They' (GWBush et al.) lied.

'They' (Cheney et al.) told us that invading Iraq was not for the oil.

'They' (Cheney et al.) lied.

'They' (Murdoch et al.) told us that invading Iraq would give us US$25 oil.

'They' (Murdoch et al.) lied.

'They' (Howard et al.) told us they'd 'keep interest rates low.'

'They' (Howard et al.) lied.

'They' (Costello et al.) encouraged us to borrow and spend up big.

'They' (Costello et al.) cut the CGT in half, triggering the house-price bubble which took average house-prices to around nine times average earnings, effectively ending the 'Great Aussie Dream' for far too many Ockers.

(I haven't got all day to continue this list - it couldn't be finished in a month of Sundays anyway.)

-=*=-

You can't have democracy when people are lied to (B, B & H; they all *knew* that Saddam had no WMDs.)

You can't have democracy when the MSM retails and extends politicians' lies (almost any media outlet, including AusBC & SBS. Filthy, lying propagandists!)

You can't have democracy when voters are ignored (Howard, calling anti-wars "a mob.")

You can't have freedom when people are concrete-walled in (Iraq, Israel/ex-Palestine.)

You can't have free-trade when the US (and some others) subsidise their own farmers.

(Again I don't have the time to go anywhere near finishing this list.)

-=*=-

'They' are guilty of many more sins, inspect the labels 'neoliberal,' 'privatisation,' 'out-sourcing,' 'off-shoring' and 'neocon.' Add 'free-trade,' 'freedom' and 'democracy.' (And so on; add your own failing/lying keywords.)

The US is the source of all the evil flowing from those labels (and all the etc.s), the only one of those labels which that has a meaning close to the actual word is 'neocon,' not from 'conservative' but as in con-men - which is what they are.

Bush was 'aped' by Blair and Howard following the principle of "Monkey see, monkey do." The whole foul neoliberal, neocon lot of them, 'inspired' by Greenspan have dumped the world deeply into the s**t. Note that it wasn't always Repugs, Clinton had his filthy fingers in there too. Now Obama is 'employing' lots'a Clinton-types. Rudd, whilst being *infinitely* more preferable than Howard, still mouths the same-old same-olds, like "poverty-busting power of free trade."

This blog is called 'nomoreofthesame' for impeccable reasons; if Rudd and Obama only do more of the same - and the indications are so - then we can't expect to climb out of the s**t 'any time soon' (detested Ameri-speak, spit!)

Where are the adults?

culpable ...

2008-11-23T09:59:00.003+11:00

  .. and/or incompetent ...

    .. but in any case, wickedly criminal

-=*=-

"All politicians lie!" - or so we were informed, as that ghastly fact became unavoidably obvious in the 'run-up' to the US-led (with UK and Aus as poodle with dag) illegal invasion of Iraq - murder for oil.

Equally obvious - at least to those who wish to see and look closely enough - is that it's not 'just' the politicians who lie; it's also the MSM (main-stream media: largely corrupt and venal), including some public broadcasters, like the AusBC and SBS, say. (Boo! Hiss! How dare they take our dough - then lie to us!!?)

The MSM - and the AusBC, SBS etc. go so far as to deploy 'talking head' so-called experts, many of whom were actually briefed by the Pentagon ('over there;' one suspects a similar process to be under way in the UK and Aus, after the principle of "Monkey see, monkey do." Recall the AusBC 7.30 Report's pre-Iraq war 'make-over,' and the subsequent 'expert' analysis segments.)

That we are being deliberately lied to was exposed largely due to 'citizen journalist' efforts associated with (against!) the illegal invasion of Iraq (now been morphed into an equally brutal and murdering occupation), and we won't forget that Iraq is only one modern occurrence, there's the almost concurrent invasion of Afghanistan (murder for a pipeline), and a looong list of US transgressions stretching at least from WW2 - the A-bombing war crime, my own chosen 'starting point,' but plenty more before that - right down to this day. The US is a war-oriented organization, they murder for spoil. See Blum's "Rogue State," Chomsky's "What Uncle Sam Really Wants" and Perkins' "Economic Hit Man" for examples.

That we were being deliberately propagandised occurred to me relatively early in my own investigations into the Iraq imbroglio, stimulated by the crooked works of Judith Miller (NYT) and Tony Parkinson (theAge) amongst other journalist-traitors. "Why that?" I cried to myself. Finding the answer took some deep digging, and a bit of serendipity.

We all should know by now the chilling implications of "the big lie;" try reading that ref. as a refresher to see if it rings any alarm bells anew. I draw particular attention to this bit:

  «His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.»
[wiki/Big_Lie, ibid.]

(Any viewer of AusBC's "The Howard Years" could keep the above in mind.)

But there was a predecessor to 'The Big Lie,' namely Bernays.

Reading that reference exposes nearly all, to wit, that we the sheople® are being deliberately propagandised - but worse: with malice aforethought.

In a nutshell, that's how our so-called democracies - US, UK, Aus & Israel - most of the Anglo/Judaic group and possibly, probably many others - are being deliberately corrupted. I regard that, and the subsequent results like murder for oil in Iraq (and all such lies and transgressions) as being filthily criminal.

hoist on their own petard ...

2008-11-20T08:21:00.007+11:00

.. by some 'reverse engineering'

-=*=-

Here's a bit of a laugh:

November 19, 2008 | 01:02 PM (EST)
Jane Hamsher
Chinese Want To Buy the Big 3 Automakers

«It appears that the Chinese car makers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire the Big 3:
...
At current market valuations (GM is worth less than Mattel) the Chinese government can afford to buy GM with petty cash. Even a hundred billion $ would barely dent China's more than $2t in currency reserves. For nobody in the world would buying GM and (while they are at it) Chrysler make more sense than for the Chinese. Overlap? What overlap? They would gain instant access to the world's markets with accepted brands, and proven technology.»
[huffingtonpost/jane-hamsher]

Read it yourself and consider; the Chinks have about US$2Trio burning a hole in their pockets. They could 'dump' some/all of it of onto the ForEx market and sink the US$ - or they could deploy it to buy up bits'a the US finance-collapse caused 'fire-sale.'

That would give them (the Chinks) many advantages; they'd pick up any 'intellectual property' the Big 3 have, give them the brand-names, and they'd be able to source components from wherever - mostly outside'a the US, a process called 'out-sourcing,' not to mention vertical integration. They'd have the dealerships (worldwide) jumping into their pockets (see 7.30 last night), the Chinks'd have a perfect monopoly position: wouldn't that be sweet? (As revenge, say. The bleeding of the US would move into 'high gear.' Haw!)

-=*=-

Now, for the BIG Q: is this communism (Chink buy-outs), socialism (US bail-outs) or what?

(Cue Costello: "Haw, haw, haw! - Let us prey.")

not just in Iraq, is the US jackboot ...

2008-11-13T13:13:00.007+11:00

  .. crushing down on a hapless, helpless nation's neck ...

    .. it's basically the whole, wide world suffering similar - why that?

-=*=-

Preamble: The world is drowning in equal parts of lies, greed, corruption, outright theft and (often mass-) murder most foul. As self-titled 'leader of the free(?) world,' the US is 'responsible' for this situation, not just because it has failed to prevent it - Oh, no - but because the US has created most of it. Worse, worser, worst: they knew beforehand what they were doing, they planned it(!!?)

Almost invariably, when I reach the end of some analysis, I screech "Why?" In this case, I wish to know a bit more: not just a) why has this happened, but b) why do we only find out about it now, and most importantly, c) why has there been no effective resistance?

In other words, where are the adults?

-=*=-

Intermezzo: There's an old saw, that goes:

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I propose a slightly different form:

"Lies, damned lies - and economists (Chicago School) ..."

To which I add:

  ".. and filthy, propagandising trolls."

-=*=-

I will 'deal' with (b) 1st;

Q: "Why do we only now find out about it?"

A: Because we have been mislead (aka lied to); another old saw, we've been enrolled in the "Mushroom Club," i.e. kept in the dark - and fed on bulls**t.

Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the impetus of the fatally hubristic GWBush&Co, plus a bit'a serendipity - namely the internet, those who wish to see now can - and what an eff'n mess it is!

Until GWBush&Co showed up, my 'prime source' of information was the AusBC. Although we now see that the mainstream, corporate media (aka the venal and corrupt MSM) are the main conduit for, augmentors - and even creators of the propaganda-flood, it was predominantly the AusBC which kept me personally in the dark - and fed me on bulls**t, since I generally avoided the commercial alternates. QED against any 'left bias' slur; that's only a furphy, one of many similar deliberately deployed by 'the enemy.' And speaking of enemies, see this[2].

More generally, the world has fallen to propaganda, starting first perhaps with the dumbing-down of the US' own sheople® and their now apparently complete addiction to TV, with its distorted 'news,' Madison Ave., Hollywood - all, as we now see, poisonous to greater or lesser degree. In summary (possibly looping - comme d'habitude), we've been lied to - deceived, and that deliberately - also by publicly financed broadcasters, boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

To (a) the crime and its 'why:' That's too easy; the US set out to take more (far, far more) than its 'fair' share, and it set out to do that by deploying 'power tactics:'

  «We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.»
[wiki/Memo_PPS23]

Kennan was regarded as 'dovish:'

  «"The final answer might be an unpleasant one, but...we should not hesitate before police repression by the local government. This is not shameful since the Communists are essentially traitors....It is better to have a strong regime in power than a liberal government if it is indulgent and relaxed and penetrated by Communists. "»
[discuss ...the United States' military and political objectives ...]

Some dove, and 'Communist' was the epithet used on anyone who thought government functions included providing what would otherwise be termed 'normal' services to, or otherwise providing 'support' for the local peasantry(??!) 'Communist' has now been morphed/generalised to 'Socialist,' and attempts were made to smear Obama as such, just this year. Same old same old -

  - as most of the above is old, but the situation has continued. Using WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get - in other words, propaganda-created blinkers off and see what's really going on), we see that the US, still with 5% of the world's population now has 25% of the world's resources - and they have gone fat to the point of obese with their vicious, thieving greed and over-consumption.

But: anyone thinking this is not an extremely acute and current problem could try reading the whole of the article this quote[3] comes from.

-=*=-

Finally (c), why has there been no effective resistance? Who let the US 'get away with it,' up till now?

In other words, where are the (moral, clever) adults?

Search me. Lazy? Corrupt themselves?

Thatcher cried "TINA!" - it was a lie (no surprise), but now we've got an alternative - i.e. do nothing, and complete the drowning - or more likely crashing, starving and/or burning-up, as our ecosphere crisps in the excess-CO2 caused greedastrophe®.

Or some adults could take charge and follow my tip: finger out, dump the US and the $US with it, start soonest on saving our once jewel-like planet.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] jackboot n. 1 military boot reaching above the knee. 2 this as a militaristic or fascist symbol. [POD]

[2] «The Pentagon's Information Operations Roadmap now describes the Internet as an enemy "weapons system."»
[globalresearch/Psychological Operations are my specialty]

[My comment: Not a truly serious article perhaps, but may contain more than a little truth - like that quoted bit, say.]

[3] November 12, 2008
Obama's Economic Advisors
Against Volcker
By Patrick Bond

  «Elmar Altvater of Berlin's Free University recalls how the world "slid into the debt crisis of the 1980s after the US Federal Reserve tripled interest rates (the so called 'Volcker Shock'), leading to what later has been described as the 'lost decade' for the developing world."

How 'lost'? The British Medical Journal complained in 1999 of orthodox World Bank structural adjustment policies that immediately followed: "According to Unicef, a drop of 10-25% in average incomes in the 1980s - the decade noted for structural adjustment lending - in Africa and Latin America, and a 25% reduction in spending per capita on health and a 50% reduction per capita on education in the poorest countries of the world, are mostly attributable to structural adjustment policies. Unicef has estimated that such adverse effects on progress in developing countries resulted in the deaths of half a million young children-and in just a 12 month period."»
[counterpunch/Patrick Bond]

The implications flowing from that article have local repercussions; suffice it to say that with an honest media (and politicians similarly honest), our wide-brown may suffer quite a bit less than it currently does. Our resources are being ripped out of the ground without adequate recompense; our politicians actively assist this rip-off. Our governments are being strangled by tax policies which favour the already filthy-rich, the list of malfeasances is looong. At the root of the problems is the so-called 'Washington Consensus,' an erring, filthy rip-off ideology. See "Economic Hit Man." Why should we be forced to suffer these depredations?

Final comment: Just when you think things can't get worse, they quite often do. The more I find out about what's been done - and what's been largely hidden from us, the madder - I mean angrier - I get. We the sheople - here I mean it with respect, all our fellow-citizens everywhere, shorthand 'humanity,' we do not deserve to be so ripped-off, so deceived. It's gotta be stopped, reversed, our world made whole again - and all the irresponsible criminals must be thrown straight into gaol.

unsustainable ...

2008-11-12T09:59:00.003+11:00

.. an unknown concept to the lying NeoCons ...

.. all they ever do is moreofthesame - mostly criminal bulls**t

-=*=-

ww1 - war to end war - obviously didn't

ww2 - peace, justice & the Amerikan way = prime bulls**t

cw - fear - unnecessary - except as theft-enabler for US aggressor

planet-wide US murdering violence now worse, worser, worst

cultural colonisation via the boob-tube = propaganda

sub-prime - biggest rip-off of all time

recall the filthy super-profit scam

the US doesn't buy, it steals

all planned by the self-titled 'masters of the Universe,' all a complete and utter failure - all they really enabled was the obscene to the point of going horribly obese US over-consumption

IF only moreofthesame - criminal bulls**t, THEN the bigger the eventual crash

Murphy says: If it can happen, it will.

Q1: How smart is Obama? Will he push on, or pull back?

Q2: How smart are we the sheople®, to tolerate the essentially intolerable?

Fallen at the first hurdle?

2008-11-08T11:27:00.002+11:00

The election of Barack Obama was greeted with joy and a great deal of hope and expectations. However, as emotional a moment it was and as much as reality was suspended for a time, reality in the shape of the obstacles that will confront President Obama and his own positions on a range of issues might leave many hopes unfulfilled.

One way to gauge what Obama's policies might be is who he appoints to his staff. We have already one key appointment that does not bode well for a change in approach on a key issue. That appointment is of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.

In the first major appointment of his administration, President-elect Barack Obama has named as his chief of staff Congressman Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli citizen and Israeli army veteran whose father, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, was a member of Menachem Begin's Irgun forces during the Nakba and named his son after "a Lehi combatant who was killed" -- i.e., a member of Yitzhak Shamir's terrorist Stern Gang, responsible for, in addition to other atrocities against Palestinians, the more famous bombing of the King David Hotel and assassination of the UN peace envoy Count Folke Bernadotte.

In rapid response to this news, the editorial in the next day's Arab News (Jeddah) was entitled "Don't pin much hope on Obama -- Emanuel is his chief of staff and that sends a message". This editorial referred to the Irgun as a "terror organization" (a judgment call) and concluded: "Far from challenging Israel, the new team may turn out to be as pro-Israel as the one it is replacing."

That was always likely. Obama repeatedly pledged unconditional allegiance to Israel during his campaign, most memorably in an address to the AIPAC national convention which Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery characterized as "a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning", and America's electing a black president has always been more easily imagined than any American president's declaring his country's independence from Israeli domination.

Not a good start. And here.

I had really wanted to celebrate Barack Obama's remarkable victory for a day or so before becoming cynical again. I really did.
And yet, less than 24 hours after the first polls closed, the president-elect chose as his chief of staff -- perhaps the most powerful single position in any administration -- Rahm Emanuel, one of the most conservative Democratic members of Congress.
The chief of staff essentially acts as the president's gatekeeper, determining with whom he has access for advice and analysis. Obama is known as a good listener who has been open to hearing from and considering the perspectives of those on the Left as well as those with a more centrist to conservative perspective. How much access he will actually have as president to more progressive voices, however, is now seriously in question.
Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel is a member of the so-called New Democrat Coalition (NDC), of group of center-right pro-business Congressional Democrats affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Conference, which is dedicated to moving the Democratic Party away from its more liberal and progressive base. Numbering only 58 members out of 236 Democrats in the current House of Representatives, the NDC has worked closely with its Republican colleagues in pushing through and passing such legislation as those providing President Bush with "fast-track" trade authority in order to bypass efforts by labor, environmentalists and other public interest groups to promote fairer trade policy.

Others will try to coopt the new president.

To avoid falling for the same old, Ray McGovern suggests that President Obama ask questions at Presidential Daily Briefings ... and some personnel changes might help, as well.

Suggestions for changes.

In one area, foreign policy, there are warning signs examined in the above material. Other areas will be examined as appointments and other indicatorts become available. Not, perhaps a good start, but much will depend on whether President Obama respionds to the desires of the electorate or to other influences ... and his own attitudes and strength.

The Bush/Cheney Legacy.

2008-11-02T13:05:00.004+11:00

A few days to go to the election and a few months left for the Bush Administration Questions are being raised about what damage has been done in the past eight years and what will or can change. Some people have placed their hopes in Barack Obama but is he going to be any different. The Democrats were tasked by the American electorate in the 2006 mid-terms with implementing change but, well, what has changed?

In this article Dr Dennis Loo examines the Bush/Cheney legacy and suggests ways for change to be made.

Ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, one of many disaffected former Bush White House officials, recounts Vice-President Dick Cheney saying in a 2002 White House meeting: “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”

The Bush/Cheney years prove that the rule of law and truth don’t matter.

Tom Engelhardt addresses the Bush/Cheney years in "Foreclosed".

They may have been the most disastrous dreamers, the most reckless gamblers, and the most vigorous imperial hucksters and grifters in our history. Selling was their passion. And they were classic American salesmen -- if you're talking about underwater land in Florida, or the Brooklyn Bridge, or three-card monte, or bizarre visions of Iraqi unmanned aerial vehicles armed with chemical and biological weaponry let loose over the U.S., or Saddam Hussein's mushroom clouds rising over American cities, or a full-scale reordering of the Middle East to our taste, or simply eternal global dominance.

When historians look back, it will be far clearer that the "commander-in-chief" of a "wartime" country and his top officials were focused, first and foremost, not on the shifting "central theaters" of the Global War on Terror, but on the theater that mattered most to them -- the "home front" where they spent inordinate amounts of time selling the American people a bill of goods. Of his timing in ramping up a campaign to invade Iraq in September 2002, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card infamously explained: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

A sign of how well they did - Glenn Greenwald.

In February, 2007, David Broder -- the Dean of the Washington Press Corps -- announced that "President Bush is poised for a political comeback" and "is demonstrating political smarts that even his critics have to acknowledge." Today, his own paper, The Washington Post, documented how painfully wrong that was, that George Bush's presidency is one of the greatest failures in all of American history, and he is so widely despised that he dare not show his face in public for fear of further hurting his party's nominee:

Even for a declared optimist, Bush has appeared remarkably sanguine in this season of discontent. The economy is melting down, his own party has shunned him, and Tuesday's election is shaping up as a searing rebuke to his eight years in office. . . .

"Everybody kind of wanted to spend the last 100-plus days doing some legacy things, and the financial crisis has thrown a wrench into that," said one prominent Republican who regularly talks with senior White House officials.

"You have a combination of no legacy stuff, a horrible economic mess and the likelihood that Obama is going to win," this person added. "There is a real sadness there."

None of this would matter, of course, if not for Bush's deep and abiding unpopularity. Bush has not commanded approval from a majority of the nation since early 2005, making him arguably the most disliked president since polling on the question began in the 1930s. A Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll last week put Bush's approval rating at 24 percent and found that McCain had made little headway in separating himself from Bush or his policies.

It's not for lack of trying. For the first time in recent memory, a sitting president has effectively sat out the presidential race, avoiding public appearances on behalf of McCain and other Republicans and raising far less money than usual in private fundraisers. Bush voted for McCain by absentee ballot rather than voting in person in Texas, as he has for the past three elections, and officials say he plans to spend election night at the White House rather than at a rally or other campaign-related event. . . .

"This is unprecedented for a president to be this invisible during a campaign," said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "This is what happens when you have a 25 percent approval rating."

Dick Cheney finally made an entry into the campaign by endorsing John McCain. To the obvious pleasure of the Obama camp.

Matters which we have explored here and elsewhere and which display a frightening degree of criminality and corruption. But will it change/? Read the article for one view. But as I have expressed in the past - Obama might just be another representative of the elites and something more is required. For consideration - an interview with Naomi Wolf.

How to win elections, regardless of the electorate's wishes.

2008-10-29T13:29:00.002+11:00

Here and elsewhere I have documented the methods used by the Republicans to try to get the election result they want. They are many and varied, from vote suppression, intimidation voting machine "irregularities" to a partisan Supreme Court.

With the US elections close I have gathered a few articles on past and present election rigging.

First, how 2004 was done. A detailed piece well worth studying.

Next, an interview with Mark Crispin Miller.

On why he got involved in the issue:

MCM: What immediately drew my interest was the overwhelmingly obvious fact that the 2004 election was stolen. We already know the 2000 election was stolen because the Supreme Court intervened so flagrantly, but I think the 2004 election was stolen on an even grander scale. What struck me was not just that fact, but no less, the general refusal to admit it which was evident not only throughout the corporate media but on the left as well. Even now I can't quite get over how the left fell into line and dismissed the evidence as "conspiracy theory" on the basis of very sloppy reporting by very good reporters in progressive circles.

So the immediate reason why I got into it was because of this staggering miscarriage of proper civic procedure and a betrayal of democracy. The more I thought about it, the more I also came to believe that this is the most important issue, precisely because we can make no progress on any other front if we don't have the right to pick our representatives, and more importantly, reject those who don't represent our interests. That's vital, so I often say in my talks that regardless of what your issue is, you're kidding yourself if you think you can get anywhere when government is able to act with impunity

On 2008:

CB: What evidence do we have currently, in addition to the voluminous evidence that you've provided in your books, that the 2008 election may already be stolen?

MCM: I do resist putting it that way with all due respect to Greg (Greg Palast) and Bobbie (Kennedy). I don't like to say that it's already been stolen because it's demoralizing, but I will say that they (the Republicans) have made enormous strides toward a McCain victory already.

CB: In what way?

MCM: Well, election theft is a two-part process. On the one hand is vote suppression. The purpose of vote suppression is to shrink the electorate before the fact. In the last four years or so they have moved somewhat away from fraudulent manipulation of ballots cast toward grand pre-emptive tactics meant to prevent people from voting in the first place. So within the realm of vote suppression, they have managed to purge literally millions of names from the voter roles. In New York state alone, we learned last week, 1.5 million voters have been purged without their knowledge. That's New York; it's not even a swing state.

There was a report, I think on Daily Kos, that the Justice Department has managed to effect the purge of 13 million votes. I don't know how many of those are legitimate purges because a lot of peoples' names shouldn't be on the list because they're dead or something. But between legal purges conducted by the Department of Justice and illegal purges of the electronic voter roles carried out by various partisan secretaries of state, and voter caging and other tactics, they've managed to do a great deal to shrink the pool of voters who would vote against McCain. That kind of thing will require a lot of fighting and amassing evidence which means that there's got to be a lot of video interviews, polls, phone calls placed to the hotlines-what I'm saying is that this grand stroke of dis-enfranchisement before election day has to be exposed and evidence thereof collected and made available.

But that's not the only thing you do when you steal an election. You also engage in electronic fraud. Here, we have the testimony of an incredibly important person named Stephen Spoonamore who is the star witness in a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation in Ohio. He's a conservative Republican and a former McCain supporter, but most importantly, he is a prominent expert in the detection of computer fraud.
Finally, trying to divert attention.
Virtually the entire mainstream electronic media drank ACORN Kool-Aid this month brewed up by the Republican National Committee. Almost no one seriously challenged John McCain's comical assertions that ACORN, a grassroots voter registration group, "is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."

While the Republicans had the distracted media searching for links between Obama and ACORN, RNC operatives were busily completing one of the most massive voter suppression and purging efforts in American history, stealing hundreds of thousands of Democratic votes across the embattled swing states and striving to arrange chaos and endless lines at the voting booths next week.

In 2006 things did not work out the way the Republicans wanted - possibly due to an underestimate of the swing to the Democrats. The problem in 2008 is that the polls strongly favour Obama, which means the Republican narrative will have to work really well lest people smell a rat. Given the electorate's mood, there might be those prepared recognise the stink. If the MSM do the right thing, that is.

some 'small' improprieties ...

2008-10-28T11:59:00.005+11:00

  .. and some not quite so small

-=*=-

McMahon: “the ecodomy is basically sound”[1].

Haw! Now we're gunna get 'negative growth' (detested US-speak, spit!)

Whitlam succeeded McMahon; Whitlam's single-payer health system endures, although crippled and 'in competition' with medicine-for-profit (wha' d'ya get? Mainly profit), despite all the sly and malicious attempts at sabotage down through the years, but apart from any other problems, Whitlam had to contend with incessant corrosive criticism from the out-of-power 'born-to-rules,' the dirty Digger's (aka Murdoch's) 100+ days of lying 10cm black-ink headlines, and an external oil-shock.

The wheel having turned pretty-well full circle, here we are again.

After a decade-plus of booming exports under the Howard Liberal's 'economic genius' Costello, the Aussie economy is still deep in external deficit and the internal deficit has been converted to a deficit in services; after deliberately (halving CGT) caused asset-bubbles in stock- and house-prices (the latter having crippled the great Aussie dream for sooo many, perhaps for ever), after the Aussie sheople® have been coaxed, encouraged - or bludgeoned (via their Super, say) into becoming share owners, after the sheople having been encouraged to borrow themselves to the silly hilt via drawing-down on their home-mortgages or credit-cards or both, the born-to-rules are once more out of office and now these new-generation born-to-rules are reviving the same-old incessant corrosive criticism tactics, Murdoch's rags are once more on the vicious howl - and the great US-inspired, US-created finance-crash is setting the stage for another 1975, as well as another 1929 while they're at it. Clever, eh?

-=*=-

  «Oil prices dived underneath $US60 per barrel» - from about a $US150 peak a few short months ago.

Tell us that's 'supply and demand,' and not greedy speculators - eh?

  «... fears have sent world stocks spinning lower, with Tokyo hitting a 26-year low»

Tell us that's 'serious investment,' and not a gambling casino - eh?

-=*=-

The sub-prime mess blew up recently, and GWBush&Co tried to solve it by planning to hand out some $US700Bio (!!? - a truly stupefying sum, and by no means all of what's thought yet to be needed), this stupefying sum to be handed out essentially no-strings-attached to the very people - self-termed 'masters of the (financial) universe' - who caused the problem in the 1st place. Europeans, on the other hand, have suggested different approaches, including taking part-ownership in institutions under threat, and guaranteeing (savings) deposits. The latter path is also part of the Rudd government's response.

-=*=-

  «ELEANOR HALL: Yet another mortgage-based fund, Colonial First State, has frozen its redemptions as the sector feels the bite of the Government's deposit guarantee scheme.»

Tell us that "feels the bite" is 'balanced reporting' - eh?

  «JOE HOCKEY: Clearly the Government's action ... it is quite obvious that when the Government provides an unlimited guarantee at no cost as they did on October the 12th then it would create enormous distortions in the markets.»

Tell us that's 'clever commentary' - eh?

My comment: any 'unlimited guarantee' - as opposed to some 'capped' guarantee, can only be exploited by the real fat-cats, rapaciously greedy that they Oh-so obviously are. There are estimated to be less than 0.5% of Aussies who have $1Mio+ available to 'benefit' from such an 'unlimited guarantee.'

Q: Does Hockey really mean to imply that this 0.5% would deliberately cause trouble, themselves 'enormously distorting the markets?'

  «MALCOLM TURNBULL: Chris, the answer is, because look, you are making a debating point. We have got a crisis in our money markets now which has been going on for two weeks because the Government introduced an unlimited guarantee which has caused money, not just small depositors but large deposits to stream out of non-guaranteed institutions and funds into the guaranteed ones.»

Tell us that's a fair summary - eh? To blame this crisis on the Rudd government is a lie that the AusBC should not tolerate, let alone broadcast. Politicians will get away with lying like this as long as the media do not challenge them. That is after all the 4th Estate's job - and the AusBC are paid by us, we the sheople - so it's about time they actually started to work - for us - as opposed to against us. Earlier on, Turnbull said: «a new tax which will be a fee, a compulsory fee on all deposits over a million dollars. ... It will put upward pressure on interest rates.»

My comment: more utter rubbish, as well as outrageous scare-mongering. Even Blind Freddie can see that interest rates will not go up in any near-future, yet Turnbull trots out the scare. Worse, Turnbull is also saying that the 0.5% super-rich are a problem. Have both Hockey and Turnbull taken leave of their senses?

  «ALAN KOHLER: Well, we're witnessing a hedge fund crash. The global hedge fund industry is suffering a run on redemptions; a bit like our mortgage trusts.
And they have to repay the debt as well at a much greater rate that they get the removal of redemption. So they're having to sell everything, all the risk assets they've been buying; which is commodities, emerging stock markets and Australian dollars.
So you're seeing the hedge fund run exacerbated by the fall in commodities, which is also caused by hedge funds, and therefore the Australian dollar is getting sold off.»

My comment: great, 'a hedge fund crash.' In other words, this crisis has its roots in speculation - just like 1929. And guess what? The clever idiots - Repugs and Dummos both, have managed it, partly if not wholly, by dismantling all the protections installed after 1929. Again, clever, eh?

Just as measurable as the tiny proportion of rich having got ever grossly richer (their confiscatory 'share' having gone well past the merely obscene), is the reduction in living standards of the working class, the unions having been largely sabotaged, many workers having been turned into contractors who dare not complain, as they struggle to pay off their plant, and the middle-class having been hollowed-out by their borrowings and squeezed-out by job off-shoring. Globalisation, ain't it grand?

This is a bloody catastrophe, and it all goes back to greed and stupidity. The US-Repugs destroy the currency as they go to thieving, murdering wars-for-spoil. 1Mio essentially innocent but oil-owning Iraqis dead in their latest filthy 'escapade.' The Aus-Libs hang on the US-Repugs' coat-tails. The US-Dummos ape the Repugs, and the Aus-Labs hang on the US-Dummos' coat-tails. Altogether, the world is ripped-off by an exceedingly small, exceedingly greedy already rich-beyond-avarice minority, and we all know what's coming next - not 'just' a financial collapse, but 'the big one,' a possibly terminal climate collapse.

Where are the adults?

-=*end*=-

PS One thing that people might like to keep in mind, is that although the fat-cats may well be able to afford gambling, most of the sheople simply are not - in fact, quite the reverse. To see savings, struggled for years to accumulate, then wiped out in a few moments of greed-inspired madness - is not nice. We the sheople *demand* that our saved money be safe - and Turnbull and Hockey and their ilk be damned.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] A not-so-random quote:

  «By early 1972, when I came to Canberra to work in the Commonwealth public service, the fragility of what Charles Kindleberger came to call “the long boom”, was evident to all. Or 2 nearly all, for the Prime Minister of the time, Billy McMahon, kept repeating: “the economy is basically sound”.»
[Ian McAuley/Insiders and outsiders]

erring ideologues, part ? ...

2008-10-14T20:41:00.001+11:00

  .. hell hath no fury ...

    .. like a violated expectation

-=*=-

Apart from all the shocking negatives, we are left with one thing, and one thing only from the GWBush&Co catastrophe, and that is that they were just sooo bad, sooo hubristic - and so utterly criminal with it, that I, as many others, triggered into action by the perversion of democracy which was the bum’s rush to illegally invade Iraq, put the US under the microscope - and found it wanting in just about all respects.

Straight away, of course, I trigger some 'framing traps:' "Oh yeah, another anti-US rant." But really daaarlings, what else is there? We've had all the canards; "Hate America, love Americans," "Support the troops!" - all bulls**t. America is as America does, and what an eff'n disaster it really is. We have to abandon all pretence; see through all the carefully constructed furphies (keyword: Bernays); what we see (with eyes wide open) is what we've got. Then another canard: "(Mainly US-style) capitalism has brought more prosperity than any other system." Whilst it is true that the US, with only 5% of the world's population has garnered an obscenely whopping 25% of the world's resources to itself, they haven't done it by honest toil - Oh, no; quite the reverse. As the current financial crisis shows, the US has combined business and gangsterism, most of the graduates of the Harvard Business School (for sharks) and their ilk should more correctly be termed banksters.

Along with their hubris comes hypocrisy; say one thing whilst doing some other. In clear text: they deploy lies[1] in an attempt to disguise their criminal acts. The lies are often sourced from think tanks, erstwhile innocuous unless employed for criminal purposes, as they are by our so-called ruling élites (mainly US, UK, Aus & Israeli), except that there's nothing élite about criminality. The lies form a web of deceit that I refer to as the pushed-paradigm, trumpeted by the politicians (of both 'stripes' in our largely two party systems, noting that bipartisanship is itself deeply undemocratic), augmented by purchased 'talking heads,' transmitted by, even amplified by, the corrupt and venal corporate MSM - and, to their great shame, many publicly financed broadcasters like the AusBC & SBS; boo! Hiss! - Traitors all! Another clear-text: we the sheople® are being deliberately propagandised by our 'Establishments[2].' Outside of the Anglo-Judaic-sphere others copy or emulate - but they must in order to compete; a real-world case of bad-apples spoiling 'the game' for all. This is not what they teach us starting in kindergarten, hence the violated expectations.

Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four[4] brought us the concept of thought-crime, but what of ruling-élite-crime? It is an incontrovertible fact, that not only do the rich get richer, but in the last few years (I like to begin my history with the most ghastly of war crimes, namely the A-bombings, but the story is much longer); the rich have increased their depredations to extreme, ever-more obscene levels. (Again, the 'framing trap:' no, this is not 'the politics of envy,' just the facts.) I have heard rumblings, (falsely) asserting that the current financial crisis was somehow caused by some sort of 'leftist' forcing of impossible mortgages onto the unable to pay (NINJA; no income, no job), but recall the ever-present, filthy think-tank/Luntz-playbook style framing. No; it was the self-styled 'masters of the (financial) universe' that invented the latest Ponzi scheme now collapsing[3].

Q: What will it take?

We, those who can see, see a world dominated by crime, mostly originating in the US. Extreme wealth, concentrated in extremely few hands (so few as in the order of the Forbes 400, say), effectively controls the world via the warned-about M/I-plex. They control commerce and politics, and through them the sheople, mainly via lying-by-design, manipulative propaganda, with brutal force not far off. But it's gone wrong; more accurately perhaps, it was always wrong. The simplest way of seeing that it's wrong is that they try to hide it all behind lies, with threats escalating to actual, murdering violence ("Economic Hit Man," then see [5], brrr!) It's gone wrong with the murder-for-spoil wars, literally millions slaughtered. It's gone wrong with commerce, keyword 'economic rent.' It's gone wrong with finance, keyword 'sub-prime.' And horror of horrors, it's going wrong with our once jewel-like planet's ecosystem, quite literally our one and only life-line, keyword 'greedastrophe®.'

A: The people united will never be defeated. We will posit two types of people, those with us (we the sheople), and those agin' us. Along with the perpetrators are their paid minions, those betraying us for $s. For them, both the corruptors and the corrupted, crime obviously pays - at least, currently. Then what of the amateurs, those I term the erring ideologues?

We need to save the world - because it is exactly 'business as usual' that is crashing our systems. Phillip Adams suggests it's time for any and all who have contributed to the crash, also those who merely 'support' those doing the crashing, to change their tune.

I repeat (looping) Q: What will it take - to save the planet?

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]

[2] establishment ... 6 (the Establishment) social group with authority or influence and resisting change. [ibid.]

[3] Most Serious Financial Crisis in World History
Grand Theft America.
Financial Crime of the Century
by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, September 29, 2008

  «... The result of unfettered capitalism's fatal flaw - unbridled greed in a rigged system that rewards the few at the expense of most others. First an explanation of how it works. Free-wheeling, "free market" Chicago School fundamentalism the way economist Milton Friedman championed it in his 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom" and taught it to students for decades. He believed that government's sole function is "to protect our freedom both from (outside) enemies....and from our fellow-citizens." Preserve law and order. Enforce private contracts. Protect private property and "foster competitive (unregulated) markets." Everything else in public hands is "socialism....blasphemy." Not to be tolerated.»
[globalresearch/Lendman]

[4] How close does this come?

  «... has major significance for its vision of an all-knowing government which uses pervasive and constant surveillance of the populace, insidious and blatant propaganda, and brutal control over its citizens.»
[wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four]

My comment: the conscious manipulation of us, we the sheople, for nefarious and up to murderingly criminal purposes, constitutes an insurmountable affront to us, our democracies and the wider world.

Where are the adults?

-=*=-

[5] Then, a PS: Don't think 1984 is here? Try Lendman again:

  «...The 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade is for combat. It's not the National Guard or local police. It's trained for war. "Equipped to kill people" with potent weapons, and a last hurrah scheme may be planned to divert public attention from the financial crisis. A "terrorist" attack with "chemical, biological" or other dangerous weapons. A possible pretext for martial law at a time the administration and Congress are vulnerable. When people are angry about Washington protecting the privileged. Partnering with them in crime. Defrauding the public and stifling dissent. Moving one step closer to tyranny and away from silly notions about democracy. Proving crime indeed does pay and awfully well on Wall Street. "It's the economy, stupid." Theirs, not ours.»

information/psychological operations ...

2008-10-09T20:37:00.001+11:00

.. this is how they do 'em

-=*=-

The article in question was pointed out by/on ICH:

«Defense Dept. To Fund Pro-American Publicity In The Iraqi Media: The Defense Department will pay private U.S. contractors in Iraq up to $300 million over the next three years to produce news stories, entertainment programs and public service advertisements for the Iraqi media in an effort to "engage and inspire" the local population to support U.S. objectives and the Iraqi government.»

The link was not correct, so I searched for and found the item, published by WP:

«One official described how part of the program works: "There's a video piece produced by a contractor . . . showing a family being attacked by a group of bad guys, and their daughter being taken off. The message is: You've got to stand up against the enemy." The professionally produced vignette, he said, "is offered for airing on various [television] stations in Iraq. . . . They don't know that the originator of the content is the U.S. government. If they did, they would never run anything."

"If you asked most Iraqis," he said, "they would say, 'It came from the government, our own government.'"»

Propaganda is lies - must be lies, because if they were limited to telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they'd never be able to convince even the most dumbed-down sheople® to 'support' their Nuremberg-class wars (murder for spoil.)

Why the 'rest of the West' allows/tolerates such vile US(+Israeli) criminality is beyond me. Where are the adults?

-=*=-

The US kleptocracy, in league with the Israeli kleptocracy, aided and abetted by the UK & Aus dittos (the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag), have swindled and raped the world, not 'just' in their Nuremberg-class invasions/occupations, but also in the finance sphere, (see current voracious-greed based financial collapse) and equally voracious resource 'harvesting,' keyword 'economic rent.'

The invasion/occupation of Afghanistan should never have been allowed/tolerated; even though the US claimed it as 'hot pursuit,' we now know that it was a pre-prepared plan pursued under the cover of blind anger, the latter possibly even contrived. But the subsequent invasion/occupation of Iraq was known at the time to have no justification, apart from some criminal US 'strategic objectives,' aka murder for oil. All this is known, all this was/is/will remain illegal.

Now that the 'masters of the universe' have been exposed as the lying criminal frauds that they always were, in multiple fields of endeavour, and them having prepared then precipitated a financial crisis of possibly 1929-magnitude, we have the opportunity, one could say the necessity, of cutting the US loose. Dump the $US, set up a proper world-bank, a proper world-currency - at a single stroke removing the obscene US-deficits dragging us all down, and removing the US-gun at our heads - and then get on with saving the planet.

somebody spoke and ...

2008-10-05T19:17:00.000+11:00

.. I went into a dream …

.. "Whatever it takes..."

-=*=-

Q: What will it take?

The sand in Afghanistan was, still is being, re-arranged.

They're winning in Iraq, so they say - but "they" are not the Iraqis, oh no. (Filthy lying thieves - murder for oil!)

The bailout has been passed by the US legislators, US$1Trio (more or less; most likely more, lots more) will be thrown at the horrendous mess actually created by the self-termed 'masters of the universe,' no-one knows a) how much we, the (generic, US & other) sheople® will eventually have to pay (yes have to, no democratic choice – bi-partisan anything is deeply undemocratic), or b) how much of the US$1Trio will be 'trousered' (filthy expression, ugh: spit!) - just how much of the US$1Trio will be 'trousered' by those very same 'masters of the universe.'

Alternatives were offered - mostly by the (now newly derogatory) 'lefty-bloggers' - but (and natch!) - nobody listened.

The greedastrophe® gathers pace; Rudd (amongst all other risibly so-called 'leaders') spouts BS and does nothing effective.

Sooo, Q: What will it take?

What will it take, to save our once jewel-like planet?

A: Nothing short of a total disaster - or so it looks like.

But, of course, that may be ju-u-ust that little bit too late.

-=*end*=-

Somebody spoke and I went into a dream

Ah, ar ar ar, ah-ah, aar-aa-aa

Dum, de dum, dumb, dumb - dumb!

I read the news today oh, boy ...

living off immoral earnings ...

2008-10-03T11:23:00.002+10:00

  .. society based on 'rule of law' ...

    .. how realistic are your expectations

-=*=-

G'day Bob,

.. following one'a your excellent links, i.e. the Lindorff:

  «With the Bush Administration, the two leading presidential candidates, and the Congressional leadership, as well as a phalanx of Wall Street lobbyists all pushing hard for a massive transfer of taxpayer money to the coffers of banks and investment banks, the American people need to demand a halt to this bums' rush to a bailout.»
[BobW/opednews/Dave Lindorff]

(I repeat (looping): note that in a 2-party system, any bipartisan policy leaves the voters with zero choice and so is deeply undemocratic.)

-=*=-

"Here and now, boys!" (Huxley, Island.)

Starting at the beginning is problematic[1] for at least two reasons, a) it means going back and (perhaps worse), b) how far back is far enough? Take the example of "The Big Bang," the furthest back we can go (evidence-based) is to the CMB (cosmic microwave background, T0+~310,000 years), but theoretically to within a few seconds or less (a bi-i-ig theoretical stretch) - and the closer you go, the less accurate.

If we go back to the beginning of any individual's life, we find that 'the slate is not clean,' there is always an existing background of laws and morality (even the putative 1st 'bad-apple thief' was told beforehand "Do not do this!" - or so I recall the 'story.' Haw!) That morality and law differ is no surprise; there is no agreement on morality (partly for lack of trying and corruption both), and any law is a man-made construct, therefore by definition imperfect (for some of the very same reasons, namely lack of trying and corruption both. Boo! Hiss!) Nevertheless, each person has their own beginning; it is the responsibility of the primary carers to 'do their best,' and society as a whole to support this process, everywhere. This in turn invokes a loop; the primary carers and society have to a) know their business and b) carry it out responsibly. This is clearly hardly ever the (current) case: fail! Fail!

We can posit a practical 1st rule: "Get it right the 1st time!" A corollary is "... because there may be (Murphy: guaranteed) - no 2nd chance." Of course this seems, is, obvious - when you think about it, but popular culture depends heavily on "Der, I didn't think!" - I suggest that it's time (long overdue) for some effective change, to get us (i.e. our Anglo/Judaic society) 'back on track;'

"No more of the same!"

-=*=-

"In heaven there is no beer, that's why we have to drink it here!" (German quasi-joke.) As for no beer in heaven, so no police in Utopia[2]. (No joke.) Sooo, what about in our distopia[3]? Try this:

  «The ignorant, uneducated masses outside the Party are not normally subjected to its propaganda: "They can be granted intellectual liberty because they have no intellect", and hence no impulse to rebel either. Party members, on the other hand, cannot be allowed any deviation of opinion whatsoever. The danger of growing liberalism or scepticism within the Party is eliminated by massive indoctrination and constant surveillance of every member. A Party member "is expected to have no private emotions and no respites from enthusiasm. He is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party."

To safeguard the essential notions that Big Brother is omnipotent and the Party is infallible, history is constantly rewritten...»
[Nineteen Eighty-Four/The Book]

Rewriting of history occurs, the cynical victors' history. The most famous example, actually of course most infamous, is misrepresenting perhaps the largest single-item war crime ever, then stupefyingly doubled, namely the A-bombing, as having been somehow justifiable.

Before we leave dystopia, what we really have is an anti-utopia, a pretend-democracy - which is anything but.

Backing up a bit:

  «The first chapter, Ignorance is Strength, begins with the observation that throughout history, all societies have been divided into a caste system of three groups or classes: the High, who are the rulers; the Middle, who yearn to take over the position of the High; and the Low, who are typically so suppressed that in their drudgery they have no goals beyond day-to-day survival (if they are at all able to formulate any political agenda, it is to establish a society where all people are equal).»
[The Book, ibid.]

I quibble; me'n me mates do not wish to overthrow our putative 'rulers,' to man the barricades would be madness in the extreme - under the current regime(s), they'd more'n likely machine-gun us. Nor do I suffer from the filthily-framed 'wealth-envy,' it should be obvious that we're not talking penniless paupers here, nor do I dream of "a society where all people are equal," since equality under the law would do: one rule for all. But a bit more than 'just' fair rules - in fact, a whole lot more - universal justice and nothing-but-the-truth would not go at all astray:

"Fair go, ya mugs!"

-=*=-

Some things have changed; even though severely deprived, Orwell's 'proles' could be trusted not to rebel and were thus spared the state propaganda - our sheople® clearly are denied such a luxury. It seems that the current 'rulers' dare not trust the sheople with a 'free' vote; the sheople are not only immersed in the lying pushed-paradigm propaganda (Hollywood rubbish, venal MSM lies, these lies both transmitted via *and* augmented by the corrupt MSM - and even then more and worse, keyword Bernays), the sheople are denied any effective choice (Lib/Lab ugly twins in Aus, Repug/Dummos 'over there,') and no matter who gets elected, they (the putative representatives) do not properly represent us, we the sheople (their electors) anyway, rather the reps are in league with the (shadowy?) true rulers, variously referred to as the M/I-plex, MNCs or just 'the big end of town.' Recalling my recent discoveries, we have Ponerology & Pathocracy, then my old stand-by kleptocracy, and all the usual et ceteras.

One of the comments to the Lindorff article includes this:

  «A psychopath only thinks of themself. They don't care about all the chaos and destruction they cause. In fact, some of them FEED OFF the chaos, destruction, suffering, misery, death, poverty and illness they cause!

It's been proven by psychological research: Psychopaths actually get a buzz off of be-deviling [sic; bedevilling] those under them in power! They get a rush from harming others!

These guys are snakes in suits just like many politicians.

It's obvious they have a dark agenda because of the insistence to rush the legislation through.»

Sounds about right. Even the fact that politicians could be suspect is a shocker - but we know it's gone far beyond suspicion and on into actual, serious criminality - right up to murder for oil, say; 'the system' is not just 'slightly broken,' it's damn' near to if not actually terminal.

-=*=-

Some things have not changed; for our propaganda we have a modern MiniTrue, the corporate, corrupt and venal MSM - but not 'just,' the public broadcasters are in it too, *double* traitors. As already noted, our modern MiniTrue does not just conduit the lies, it often actively augments them. MiniPeace is out'a control, see murder for oil in Iraq, no honour there. MiniPlenty has been down-sized, out-sourced, sent off-shore. Like the spiteful 'junior spies' reporting to the thought-police/MiniLove, we have erring ideologue 'pushed paradigm' apologists, appeasers (a lot'a bad 'A's[5]) and then out-and-out blog-terrorists, aka utterly despicable, filthy, lying trolls.

Backing up to the psychopaths, and Ponerology & Pathocracy. Here is some of it:

  «There are basic facts that all people of conscience need to grasp, fast. 6% of any given population are born genetic psychopaths. But then why do some fall under their spell and other not? The vast majority of 'paths remain undetected as they manipulate and plunder their way through human relationships consuming our emotional and financial energy. In this sense, they are 'successful'. They insinuate themselves into networks throughout society by sharp observance of our behaviour and mimic/act to get what they want: power over others - in fact, the pinnacle of achievement for a psychopath is TOTAL AND RUTHLESS DOMINANCE OVER 'THE OTHER'.

Political Ponerology expands this dynamic out onto the societal scale to explain that periodically a concentration of psychopaths (thanks to negative selection - think 'Old Boys' Network' taken to its extreme) coalesces 'at the top' to form a 'Pathocracy' wherein 100% of key positions of a state are run by people who have a permanent and incurable deficit in their worldview.»
[from a comment on a BobW/alternet/Naomi Wolf article]

-=*=-

Fazit: Power is fully half of the problem; misuse is the other. Power delegated must be responsible; no taxation without (proper!) representation. Power is delegated under a 'social contract,' force may only be deployed in support of the social contract, not - as with Bush&Co, actually against the very people who put them there (supposedly; doesn't help if the elections themselves are corrupted.) That psychopaths have infiltrated the 'leadership,' so widely and corruptly, must now a) be stopped and then b) prevented for all time. It's no good to talk about 'law and order' unless it goes for the entire population; one set of laws, applied to rulers and ruled alike.

We can make a start by identifying lies and liars, criminals and their 'A' retinues[5], and start lockin' 'em all up.

No destroyers, neither liars nor psychopaths nor any in between should go unpunished.

Oh, yeah; and no bailout for already obscenely rich fat-cats.

-=*end*=- (but don't miss [5])

Ref(s):

[1] problematic adj. (also problematical) attended by difficulty; doubtful or questionable. problematically adv. [Greek: related to *problem] [POD]

[2] Utopia n. imagined perfect place or state of things. Utopian adj. (also utopian). [ibid.]

[3] Distopia (actually, dystopia[4]) - a real or imagined society that is totally dysfunctional to its citizens, e.g. the society pictured in 1984, Doomsday Forecast - A forecast where a future catastrophe is the focal issue.
[mnfuturists/FuturistDictionary]

Comment: I think there are two entries run together here. Serendipity? Nope; (bad!) karma? Prolaby®.

[4] dystopia

  «A dystopia (from the Greek d?s- and t?p??, alternatively, cacotopia, kakotopia, cackotopia, or anti-utopia) is the vision of a society that is the opposite of utopia. A dystopian society is a state in which the conditions of life are miserable, characterized by human misery, poverty, oppression, violence, disease, and/or pollution.

Some academic circles distinguish between anti-utopia and dystopia. As in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, a dystopia does not pretend to be utopian, while an anti-utopia appears to be utopian or was intended to be so, but a fatal flaw or other factor has destroyed or twisted the intended utopian world or concept.»
[wiki/Dystopia]

[5] Some real bad 'A's: actual criminals, i.e. active perpetrators, then accomplices, accessories, appeasers, apologists ...

Q: Any more bad 'A's?

A: Yes, the finance market smart-As, the ones who created this sub-prime mess in the 1st place. I saw this problem coming, although I didn't fully realise it at the time. I posed this Q to a mate of mine: "How can this be sustainable?" The finance market smart-As have built a bubble on consumer/household debt, at the same time as depressing the wages - and 'market share' of consumer/household income (the difference having been confiscated by the already rich fat-cats). What happens, I asked,

Q: When the consumers/households get maxed-out on credit - and run out of 'spending' money?

A: The whole consumer/household market house of cards will - must collapse.

Sooo, even if some bail-out does go ahead, that'll only be shuffling the deck-chairs; the toxic debt may be moved from one place to another (and in any case is only one half of the problem) - since the deficit of demand will - must only get deeper.

Wham! 1929 here we come.

A Parthian Shot.

2008-10-01T04:55:00.003+10:00

We have been seeing a surge of activity from pro-Zionist elements recently - and again. The usual routine, ie., demonise a certain person and state with misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies. The same tactics are used to defend against charges of Israel's crimes.

A retiring Israeli prime minister has fired some shots at much those described in the preceding paragraph promote and defend. From an interview in the New York Times:

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.

And:

He also dismissed as “megalomania” any thought that Israel would or should attack Iran on its own to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, saying the international community and not Israel alone was charged with handling the issue.

Try this:

He said that maintaining sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem, Israel’s official policy, would involve bringing 270,000 Palestinians inside Israel’s security barrier. It would mean a continuing risk of terrorist attacks against civilians like those carried out this year by Jerusalem Palestinian residents with front-end loaders.

“A decision has to be made,” he said. “This decision is difficult, terrible, a decision that contradicts our natural instincts, our innermost desires, our collective memories, the prayers of the Jewish people for 2,000 years.”

The government’s public stand on Jerusalem until now has been to assert that the status of the city was not under discussion. But Mr. Olmert made clear that the eastern, predominantly Arab, sector had to be yielded “with special solutions” for the holy sites.

Fair's fair:

On peace with the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert said in the interview: “We face the need to decide but are not willing to tell ourselves, yes, this is what we have to do. We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not all the territories. We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace.”

The reaction has already started. Expect outrage and outrageous comments and not a little hysteria and histrionics. I caution some to be careful lest they hurt themselves in their excesses. It might even be entertaining to watch them in action.

Whether it has any larger impact is yet to be seen.

woke up, fell out'a bed ...

2008-09-25T17:23:00.002+10:00

.. dragged a comb across my head ...

.. turned the radio on: shock! Horror!

-=*=-

The Dummos are caving in - as forecast, adding their milquetoast caveats.

The $US700bio is practically jumping straight into the Beagle Boys' pockets.

It's hard to imagine a bigger failure - except for a 1929-style crash and following depression, which so far we just don't have.

Sure, there's turbulence in the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate), but that has hardly impacted the day-to-day sheople®, although the threat of superannuation funds 'evaporating' probably is biting. The sheople actually expect the stock market to crash every so often - that's an easy one, because that's exactly what happens. More shock, horror, and note a word now often deployed in conjunction with the current crisis: bet.

But: the markets were obviously defective - because why else would the neoliberals have deregulated them?

The deregulated markets allowed fraud to bloom, stealing from the cash-flow and enriching the clever-dick 'masters of the (finance) universe.'

Note: the now deregulated markets are also obviously defective - proof is the current crisis.

Q: how would you like your markets next? A: The markets, deregulated and regulated both, failed. The fact that markets crash, whatever their regulatory status, is - um, err - rather telling, eh? That pretty-well removes 'the market' argument, like toadally. Sooo, where (the bloody hell) is their ideology?

The proposed solution is to steal even more, this time direct from the sheople - $US700bio or so (final bill nowhere near in sight); goodly percentages of which will go straight to the same (criminal!) 'masters of the (finance) universe.'

And most probably (like night follows day), the Dummos will be blamed; it's the old-style wedge, damned etc.

-=*=-

Monday, September 22, 2008
For The Record
I called it first.
-Atrios 23:19
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_09_21_archive.html#8905305475796506073

And Because It's So Obvious
If the Democrats pass this piece of shit, look for Republican challengers to run against them on it.
-Atrios 15:23
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_09_21_archive.html#6220077789091439706

Smack Down
09.22.08 -- 7:45PM By Josh Marshall
I think Kos, Digby and Kilgore have this about right. The Republican/McCain plan is to get the Democrats to bail out the GOP's Wall Street friends and then run against them for doing it.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/218880.php

A New Deployment.

2008-09-25T05:47:00.002+10:00

Despite being overstretched a US Army combat brigade is being deployed to a new front - the US. There might be some justification in this as the Bush Administration is a criminal organisation and has made the US a rogue state. However, the deployment is being made by ... the Bush Administration. And it is an "enduring" assignment. Coverage is in this Glenn Greenwald article.

Several bloggers today have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times, which announces that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities."

...

For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored -- until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."

From the Jeff Stein article:

It’s amazing what you can find if you turn over a few rocks in the anti-terrorism legislation Congress approved during the election season.

Take, for example, the John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2006, named for the longtime Armed Services Committee chairman from Virginia.

Signed by President Bush on Oct. 17, the law (PL 109-364) has a provocative provision called “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.”

The thrust of it seems to be about giving the federal government a far stronger hand in coordinating responses to Katrina-like disasters.

But on closer inspection, its language also alters the two-centuries-old Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the president’s power to deploy troops within the United States.

That law has long allowed the president to mobilize troops only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”

But the amended law takes the cuffs off.

Specifically, the new language adds “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident” to the list of conditions permitting the President to take over local authority — particularly “if domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.”

Since the administration broadened what constitutes “conspiracy” in its definition of enemy combatants — anyone who “has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States,” in the language of the Military Commissions Act (PL 109-366) — critics say it’s a formula for executive branch mischief.

Yet despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill.

One of the few to complain, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., warned that the measure virtually invites the White House to declare federal martial law.

It “subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law,” he said in remarks submitted to the Congressional Record on Sept. 29.

“The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor,” he said.

Moreover, he said, it breaks a long, fundamental tradition of federal restraint.

“Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy.”

Nothing unusual in Bush disregarding the Constitution.

So what is the rationale? We saw a hint perhaps in the activities of law enforcement agencies before and during the Republican convention, as detailed previously. Could the Administration expect a higher level of public unrest, say in the wake of the elections? Or worse? There might be reasins for unrest if the election result does not seem to reflect opinion polls - and they are swinging in favour of Obama. But they have ways - and lots of new ones.

Bobby: "There are about 30 scams the Republicans are deliberately using, particularly in the swing states to get Democratic voters off the rolls. These scams originate in the so-called Help America Vote Act which was passed after the Florida debacle in the year 2000. It was originally suggested by Democrats and Republicans but it was passed by a Republican congress with a Republican senate and a Republican president. And instead of reforming what happened in Florida it basically institutionalized all the problems that happened in Florida. And institutionalized a series of impediments that make it very difficult for Democrats to register, for Democrats to vote and then for Democrats to have their vote counted.

Some people might not be impressed and want to voice their objections. But would they get very far?

Not forgetting the bailout - wherein the Administration wants to hand over a shipload of taxpayers' money to, at best, reckless fat-cats, and without accountability. A note - some have referred to this as "financial socialism", but think on who is to get the benefit and recall Mussolini also bailed out Capital. Perhaps the wrong "ism" is being used. And if you put together all we have seen over the past nearly eight years ...

Time to recall the words of Thomas Jefferson:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

The time has come.

before any bailout is started ...

2008-09-25T02:59:00.005+10:00

.. better make sure that the bung is in, 'cause ...

.. there's a hole in your bucket, dear sleazer

-=*=-

«... we will find these people and we will bring them to justice.»

-=*=-

OK, pardnah, now let's see you put your money where your mouth is.

These people have perpetrated out-and-out fraud, a form of 'daylight robbery.' By 'these people,' I don't mean the people who brought us the Iraqi-WMD fraud (murder for oil), here 'these people' are the (self described?) 'masters of the universe,' the Oh, so clever-dicks on Wall St., the ones who invented then perpetrated the swindles at the heart of the current financial crisis - 1st guesstimate at damage limitation, $US700bio. Some are saying that without a bailout the financial system will collapse. Whether this is hype can't be ruled out, and going on the recent past should be strongly suspected, but nevertheless. Frau Merkel seems to think there's a problem sufficiently grave to say that it was irresponsible for the US ...; she did not look at all amused.

-=*=-

If you buy something, anything, 'due diligence' apart, you expect a) that the info (i.e. truth) is available (even if you have to work for it, but why that?) - and b) you expect it to work 'as advertised.'

Keywords: product suitability, product liability, truth in advertising, etc. (Probably a few more; my poor recall.)

Looking at (a), the providers of info were either totally incompetent (recall 'masters of the (financial) universe') - or they 'simply' lied, then as for (b), i.e. working as advertised, the MBSs, CDOs & SIVs, etc. not only do not work at all well, they are sooo bad as to be described as 'toxic.' The writers of many of the underlying mortgages were uncoupled from any and all risk, and must have known that they were going over the (prior, good practice) limits. There is no other possible explanation for 'NINJA' mortgages (No Income, No Job.)

Full (i.e. not only to US victims) 'money back' as (part) reparation must be considered as only reasonable - but who's gunna pay? Why stick it to the mostly hard-pressed taxpayers, aka sheople®?

One thing that is fur shure, is that all those who have fraudulently profited should pay - usually (like the ATO, say) the penalty for financial malfeasance is to fine by some multiple of the 'damage.'

Given that the freaks have come close to destroying the financial system, any penalty ort'a be suitably extreme.

-=*=-

We know all about GWBush&Co's hypocrisy, not to mention criminality, as demonstrated by the US illegal invasion of Iraq, this Nuremberg class war crime then having being extended by morphing the illegal invasion into a brutal occupation, each filthy crime more murdering than the other. But (and it's a mighty big 'BUT'), the hapless victims of the US executive, aided by the US congress, perpetrated by the Pentagon (no honour there) and ultimately by the mainly US 'grunts,' those poor, hapless victims in Iraq were not us, i.e. they were some foreign other. (Me racist? No, but the US perpetrators: yes; they call it 'exceptionalist.')

With the financial crisis, the hapless victims of the toxic products of the 'masters of the (financial) universe' are us, and our mostly 'Western' friends.

What we need is a) reasonable reparations for all victims, and b) all perpetrators brought to justice. By all means fix 'the markets,' but no single penny to the crooks that caused the crash.

Nothing else will really do, eh pardnah?

Some justice for the survivors in Iraq wouldn't go astray, either.

-=*=-

Update - i.e you don't have to take my word for it, this from Rep. Marcy Kaptur via GG:

«To Wall St. insiders . . . you have perpetrated the greatest financial crimes ever on this American Republic. You think you can get by with it because you are extraordinarily wealthy and are the largest contributors to both presidential and Congressional campaigns in both major parties.»

My comment: Democracy? What democracy. This is 'the world's best' (so they say), the best and the brightest - criminals.

voodoo economics ...

2008-09-23T03:17:00.001+10:00

  .. with a 'sting'

-=*=-

Something to start the day with:

September 22, 2008
Will the Cure be Worse Than the Crisis?
The Paulson-Bernacke Bank Bailout Plan
By MICHAEL HUDSON

  «... Cities and states vied with each other to slash property taxes, replacing them with income and sales taxes that fall mainly on labor and consumers. The upshot is that wealth has polarized to an unprecedented degree. According to statistics collected by the Congressional Budget Office, the wealthiest 1% now own 57% of the nation’s returns to wealth (interest, dividends and capital gains) and the richest 10% own no less than 77%.»
[counterpunch/hudson]

Dear reader, if you don't read it all, you might as well stop here now, and exit (bye.)

For those still here, this:

Wages share of income slumps to 43-year low
September 3, 2008 - 5:37PM

  «... Both small business and wage incomes have declined as a proportion of national income over the past few decades.
Along with rising income tax and interest payments, the proportion decline has been the main reason for the fall in household disposable income from more than 75% of total factor income in the 1960s to 61% at last measure.
Factor income is GDP adjusted for indirect taxes and production subsidies, and shows how much of national income is going to "factors of production'', notably labour and capital.
The compensation of employees - wages and the like - has fallen to 52.4% of factor income, the ABS figures show, its lowest since the March quarter of 1965.
Not surprisingly, household consumption spending has fallen to its lowest since the end of 1974.
At the same time profits, boosted by the resources boom and a subdued labour force, have zoomed to a record 28.4% of factor income, easily eclipsing anything seen in the 49-year history of the national accounts.»
[smh/business]

One more (repeated from the best that money can buy ...):

No longer just goodies for the top 1%
The Trillion Dollar Meltdown - Easy Money, High Rollers and Great Credit Crash by Charles R Morris
Reviewed by Julian Delasantellis

  «One of the most striking developments over the past quarter century is the dramatic shift of taxable incomes towards the wealthiest people. Between 1980 and 2005, the top tenth of the population's share of all taxable income went from 34% to 46%, an increase of about a third. The changing distribution within the top 10%, however, is what's truly remarkable. The unlucky folks in the 90th to the 95th percentiles actually lost a little ground, while those in the 95th to 99th gained a little.

Overall, however, income shares in the 90th and 99th percentile were basically flat (24% in 1980 and 26% in 2005). Almost all the top one-tenth's share gains, in other words, went to the top 1%, or the top "centile", who doubled their share of national cash income from 9% to 19%.

Even within the top centile, however, the distribution of gains was radically skewed. Nearly 60% of it went to the top tenth of 1% of the population, and more than a fourth of it to the top one-hundredth of 1% of the population. Overall, the top tenth of 1% more than tripled their share of cash income to about 9%, while the top one-hundredth of 1%, or fewer than 15,000 taxpayers, quadrupled their share to 3.6% of all taxable income. Among those 15,000, the average tax return reported US$26 million of income in 2005, while the take for the entire group was $384 billion.»
[atimes/BOOK REVIEW]

My comment: the rich have become richer, there's some proof, also some hints at by how much.

-=*=-

There has been a take-over by stealth, by a 'system' sometimes referred to as voodoo[1] economics (especially apposite given the next word in my dictionary is voracious[2]). The 'real' name could be neoliberal, neoclassical, Friedman or "Chicago School" economics. Keywords are deregulation, 'user pays,' privatisation, greed.

-=*=-

As for Costello's halving of the CGT and its contribution to doubling Aus' house-prices, voodoo economics could not have more severely ripped us sheople® off, had it been consciously designed with that aim in mind. Ooops! We don't 'believe' in coincidences...

Voodoo economics has recently reached a crescendo, the deregulation and consequent swindles both having accelerated in the GWBush&Co era, so much so that the entire banking system, if not the economy as a whole with it, teeters on the brink.

-=*=-

So we come to my ennui[3], which is not from idleness or lack of interest and nor am I bored, but I despair. Again the next word in my dictionary is apposite: enormity[4], being the qualifier of our calamity.

-=*=-

What the hell went wrong, where are the adults?

-=*end*=-

PS And the sting? If Hudson is correct, we the sheople will pay and pay, not just to keep ourselves alive, but also for Paulson's so-called recovery bailout - actually the next, possibly greatest, rip-off ever. As if the rich were not rich enough already.

How much longer will the non-US adults tolerate such greed and criminality?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] voodoo —n. religious witchcraft as practised esp. in the W. Indies. —v. (-doos, -dooed) affect by voodoo; bewitch. [Dahomey] [POD]

[2] voracious adj. 1 gluttonous, ravenous. 2 very eager (voracious reader). voraciously adv. voracity n. [Latin vorax from voro devour] [ibid.]

[3] ennui n. mental weariness from idleness or lack of interest; boredom. [French: related to *annoy] [ibid.]

[4] enormity n. (pl. -ies) 1 monstrous wickedness; monstrous crime. 2 serious error. 3 great size. [Latin enormitas] [ibid.]

the best that money can buy ...

2008-09-17T18:53:00.002+10:00

.. phoney[1] intellectuals: shame on you ...

.. subtitle: neither use nor eff'n ornament - bah!

-=*=-

Apart from the greedastrophe®[2] (which could quite effectively end life as most of us would like to live it), there are a couple of significant problems: a) the out'a control US+Israel and b) the similarly out'a control economy. These problems are partly as a result of out'a control politics[3] nested in a failing system risibly termed 'democracy'[4]. I, for one, am not laughing. These (among more) aspects of our world are dysfunctional, altogether an insult to our collective intelligence.

-=*=-

Preamble: once, people cared, things got done. The main thrust of the Magna Carta was in limiting the power of the king, a process which should have been continued to its logical end, i.e. no concentration of power (and no royalty, to boot.) We had various revolutions (France, US, Russia, China) - to rid the sheople® of the time from oppression, either inspired by and/or coincident with The Enlightenment, "Das Kapital" and "Mein Kampf" (say. List not exhaustive, and not all positive.) Democracy - at least as 'old' as the ancient Greeks, was 'chosen' as the preferred system. Q: What went wrong? A: Lots, mainly 'powered' by greed.

-=*=-

Main argument: Consider SNAFU[6]. Why that? Where are the adults? What are the truly smart people doing; why, when the world could be sooo beautiful, are we drowning in lies, greed, crime and war? We have universities churning out so-called intellectuals, what's gone wrong with their product?

Subsidiary argument: given that things have gone and continue to go so very wrong, change is not just desirable but necessary, hence this blog title:

¡ NoMothS !

No more of the same!

1. War: Big news, world; pay attention! War is wrong, we should have none of it (and that, since a long time - at least since WW2.) Message to all intellectuals: Why are you so ineffective? Any who are not actively opposing war are betraying the human race. Yep, as bad as that; traitors!

2. Democracy. The 1st principle here should be "Do no harm!" The primary failing is that our so-called representatives are not properly representing their electorates. At this point one must emphasize: the electorate is the vast bulk of the voters, not just the few obscenely rich fat-cats[7]. Current 'leadership' is leading the world astray: just stop it!

3. Economy. The worst aspect of the current economic paradigm is growth. As if the world was infinite: stop it! Population growth must cease - and numbers allowed to reduce to at or below a sustainable level. No more more! Then as if 'the market' knew all: stop it! Deregulation and its associated running-dog ideology has failed. There are no cops only in Utopia; in real life we need effective economic cops soonest. We've had 25 years of Friedman and the "Chicago School," time to ditch the lot. Time for economists to get real.

4. Morality. First of all, ditch the 'g*d squad;' simply not needed. A necessary and sufficient morality can be built solely on reflexive altruism: I won't piss in your water, if you don't piss in mine. Try my attempted formalisation, the chezPhil morality.

Discussion: a possible corollary of reflexive altruism is "Every wo/man for himself," the extreme being "I'm OK, Jack - pull the ladder up!" - but that idea contradicts democracy; the fact of the matter is that we're all in it together: one (finite) world. Consider "Cooperate or die!" - we have to work together to save the planet - it's a must.

-=*=-

Fazit: No politician is Superman, they all depend on advice, which can come directly from think-tanks but originates with actual thinkers, these mainly educated through universities. It's time for universities in general and thinkers in particular to abandon all unworkable ideologies and return to straight science: to practical solutions; stuff that works.

BUT: Even if the politicians get good advice, nothing will help unless the politicians don't start acting responsibly.

-=*end*=-

PS Yesterday, I quoted an evil troll, Q: "If yore so clever, why ain't you rich?"

As a member of the sheople, A: Its not sooo important to be rich, more to live a full and happy life. Besides, under the current system, it looks like being rich strongly correlates with being criminal (basically, sick people); I'd rather just be happy, thanks.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] phoney (also phony) colloq. —adj. (-ier, -iest) 1 sham; counterfeit. 2 fictitious. —n. (pl. -eys or -ies) phoney person or thing. phoniness n. [origin unknown] [POD]

[2] Greedastrophe® - the coming excess CO2-caused climate change, change as in 'not for the better,' and coming sooner rather than later - unless proper remedial action is taken, soonest.

[3] politics n.pl. 1 (treated as sing. or pl.) a art and science of government. b public life and affairs. 2 (usu. treated as pl.) political principles or practice (what are his politics?). 3 activities concerned with seeking power, status, etc. [POD]

polity n. (pl. -ies) 1 form or process of civil government. 2 organized society; State. [Greek polites citizen, from polis city] [ibid.]

[4] democracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 a government by the whole population, usu. through elected representatives. b State so governed. 2 classless and tolerant society. [Greek demokratia rule of the people] [ibid.]

[5] Mein Kampf, a political manifesto in which [Hitler] spelt out Germany's need to rearm, strive for economic self-sufficiency, suppress trade unionism and communism, and exterminate its Jewish minority.
[The OXFORD World ENCYCLOPEDIA]

[6] snafu slang —adj. in utter confusion. —n. this state. [acronym of ‘situation normal: all fouled (or fucked) up’] [POD]

[7] No longer just goodies for the top 1%
The Trillion Dollar Meltdown - Easy Money, High Rollers and Great Credit Crash by Charles R Morris
Reviewed by Julian Delasantellis

«One of the most striking developments over the past quarter century is the dramatic shift of taxable incomes towards the wealthiest people. Between 1980 and 2005, the top tenth of the population's share of all taxable income went from 34% to 46%, an increase of about a third. The changing distribution within the top 10%, however, is what's truly remarkable. The unlucky folks in the 90th to the 95th percentiles actually lost a little ground, while those in the 95th to 99th gained a little.

Overall, however, income shares in the 90th and 99th percentile were basically flat (24% in 1980 and 26% in 2005). Almost all the top one-tenth's share gains, in other words, went to the top 1%, or the top "centile", who doubled their share of national cash income from 9% to 19%.

Even within the top centile, however, the distribution of gains was radically skewed. Nearly 60% of it went to the top tenth of 1% of the population, and more than a fourth of it to the top one-hundredth of 1% of the population. Overall, the top tenth of 1% more than tripled their share of cash income to about 9%, while the top one-hundredth of 1%, or fewer than 15,000 taxpayers, quadrupled their share to 3.6% of all taxable income. Among those 15,000, the average tax return reported US$26 million of income in 2005, while the take for the entire group was $384 billion.»
[atimes/BOOK REVIEW]

My comment: Only three words; ghastly, obscene greed.

betrayal ...

2008-09-14T17:21:00.004+10:00

  .. who would you vote for?

-=*=-

I found this article:

September 13 / 14, 2008
CounterPunch Diary
Panic!
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

It talks about how the Obama campaign has been 'spooked' by Palin's candidature for VP.

That's definitely one of the current 'presenting symptoms' of Dummo angst, but it's not the real problem.

The real problem has its roots in lies; both 'sides' tell 'em, and although we might've become accustomed (shame!) to expect lies from 'the right' ("All politicians lie!" having been deployed by the right in 'defence' of Howard et al., as one component of the lying, illegally invading, brutally occupying B, B & H) - we still have trouble 'handling' lies coming from 'our' side, i.e. the (putative) left. (To add insult to injury, Blair was supposedly of the 'left.' More shame.)

But even then, lies are still only a contributing factor to the 'real' real problem, which is a lack of meaningful democratic choice. Take, for example, Rudd's promise to act on the greenhouse, and his government's actual proposed 'solution.' In very few words: a piss-weak cop-out. Just like the Libs, the Labs are copping-out to local industry (apart from food and services, now mainly only miners & finance), itself just another cog in the wheel of 'global commerce' which is in turn a cipher for (overwhelmingly US) capitalism.

Over the years, this malignant capitalism has taken more and more power to itself (sadly, no-one has effectively acted upon Ike's "Beware the M/I-plex!" warning) - and it would appear that neither the Labs nor the Libs in Aus, the Dummos nor the Repugs 'over there,' can act contrary to the dictates of this grotesque malignancy. Q: Why is this capitalism so malignant? A: Because a) it's leading directly to the destruction of our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere - our one and only life-support system, b) it's unmercifully crushing the lower class and squeezing the middle class and c) all this to the benefit of 'the spoilers,' an extremely few already obscenely-rich fat-cats.

Now back to democratic choice: we (the voters, sheople® almost to the wo/man) have so little choice it's near enough to none; neither the Labs nor the Libs in Aus, the Dummos nor the Repugs 'over there' differ significantly; simply none of them is prepared to act to save our planet - or to stop the vile wars, let alone to stop their lying.

No choice, no truth, no democracy and no justice - we're 'ruled' by criminals and proxy-murderers we cannot be rid of; vote one side out and the other does much of the same, as we slowly, agonisingly, drown in a vast sea of filthy lies - and the creeping, ever nearing greedastrophe®, the excess-CO2 caused climate chaos that may well finish most of us off.

-=*=-

If Obama manages to win, it will be largely despite what he says, rather than the other way around, i.e. that he claims to be some sort'a agent for change. By almost all measures, he is nothing much more than 'more of the same,' with his "All options!" vis-à-vis Iran, say, or his immediate reassurances (aka grovelling) to the Israel Lobby - or his stupid 'surge success' comments, all of which recalls my headline, namely betrayal[1]; here's a quote:

  «Betrayal is a moral issue, and with respect to war, mass destruction, maiming, and death, it is a moral issue of the highest order. Betraying trust is a matter of deception that knowingly leads to significant harm. There is little doubt that the Iraq War and its aftermath have done considerable harm -- to our troops, to the Iraqi people, and to our nation as whole. It is equally clear that there has been a considerable amount of deception in the instigation of the war and throughout the occupation.»
[huffpo/George Lakoff/Whose Betrayal?]

My comment: Well, we know all that; some of us have for a looong time, now. But the killing doesn't stop, nor the planning for the next slaughter. The lies keep sluicing out'a our TVs...

If Obama 'goes down,' that'd be three Dummos in a row; Gore, Kerry and him. Dummos have the 'rocky' path; they are supposed to be progressives, i.e. goodies. Repugs are known to be bad, they may well even be expected to lie and kill, while Dummos have to lie and kill too, all the while pretending they're goodies (cognitive dissonance, anyone? - Ouch!) As 'proof,' note that the Dummo Clinton did get himself elected, but just like the Repugs, he managed - when not being sooo distracted - to bomb and kill, and then there was Albright's 'the price [1mio 'collateral' Iraqis dead incl. ½mio kids] was worth it.' The name of the game is to say one thing ("They hate us for our freedoms!") and to do quite another, namely murder for spoil. Hypocrisy is a very minor crime, compared to murder. Always the same 'game;' it's imperialism, US-style.

Here's another quote:

  «(3) Imperialism has multiple interacting facets, which mutually reinforce each other: The mass media and culture in general are weapons for securing consent and/or acquiescence of the masses in pursuit of empire building which prejudices their material and spiritual existence. Imperialism cannot be isolated and reduced to simple economic reductionism. Economic exploitation is only possible under conditions of subjective subordination and that refers to education, entertainment, literature and art as terrains of class relations and class struggle linked to the empire.

(4) The social, ideological and political loyalties of the political elite, which direct the imperial state, determines the tactics and strategy which will be pursued in empire building. One cannot automatically assume that the political leadership will prioritize the interests of the MNCs in every region of the world at all times. When imperial leadership has divided loyalties with another state imperial policies may not coincide with the interests of the MNCs. Under these special circumstances of rulers with divided imperial loyalties, the ‘normal’ operations of the imperial state are suspended. The case of Zionist power in the US imperial state is a case in point. Through powerful and wealthy socio-political organizations, representation on powerful Congressional committees and strong presence in senior Executive offices (Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury) and the mass media, the Zionist elite dictates US Middle East policy. The US military serves Israeli colonial-expansionist interests even at the expense of the major US oil companies which are prevented from signing billion-dollar oil contracts with Iran and other oil-rich countries at odds with Israel.»
[ICH/James Petras/Empire and Imperialism and the USA]

My comment: look at the keywords, para (3) says there's a wide-spectrum info-war against the sheople, para (4) says there's an immoral ideology out'a all control. Finally, using the word 'elite' is simply *wrong*, there's nothing élite[2] about bullying, let alone lying, cheating, stealing and murder - the main business of the US of A, Israel (which one dog/tail?), UK & Aus, aka the wannabe hegemon, its illegitimate sprog, the poodle with dag.

What a bloody mess, what of the (lost!) Enlightenment, where are the adults?

-=*end*=-

PS

«Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.»
– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (antiwar.com)

More: if the sheople are not informed, or even deliberately misinformed (they are), if the choice of candidates is not a meaningful choice (it's not), then any resulting government is not just not popular, it's illegitimate. No legitimacy, no rights, neither to pass laws nor give orders. Any (i.e. the military) accepting orders from such an illegitimate authority, any who go on to kill (not all, but mostly innocent 'collaterals') are murderers, and exactly the same as the order givers, make themselves criminals.

Facit: Such undemocratic regimes must be seen, even by Blind Freddy, for what they are; if you, dear voter, appreciate that the choice 'presented' to you is not a meaningful choice, then it would only be correct to indicate as much: put both the major parties last on your preference list (your order, natch) - or perhaps it may be better not to vote at all.

PPS

There is a not-so-small "Ah - ha!" in here, it's been bubbling up (within me) for some time: the whole, wide world (or at least, as much as can I see of it) is totally dominated by propaganda, thanks, but "No, thanks!" mainly to the so-called leaders of the (not-so-free) world, the good - actually bad - old US of A. I realised - shock, horror! - that we were being propagandized a long time ago now (my 1st published mention was 13May'03). Recall that almost by definition propaganda[3] (selected information, etc., usually derogatory) differs somewhat from the truth - i.e. it's basically lies. One corollary of this - recall also that "All politicians lie!" - is that all politicians must therefore lie, just to compete - so's to say (the alternative would be to get some spine). Also, we can now better understand the main complaint about Conned-a-sleazer; that she's 'a bad liar.' This is what makes any election campaign such a pain, the fools have to continually manoeuvre in a fake-space of lies. Think about that, i.e. lies, for a while (take your time), and whether that'd be your 'preferred world,' presuming you had a (meaningful) choice, that is...

A final tut-tut: all those who realise what is really going on, but do not resist to the very best of their ability - well, they will have 'deserved' their fate; and ignorance, in this case, won't be bliss either - Oh no, not at all.

Once again (looping, as usual), what a bloody mess, what of the (lost!) Enlightenment, where are the adults?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] betray v. 1 be disloyal or treacherous to (a friend, one's country, a person's trust, etc.). 2 reveal involuntarily or treacherously; be evidence of. 3 lead astray. betrayal n. [from *be-, obsolete tray from Latin trado hand over] [POD]

[2] élite n. 1 (prec. by the) the best (of a group). 2 select group or class. 3 a size of letters in typewriting (12 per inch). [French: related to *elect] [ibid.]

[3] propaganda n. 1 organized propagation of a doctrine by use of publicity, selected information, etc. 2 usu. derog. ideas etc. so propagated. propagandist n. & adj. propagandize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing). [Latin: related to *propagate] [ibid.]

the obesity epidemic can be solved ...

2008-09-11T23:51:00.001+10:00

.. by putting them all on a (forced!) diet

-=*=-

Nobody forces those horrible fatties to stuff themselves; they gorge themselves, apparently quite willingly, to the point where lots become overweight-sick. I'm not suggesting forcing these particular fatties onto any diet - that might be a violation of some sort'a 'human' rights, but at the same time, since any resulting illness is entirely self-caused, they should have to pay any associated medical bills entirely un-assisted.

-=*=-

A few obese people might be one (disgusting) thing, but an entire obese country is quite another. The US, with about 5% of the world's population, consumes approximately 25% of the world's resources, and so is 'responsible' for at least the same proportion of pollution, including CO2. Note: that's consuming/polluting at a rate over 6 times the remainders' average! ((25 / 5) / (75 / 95) = 6.3') Why that? Why should they? Simply put, daaarlings, they have no right. Since excess CO2 is killing our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere, CO2 discharges *must* be returned to a long-term sustainable rate, and may actually have to dip below that rate for a while - and v.soon, in order to get CO2 down then stabilise it at some 'life-friendly' level.

As we can see with individuals, so countries; few go voluntarily onto effective diets (see the Rudd/Garnaut carbon trading travesty - boo! Hiss!) The US and Aus compete for the worst per capita CO2 pollution, China may be a competitor for the worst polluting country. Whatever; since none of them or any others are likely to effectively reduce CO2 pollution to sustainable rates on their own, they all should be put onto a (forced!) diet.

Australia is a 'strange' case, it is both a heavy CO2 polluter and an important exporter of coal, the most important CO2 source, after which comes oil. Q: What will happen, after all the coal/oil is exhausted - in both senses of the word? A: When it's gone, it's over; both the burning and the earning. It only makes sense to string both out as long as possible, and in any case, the digging-up (or pumping-out) *must* be reduced to at or below the sustainable CO2 carrying capacity of our atmosphere - which we *absolutely need to do* - or we'll all die, taking most the world's worthwhile life with us.

Fazit: that's the diet I'm talking about; stop diggin' it all up, or pumpin' it all out. One could call this "Phil's supply-side save-the-planet solution." Of course, big-oil and the miners won't like it - but stuff them - before they stuff the world.

Save the planet! (Or we'll lose our liveable environment - idiots.)

-=*end*=-

PS Big-oil and the coal miners must go the way of the dinosaurs, whose remains they violate. But not just them, (mainly) US capitalism has morphed into a grotesque cancer on the planet. Sillinesses such as privatisation, deregulation and globalisation et al. have failed; here's an article that partly explains:

August 29, 2008
An Interview with Michael Hudson
How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy
By MIKE WHITNEY

«MW: Economist Henry Liu said in his article "Dollar hegemony enables the US to own indirectly but essentially the entire global economy by requiring its wealth to be denominated in fiat dollars that the US can print at will with little in the way of monetary penalties.....World trade is now a game in which the US produces fiat dollars of uncertain exchange value and zero intrinsic value, and the rest of the world produces goods and services that fiat dollars can buy at "market prices" quoted in dollars." Is Liu overstating the case or have the Federal Reserve and western banking elites really figured out how to maintain imperial control over the global economy simply by ensuring that most energy, commodities, and manufactured goods are denominated in dollars? If that's the case, then it would seem that the actual "face-value" of the dollar does not matter as much as long as it continues to be used in the purchase of commodities. Is this right?

Michael Hudson: Henry Liu and I have been discussing this for many years now. We are in full agreement. The paragraph you quote is quite right. His Asia Times articles provide a running analysis of dollar hegemony.»

My comment: The US prints $s, and the world chokes on the US deficit - just as our ecosphere is choking on excess CO2. There's more, but one needn't to take my word for it - the evidence of the US failure is all around and especially anywhere it 'dumps' its steel-jacketed, depleted-uranium encased HE. Bastards! Then: Why should we allow the world to be run by lying, cheating crooks - and murderers?

Imperial Reach - A basic resource guide.

2008-09-05T07:20:00.003+10:00

The sun never sets on the US empire, where once that was said of the British Empire, they would be envious of the global reach of the US. As would the Romans. From an article by Tom Engelhardt:

Here it is, as simply as I can put it: In the course of any year, there must be relatively few countries on this planet on which U.S. soldiers do not set foot, whether with guns blazing, humanitarian aid in hand, or just for a friendly visit. In startling numbers of countries, our soldiers not only arrive, but stay interminably, if not indefinitely. Sometimes they live on military bases built to the tune of billions of dollars that amount to sizeable American towns (with accompanying amenities), sometimes on stripped down forward operating bases that may not even have showers. When those troops don't stay, often American equipment does -- carefully stored for further use at tiny "cooperative security locations," known informally as "lily pads" (from which U.S. troops, like so many frogs, could assumedly leap quickly into a region in crisis).

At the height of the Roman Empire, the Romans had an estimated 37 major military bases scattered around their dominions. At the height of the British Empire, the British had 36 of them planetwide. Depending on just who you listen to and how you count, we have hundreds of bases. According to Pentagon records, in fact, there are 761 active military "sites" abroad.

The fact is: We garrison the planet north to south, east to west, and even on the seven seas, thanks to our various fleets and our massive aircraft carriers which, with 5,000-6,000 personnel aboard -- that is, the population of an American town -- are functionally floating bases.

And here's the other half of that simple truth: We don't care to know about it. We, the American people, aided and abetted by our politicians, the Pentagon, and the mainstream media, are knee-deep in base denial.

Now, that's the gist of it. If, like most Americans, that's more than you care to know, stop here.

But do not "stop here". There's more and a link to a resource being developed by Mother Jones. Here is the front page:

Introduction: Mission Creep

Bush and Rumsfeld may be history but America's new global footprint lives on.
By Michael Mechanic
Mapping the Pentagon's Global Footprint

Exclusive: In a yearlong project, the Mother Jones editorial team investigated US military activity around the globe, country by country. Presenting our new primer of the post-Bush world order.
America's Unwelcome Advances

The US military's foreign overtures are running into a world of public opposition. Plus: Hot buys at the PX!
By Chalmers Johnson
US Troops Retake the Dragon's Lair

Filipinos thought they'd sent the GIs packing, but the Pentagon found a way in through the back door.
By Herbert Docena
Homesick for Camp Justice

Exiled to make way for a US military base, the islanders of Diego Garcia have convinced the British courts of their right to return. But the UK is fighting tooth and nail to keep them from coming back.
By David Vine
How to Stay in Iraq for 1,000 Years

Is there a way for US negotiators to finagle permanent bases without permission from Congress? Yep. It's called a SOFA.
By Frida Berrigan
What Permanent Iraq Presence?

What the Beltway crowd said way back when about how long we'd be in Baghdad.
Brzezinski Talks Bases

The former national security adviser on the Bush Pentagon's spending binge: "Do we really need that for our security?"
Interview by Michael Mechanic
My Bases Are Bigger Than Your Country

Our roundup of the Pentagon's latest basing stats—plus a few we dug up ourselves.
By Celia Perry
More From the Experts

Additional articles on the Pentagon's overseas strategy, plus, coming soon, a series of related dispatches from more than a dozen US military thinkers and authors.

A large and growing resource but appropriate for analyzing a voracious monster which seems likely to implode.

Managing such a vast enterprise is a challenge, so how have the present overseers done? A retrospective of "highlights" of the Bush years. The opening quote:

"You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you’re gone." —W.

Hardly an auspicious start. But what will the end be like?

support the troops? - no! ...

2008-08-17T11:11:00.006+10:00

.. that fantasy has now been put violently to rest[1] ...

.. thanks, but "No, thanks!" to GWBush&Co

-=*=-

"Support the troops" is one of these 'framing' frauds, just as "Some of my best friends are..." and "Hate America, love Murkins."

My friends are friends on merit; I carry no dead wood.

Conversely, in a so-called democratic state, the voters are sovereign. If they choose - or even allow the 'non-choice' to be foisted upon them, to be turned into an ignorant mob - of sheople®, say, then that majority of voters, whatever their composition, are both collectively and individually responsible for any criminal acts perpetrated by their so-called 'leadership.'

No more 'free rides,' boys; whether troops or voters, if you can't restrain your 'mad George' types, or if you (troops, public 'servants,' bum-wipers) actually murder for spoil, or give orders to murder for spoil, or just not *actively, effectively oppose* murder for spoil, then all such types - troops, voters and/or bum-wipers alike are unequivocally condemned - and are utterly contemptible to boot. Murderers are, whose country murders. Prime examples: US, Israel (with UK poodle and Aus dag). We can extend this condemnation to any who cuddle murderers (i.e. those who assist them, even if by not opposing them), such as Sarkozy and Merkel, say.

Once again, I make no apologies for calling the mugs for what they are - i.e. sheople. If this makes the mugs all the more recalcitrant, well and good - because if all we ever get is 'more of the same,' then the greedastrophe® will arrive all that sooner - and the sorting can begin.

'Sorting?' - Yes. Evolution by survival of the fittest; we'll find out soon enough; is the predominant, surviving human characteristic to be some combination of vile greed and criminality, or will it be something a bit 'higher,' like cooperative peace and love, say?

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] «For the decade or two following the end of the Cold War, people might have been excused for believing that a new phase in the evolution of the international political system had been realized, one in which, while plenty of injustices would remain, at least the worst excesses of great power aggression seemed a vestige of twentieth century practice and eighteenth century mentality. That fantasy has now been put violently to rest, as the two greatest powers on the planet have returned to playing the great game with a vengeance, preying on lesser powers in pursuit of resources, strategic positioning or just plain national pride.»
[David Michael Green (G'day Bob)]

My comment: We've been conned - propagandised, by perpetrators via the venal corporate MSM, plus public broadcasters like the AusBC & SBS. I don't know from what worm-eaten woodwork these Judas Iscariot-types crawl, but they are in no way clever, merely commonly criminal. Although it may initially sound heretical, my accusations re: the AusBC & SBS are neither casual nor without proof. An 'easy' proof of AusBC culpability is the fact that for 60+ years they have portrayed Israel as a David heroically resisting an Arab/Muslim Goliath, with some 'extra' keywords like 'Islamo-fascism' thrown in lately, for 'framing' good measure. This portrayal is total bulls**t; the I/J/Z-plex dominating the Israeli regime and a horrendously large chunk of the US regime is in the criminal business of murdering for spoil (land and water), just as the US regime is concentrating on murder for resources, oil in particular.

As well as the D vs. G furphy illustrating the AusBC's culpability, it also proves that it's neither partisan (much!) nor accidental - because the AusBC behaves badly (and is biased, but not to the left as is usually alleged), more or less under both political stripes. Hmmm? Ergo, neither Lab nor Lib in their current guises can be our saviour, and the AusBC & SBS are shown to be conduits - even amplifiers - of filthy, propagandistic lies.

Then I hear someone say "So what? That's just the way it is." Typical of desensitized sheople, and again wholly illustrative of the problem.

Q: Why do the crims invest so much hubristic effort into their lying attempts at deception? Why does the venal MSM and AusBC etc. play along, echoing the lies?

A: Because if the sheople really knew, there'd be real trouble - and the crimes would be stopped - because the overwhelming majority of sheople are fundamentally honest, i.e. *not* criminal.

Sooo, how about it, sheople? Our future survival (or not) really is in your hands. Wanna help? If yes, then demand that your representative(s) start actively representing you.

death AND dishonour ...

2008-08-14T16:51:00.000+10:00

.. tangled webs, etc. - bloody lying murderers!

-=*=-

A couple of comments ago, I posed the Q: "Why do they lie?"

As I've previously pointed out, the basic crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder; although some 'lawyer-types' may claim that one cannot legislate morality, it should be perfectly obvious (deploying a 'reflexive altruism' algorithm), that anyone doing any of those basic 'criminal' actions to someone would be doing actual harm - and that's precisely what none of us should do to any another. It's almost a tautology, but one that is so often violated, one really has to wonder Q: "Why?" - in a broader context.

A: In the widest context, because (some times, too often) crime can appear to pay. (Ooops!)

Funny (peculiar) - but certainly sad, and not what we (the moral ones) actually want. Note that it's not some 'moral high ground' - which both exists and yes, we the moral ones do occupy it, it's simple self-interest (i.e. reflexive altruism); we do not wish to be transgressed against, so we offer a 'deal,' whereby we'll leave you alone (nothing personal: the generic 'you'), if you leave us alone. Real world "Hello!!?" - in Utopia there are no police, but in the 'here and now' we need 'em - and honest ones.

We can sort the criminal class into two groups, the 'petty' criminals, the common or garden variety - who may rob banks, or occasionally bash the odd grandmother to death. Small-time crims, to be sure. The other sort, the truly serious offenders, we can find running entire countries, if not (somewhat fancifully - but nevertheless criminally) the world - Ta ra! The current US and Israeli regimes. (With assist from UK, Aus, say.)

This criminal class is a composite, a cooperative formed from part (shadowy) ruling élite, part 'elected' representatives, part military, part industry and finally, part media (the venal MSM).

Even then, this criminal class does not work 'in isolation,' it has its accessories, apologists and enablers. Lies are deployed, great rafts of them; I call this lie-collection the 'pushed paradigm.' The criminals themselves, the accessories and apologists do not intrinsically need the lies for their crooked 'business,' the lies are aimed at the enablers, who in a supposed democracy are the voters and who are (supposedly) sovereign.

Sooo, that's why they lie; on the one hand they try to give themselves some sort of excuse, and on the other hand, they feel that have to win in the court of public opinion - because otherwise they would be sure to face well-earned censure.

But: There is no excuse for crime; they conjure 'rationalizations,' we conclude that they (any criminal class) actually knows that they're being bad, but to avoid 'cognitive dissonance' within themselves, they invent things like "We will bring them democracy!" - when what they're actually doing is stealing resources; land, water and/or oil, say.

It's clear that the lies are to delude, to avoid otherwise rightful censure. And Q: How do we get these lies? Why, A: Via the corrupt and venal MSM, including big parts of the AusBC and SBS (boo! Hiss!) There's the pressure point, the weak link - in more ways than one.

The so-called ruling criminal class (US and Israel with accessory/apologists UK + Aus) lie because they're vulnerable, the sovereign voters could / should call them to account. That would require an active electorate (wake up sheople®!) and free and full information flows. Anyone actively contributing to the crimes is culpable, it means in the US, the Congress, the Pentagon, the CIA. Since Nuremberg, there is no excuse: equally guilty - without a single shred of honour - string 'em up! Same for all filthy war-profiteers. A special culpability and a special censure is reserved for the venal MSM (including bits of the AusBC and SBS, they know who/what they are); those who pass the lies on, especially those who *amplify* the lies, are nothing other than vicious, bloody traitors. Shame on the lot of 'em!

Stop the lies, let the censure pour forth.

Save our once jewel-like planet.

-=*end*=-

Fazit: Rationalizations[1] (particularly of criminal acts) may only be successfully achieved by people so disposed; those with a sufficiently deficient morality, the outright diseased - or any/all TV-comatosed sheople®. (As in "Der, I didn't think!")

Universal responsibility is required; justice via truth.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] rationalize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing) 1 (often foll. by away) offer a rational but specious explanation of (one's behaviour or attitude).

erring ideologues ...

2008-08-11T17:19:00.001+10:00

.. sheople® vs. 'leaders' ...

.. pragmatism: clever or corrupt?

-=*=-

Q (serious): Is GWBush a) part of the problem, b) a major part of the problem, c) almost the entire problem (me: no), or d) not much more than a cruel, supremely cynical joke on the sheople/voters?

Q (even more serious): Professor Julius Sumner Miller used to ask: "Why is it so?" I could extend this by adding "Does it have to be like this?" - and finally "Is it wrong?" (me: yes, but if it were not, Q: is there something wrong with me? A: no, therefore ...)

The problem/situation:

a) We live in a supposed democracy, but (1) the voters (sheople) are dumbed-down, partly by their own efforts - and/or lack thereof, (2) the candidates (Lab/Lib, Dummo/Repugs) are as good as clones who offer no real choice and worse - they do not properly represent the voters, rather they favour 'the big end of town,' and (3) the whole show is dominated by a venal MSM; we are deliberately misinformed (i.e. lied to), when not being outright propagandised.

b) The so-called capitalist system works largely to the disadvantage of all except those few who directly profit (the capitalists, investors and *management*); rather than a 'fair price,' they charge 'what the market will bear' - but worse, they 'fiddle' the system with oligopolies, monopolies, "Economic Hit Man" shenanigans including IMF scams and swindles and outright rip-offs, as an example of the last see the obscene 'resource-rents' in the mining-type sectors.

c) The epitome of both (a) and (b) is the US, the so-called leader of the 'free world' (or alternatively 'the West'), but just about the only way they lead is down and into criminality. The prime example of this criminality is the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq, which has now been morphed into a brutal occupation: murder for oil. The US is not alone, it has a poisoned appendix (Israel), a minor associate (UK) and a sycophantic hanger-on (Aus); all together the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag.

-=*=-

Recall my questions: is the above situation a problem (me: obviously), can we pin this problem on specific personalities (me: not so obviously), then finally, can anything be done and if so what? To answer the last: get rid of all the immoralities; no more lies, cheating, theft and murder. Far easier said than done, I know.

Once one realises that we are being lied to, actually being propagandised to 'enable' crimes to be committed (see my from A-bombs to Iraq (then on to Iran?), then one may see the world in an entirely different - and far darker - light.

My current fascination in this respect is the anthrax/bentonite psyop which was perpetrated in the US almost immediately after 9/11 in 2001; a story recently revived by Glenn Greenwald starting here (long story). Several letters containing powdered anthrax spores were received, notably by two Democrat Senator's offices and some other places including some more or less noteworthy MSM reporter's office, the net result being "Five people died, more than a dozen were sickened." It was quickly reported in the MSM that the anthrax was a) 'highly weaponized' and then b) for a period of five looong days, it was reported by the ABC(US), that the anthrax contained bentonite - pointing directly at Saddam/Iraq. At the same time as the ABC(US) bentonite reports, the WH was denying any presence of bentonite. (This is extremely odd, because the WH was otherwise actively seeking any possible reason to go after Saddam/Iraq.) It was later reported that the anthrax had been sourced in the US, and was identical to a batch held in Ft. Detrick - except that the letter-anthrax had been turned into a 'highly weaponized' powder, whereas the Ft. Detrick stock is in liquid form. This is significant because the FBI is now trying to pin the letter-sending on a 2nd Ft. Detrick employee (since suicided), the 1st 'suspect' having successfully sued the FBI for $5mio for 5 years' worth of false accusations. 'Evidence' released by the FBI recently is little more than fervid imaginings; nothing much 'better' than low-level circumstantial.

Note: Someone knows who put up the fake bentonite story; three then four "well-placed," "current and former government scientists" fed the ABC(US) the bentonite bumf - according to ABC(US). It (the psyop) could have been a, if not the key factor in swinging 'public opinion' behind the war; an emotional ground-swell: "Yeah. Let's get the bastard." As such, the ABC(US) played a critical role in a vile, vicious mass-murdering war crime.

I term it a psyop because it fits the definition[5]. There are 'better' sources for 'highly weaponized' anthrax, specifically where the US regime gets such stuff prepared[6]. IMHO, it is *highly unlikely* to have been carried out by any lone disgruntled vaccine worker, far more likely would be some sort'a team of psyop/black-op 'professionals.' It was just too slick - and deadly. One has to ask cui bono, and the answer is only the 'pro Iraq-War Party.' As for pinning the problem on any particular personalities - like GWBush, Cheney, the neoCon cabal - forget it. Could be rogue-CIA or some-such, though. That the ABC(US) 'played along' is far more likely than them having being 'played;' here more likely erring ideologue 'patriots' (aka knowingly criminal) at work, rather than blissfully ignorant incompetents - you get the drift from the sleazy way they've answered (or not) the challenges to their integrity.

*Someone* in the US consciously set out to misuse a deadly attack on US citizens to propagandise for war on Iraq, based on the deliberate bentonite lie. The attack letters themselves were as if from some enemy of the US (and Israel), the composite effect was as above: "Yeah. Let's get that Saddam bastard."

When we talk about erring ideologues, we see the same sort'a behaviour in those who have 'drunk the administration Kool-Aid,' and/or swallowed the Islamo-fascism/caliphate fantasy, and/or the Greater Israel/Zionism fantasy, and/or the main US fantasy, the hideous 'land of the free, home of the brave' jingoistic rubbish.

-=*=-

Fazit: our once jewel-like planet, with its delicately balanced ecosphere, is burning up as it's filling up; we are over-stressing it on the input side (resources, food & water) and on the output side (pollution, greenhouse gasses; CO2). We have neither the time nor the manoeuvring room left to do anything much more than feed our growing multitudes whilst desperately trying to save the planet. The US regime, leading warmonger and war criminal, is 'leading' the world astray as it rapes the planet for resources. Gotta be stopped, deflected, put on the right track. Away with lying, cheating, theft and murder: we all have to help each other now, rather than 'tolerating' outrageous thieves ripping ever more off on behalf of a few already obscenely rich fat-cat élite-types.

-=*end*=-

PS What's about 'pragmatism: clever or corrupt?' - Well, some people say one must be practical, others that one must accept the status quo, i.e. adopt a Realpolitik [3] and/or pragmatic[4] stance. The only people who can 'afford' such a pragmatic stance are either making a (crooked!) quid out of it (i.e. are corrupt), or have fundamentally misunderstood the situation (i.e. are living in a fool's paradise). I believe we can - and should - do better. Wouldn't it be nicer, to live in a world of peace and honour, rather than in this power/crime-dominated mess as now? Especially since the status quo is leading to probable and significant ecosphere destruction?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] err
verb [no OBJ.] formal be mistaken or incorrect; make a mistake: the judge had erred in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible.
n [often as ADJ.] (erring) sin; do wrong: he had been as solicitous as an erring husband. [Oxford Pop-up]

[2] ideology n. (pl. -ies) 1 ideas at the basis of an economic or political theory (Marxist ideology). 2 characteristic thinking of a class etc. (bourgeois ideology). ideological adj. ideologically adv. ideologist n. [French: related to *idea, *-logy]

[3] Realpolitik
noun [MASS NOUN] a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
ORIGIN early 20th cent.: from German Realpolitik ‘practical politics’.

[4] pragmatic adj. dealing with matters from a practical point of view. pragmatically adv. [Greek pragma -mat- deed] [POD]

pragmatism n. 1 pragmatic attitude or procedure. 2 philosophy that evaluates assertions solely by their practical consequences and bearing on human interests. pragmatist n. [Greek pragma: related to *pragmatic] [ibid.]

[5] Definitions of psyop on the Web:

psychological operation: military actions designed to influence the perceptions and attitudes of individuals, groups, and foreign governments
[princeton/wordnet]

[6] «The anthrax was military-grade, prepared using a top-secret recipe, most likely at the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, or at the West Jefferson Ohio location, both of which are owned or managed by the large private contractor, Battelle Memorial Institute, that has previously partnered with the CIA and the DIA on biowarfare anthrax research, under the names Project Jefferson and Project Clear Vision, which was a secret program to mimic a Soviet dry powder anthrax bomblet.»
[Glenn Greenwald comments/CargoCult]

South Ossetia - Independence Struggle or Proxy War?

2008-08-10T07:28:00.002+10:00

Fighting has erupted between Russia and Georgia over the region of South Ossetia. For a brief background see here. For a report on what is happening, see here.

From the NYTimes piece is an example of why the situation is not merely as local matter:

Russian officials said that strong ties to the United States had emboldened Mr. Saakashvili, who wants to make Georgia part of NATO, into sparking the conflict by trying seize back South Ossetia. But there were signs that Mr. Saakashvili was feeling the limits of how much American help he could expect after signing up as an ally in Iraq.

Pentagon officials said late on Friday that the Georgian government had officially requested assistance in airlifting home the approximately 2,000 Georgian troops now in Iraq. The request was under review, and standard procedures would indicate that the United States government would honor the request, officials said.

Chris Floyd on the matter - and follow the links. including those in the Comments.

From Pravda. This is provided as an example of how the Russians will be seeing things.

The above material is a starter to prepare people for what could be a dangerous situation for more than the Ossetians. There might well be a much larger and more dangerous game in motion.

from A-bombs to Iraq (then on to Iran?) ...

2008-08-06T11:39:00.001+10:00

  .. via anthrax/bentonite and other such *filthy* lies

-=*=-

Today we commiserate the first grisly A-bombing, carried out by the US, and that on a predominately civilian 'target.'

  «The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.»
[wiki]

It is a war crime to deliberately target civilians:

  «6. Status of Targets
A. Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise.»
[Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945]

But that's exactly what they did (note: "large urban area," aka where people live[1]), and the outrage was repeated three days later, on a similar predominately civilian 'target.' The targets ("unlikely to be attacked by next August") were hardly militarily significant, all those had already come under US Air Force bombardment - and had largely been destroyed, they were in fact 'running out of targets:'

  «After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.»
[wiki,ibid.]

Note: "After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities". One cannot justify these war crimes, but such guilty regimes propagandise (largely, sadly successfully) in attempting to deceive the sheople® and thus obscure their crimes.

(Until so-called 'revisionists' come along (beware; 'framing'), correcting the victors' history, aka lying record.)

One of the lies I've recently seen deployed is that Nagasaki was selected because it held a factory that modified Japan's torpedoes used in the attack on Pearl Harbour (a lie deployed to 'hook' emotions, it is a type of non sequitur); whereas the torpedo bit itself may be true, it is a lone fact used in isolation to obfuscate the true reason for selection (see "large urban area" above), and recall that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki ranked behind at least 67 other city-targets in military significance. And this, apropos the most egregious lie, must be neither forgotten nor ignored:

  "Competent testimony exists to prove that Japan was seeking to surrender many weeks before the atomic bomb came."

-=*=-

Intermezzo (brief):

Recall that Bernays morphed propaganda -> 'public relations.'

Which is deployed to manufacture demand (& consent!!?) - effectively 'sheople-izing' the voters.

That the corporate (venal!) MSM is up to such dirty tricks is understandable (in a way - they do it for $s - even though a) it's immoral & b) it's traitorous), but that publicly financed broadcasters are virtually indistinguishable (they retail the MSM lies as news aka 'truth') is utterly scandalous - and probably criminal; i.e. transmitting lies to us to 'justify' crimes, like Australia's participation in the (illegal!) invasion of Iraq.

-=*=-

Iraq revisited (brief):

After '9/11,' it was quickly decided to attack Afghanistan (actually already in planning well *before* 9/11); that attack was eventually morphed into an invasion/occupation. But even before that, when the smoke/dust from the *three* WTC buildings had barely cleared, we got the anthrax attacks. For a 5-day period, the public were panicked by near-hysterical stories associating the anthrax with Iraq/Saddam via bentonite. The association of bentonite with Iraq/Saddam was an outright lie; there simply was no bentonite. Full-stop; but the lies were broadcast frenetically, and non-stop. This is a vitally important story; once the fear had been generated, once the damage was done - well, we see the 'fall-out;' another illegal invasion, morphed into a brutal occupation (perhaps 1.25mio Iraqis dead, 2+2mio displaced + fled), mass-murder for oil.

Glenn Greenwald revived this issue here, with follow-up here. Jay Rosen has taken it up here and Dan Gillmor in a similar vein here. The blogger Larisa Alexandrovna is adding significant input here, here, here and here. Sorry - but not too sorry; it's a lot but vitally important; it perfectly illustrates the lies deployed, how the venal MSM operates, and the dreadful consequences of those lies - which we see in Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly Iran yet to come (but hopefully not.)

-=*=-

Iran ("All options!"):

Iran stalls on nuke demands
Posted August 6, 2008 05:10:00

  «The major powers say they fear Tehran wants to build an atomic bomb. But Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, insists it is only seeking to master nuclear technology to generate electricity.
...
Tehran has repeatedly refused to halt its atomic work, prompting the UN Security Council to impose three rounds of penalties on Iran since 2006. The United States also maintains its own sanctions against Iran.
...
One Western official who had seen the letter said it added "absolutely nothing" and that no concrete proposals were made by Tehran to resolve the impasse.»
[AusBC]

Comment: The AusBC reports such stuff as fact, when it's full of lies and innuendo. The IAEA is all over Iran like a rash; Iran is 'playing by the rules;' there is no *highly* enriched program (would be needed for a bomb; no highly enriched, no bomb), and no possibility of one while the IAEA supervises so closely, as it does and will continue to do. Iran has the perfect right to enrich, 'Major powers' & 'the West' is code for the US bully plus its cowardly coerced quislings. The "world's fourth-largest oil producer" bit is as if to say "See? They don't *need* nukular!" - another type of non sequitur. In short, the article is propaganda, and the AusBC has no right to transmit same.

The whole ghastly story, plus the "All options!" etc. (like faked and hyped 'map-wiping') coming from both the existing regime & candidates for the next regime is sabre-rattling in the extreme (probably illegal under international law, which both the US and Israel snub/violate on an almost daily basis, so much for the UN); the ugly US élite wants to flatten - to dominate - Iran, for nefarious purposes ("Greater Israel" for their Lobby 'chums,' more oil-theft for themselves, see Iraq) - but they (the US; any and all such ugly élites) have got to be stopped from raping the planet and dragging us all down the greedastrophe® tubes.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] urban adj. of, living in, or situated in a town or city. [Latin urbs city]

sheople, synchronicity & madness ...

2008-08-02T18:43:00.002+10:00

.. a Sakharov needed, or perhaps better, a Mahatma Gandhi

-=*=-

G'day Bob,

thanks for the great links (as usual), the Chris Floyd stands out here as well worth reading. Following are a few 'snips,' some with my comments added. But 1st, to sheople®; a contraction of sheep + people. I've been thinking about them recently (more accurately, thinking more about them), since I discovered the stuff on Bernays[1]. I developed the concept of sheople from my own observations some time ago now, prompted perhaps by a bit of detested Ameri-speak (spit!) - namely "dumbed down." It's obvious, of course, that the electorate has been dumbed down, and in my wonderings I concluded that TV was the culprit. Well, it is - but only in a way; it is definitely the preferred conduit for dumbing down, and benefits from a singular advantage: the sheople queue up outside the Hardly Normal's (even mortgaging their 1st born perhaps), to buy the wide-flat-screen mind-numbing monsters. Still, my sheople-theory was not well received, TV-viewers of all stripes crying "It's just a movie!"

Well, another of course, its not "just a movie" at all - the human 'audio-visual input system' has no effective filters, stuff pours in essentially un-edited - but worse and ta ra! - the programming is deliberately poisoned, by propaganda[2]. The propaganda is designed to create a warped world-view, not 'just' as an aid to crooked politicians (exactly like B, B & H, say.) Again, it's obvious - to those who look critically enough, that a lot of our news is so contaminated - I screech at the AusBC & SBS loud and long - but the really insidious stuff is better camouflaged; look no further than the TV show "24," say. Here, one can see (simulations of) torture, excused under the "if it saves lives" rubric, all presented as drama, i.e. imaginary. In this way, when the US actually tortures 'terrorist suspects' (including people who may be completely innocent, see Abu Ghraib), the sheople can (and apparently do) accept such torture being done, perhaps telling themselves "OK; if it saves lives (i.e. those of our side, but notably not them, the others')..."

My research into propaganda (aka 'public relations') was given an enormous boost by my discovery of Adam Curtis' award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self[3]. This is where the synchronicity[4] comes in; the electorate has been dumbed down by this (hideous, secret?!!) manipulation and, along with entrenched avarice (aka greed), is key to the madness sweeping the (Anglo + Israeli) world. Now to the 'snips:'

-=*=-

1. «And despite the deep unpopularity of the regime, there is still a widespread reluctance to recognize its true nature, and what it will require to restore our constitutional republic.»

(Me: The above refers to the hapless US. Here in Aus, we are rid of the Howard regime - but its replacement has yet to meaningfully differentiate itself in the respect referred to in this snip; we have only the ugly Lab/Lib twins to choose from, and neither properly represent us. The Lab/Lib twins 'ape' the equally ugly Repug/Dummocrat twins, all are (corrupt!) captives of their respective 'big ends of town' and/or M/I-plexes.)

«And truth to tell, there are a great many people uninterested in doing so. As long as the diversions keep pouring through the latest gadgetry, the monthly paycheck manages to cover the bills, and their own bodies are not subjected to the tyrant's evil, many people are happy to accept the authoritarian system. (This is not unique to Americans, of course; it is a constant in human history.) But even where there is an interest in discerning the reality of our times, and a yearning for change, again there is no broader movement to leverage an individual's dissent into a form large enough to thwart the tyrannical machine. And there is no American Sakharov on the horizon, someone to arise from the very centre of the machine to denounce its workings and call for genuine liberty, genuine democracy, genuine economic and social justice.»
[Chris Floyd/Adventures in the Poison Factory]

(Me: a) The sheople, TV-comatosed, do not care. b) Even if they did, there's no corrective mechanism available; our so-called democracies are stuffed. c) A true leader might do it, but there is none such anywhere in sight. Q: Any hope at all?)

2. (comment to Chris Floyd/War Without End) «LabDancer said:
Good piece & timely Mr Floyd.

Juan Cole started posting something in the same vein a few weeks ago when Obama started increasing his theme of turning away from the Iraq fiasco in order to address the 'real front' in the GWoT- but then McCain started to move in the same direction & Cole's reaction has been to outsource his warnings to Professor Barnett Rubin- who now as Cole notes is blogging up a storm.»

(Me: Cole's remark here, Rubin's blog here.)

«I was barely into puberty when LBJ apparently decided to throw the Hawks of those days Vietnam as a device to placate them & buy some room & time for his domestic agenda [I have found Eric Alterman's thesis in When President's Lie compelling on this.]»

(Me: What's this? Vietnam war (50k US dead, millions of 'collaterals') as a bone to the M/I-plex?)

«To my mind that plus Russia's fiasco in Afghanistan & the possibly incomparable complexity that is Pakistan suffice to justify the concern of Rubin & Cole & of course now you, that Obama may fall into the same sort of morass as did JFK in Cuba- as did LBJ as above- as did Reagan in his mythological benign indulgence of Casey's crazed bumbling in the Middle East & Central America that showed up as Iran-Contra [merely the tip of Reagan's iceberg of state-sponsored muddling given the fumbling we've witnessed on Cheney's watch].»

(Me: This is a new perspective on 'the great game;' war as presidential routine - on the other hand, not really new at all.)

«But I'm not sure Obama is quite so vulnerable to the mind-softening effects of the Beltway Bubble bath as those of his predecessors. I also think he might be more like the first Bush & Clinton in his capacity to keep the lies coming out of his mouth from moving into his brain. The lesson from Carter is that honest rhetoric earns you an early ticket out of the White House. Like Carter in the wake of the sinking of Nixon Obama has come on stage during a serious ebb in the electorate's tolerance for imperialist adventures & reflexive xenophobia & of course an energy crunch- but as bright as was Carter [at least for a simple god-fearing peanut farmer from the South- who just happened to have advanced degrees & a huge fund of hands-on cutting edge experience with nuclear power] & as much as I am willing to concede the value of degrees from Columbia & a gold-medal juris doctorate from Harvard- there is nothing like 20 years of advanced education in Chicago politics for learning how to win at the game of POTUS.

I'll go Rumsfeldian briefly: Am I COUNTING on Obama having achieved the state of Nirvana for American presidents in being able to lie like a bandit yet keep his head out of the bubble? Nope- but it's up to folks like Rubin & Cole & you- and also me many many others- to hold him to that standard.»

(Me: This is 'our calling;' we the pro-truth & pro-justice bloggers.)

«If they- you- we succeed- then maybe US policy in Afghanistan will track more like what Rory Stewart is prescribing. There's no hope of that under McCain- but just about everyone who has spent any quality time with him says Obama listens- hears- synthesizes - & then seems almost invariably to make the smart move.»
[Chris Floyd/War Without End]

(Me: Hmmm. Know nothing about Rory Stewart, but this is a new perspective on 'all politicians lie;' here LabDancer is saying that Obama has not only to fool the sheople, but the (ruling) elite as well, to get elected and then save the world. A 'big ask,' as they say.)

-=*=-

Fazit: What a s**t system! Theory; that the voters are sovereign. Practice; that they are dumbed down - by their representatives via the venal MSM - amongst others, all over-lorded (warning: conspiracy!) by the purported (hidden!) rulers. It's a paradox; voters can't vote 'straight,' the representatives don't represent 'straight,' and the hidden rulers (the real criminals) laugh all the way to the bank. That is the current, US-led modern world. What a disgrace on humanity.

The last word: note that publicly financed broadcasters like the AusBC and SBS are virtually indistinguishable from the venal corporate conniving, lying and traitorous MSM; they all sing from the same song-sheet, 'faithfully' disseminating the propaganda.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] Bernays' propaganda (aka 'public relations'):

«The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.»
[wiki/Propaganda_(book)]

[2] propaganda n. 1 organized propagation of a doctrine by use of publicity, selected information, etc. 2 usu. derog. ideas etc. so propagated. propagandist n. & adj. propagandize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing). [Latin: related to *propagate]

[3] To investigate how the sheople are effectively deceived, one could start with a video "The Century of the Self" found here at ICH, a commentary from medialens 1st, 2nd and 3rd; here at informationliberation or here at wiki, the latter referring to an article at the guardian.

Then, if one wished to see some deception methods deployed by politicians, try The Political Mind by George Lakoff at NS.
[from 'failed noblesse oblige' in my 'the mortal danger of denial']

[4] «Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which occur in a meaningful manner, but which are causally inexplicable to the person or persons experiencing them. The events would also have to suggest some underlying pattern in order to satisfy the definition of synchronicity as originally developed by Swiss psychologist Carl Jung.»
[wiki/Synchronicity]

America 'tis of thee ...

2008-07-29T06:15:00.002+10:00

Seduced by the image of the white hats rescuing people from the evil blackhats, the cavalry riding to the rescue of the pioneers bent on creating a new land of freedom where everyone is created equal. But wait, was it all good? What about the non-whites? What about those whose land it was? Slavery and genocide. The commander asked "Is this the new world?" "No, this is the Washita River." The new world had blemishes, but we are not supposed to talk about those, we are not supposed to look beyond the image.

It is a sad reality that the finest ideals and better angels too often succumb to the less noble aspects of human nature. Lincoln called for a "new birth of freedom", but what would he think of what has happened, of the new kind of chains and of temporary necessities become the norm? His war was to maintain the unity of the state, now the wars are to expand the empire.

Herein we shall mark the progress of the empire.

"Beware the military-industrial complex." Tom Engelhardt presents Chalmers Johnson - "It's Much Later Than You Think."

Chris Floyd - "Dogs of War Hijacking National Policy."

A follow up the above.

"I've got an idea, and it's a gas." What remedy was applied to those accused of having WMD? Physician, heal thyself.

When it comes to observing US and international laws, treaties and norms, the Bush administration is a serial offender. Since 2001, it's:

-- spurned efforts for nuclear disarmament to advance its weapons program and retain current stockpiles;

-- renounced the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and asserted the right to develop and test new weapons;

-- abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) because it expressly forbids the development, testing and deployment of missile defenses like its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and other programs;

-- refuses to adopt a proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) that would prohibit further weapons-grade uranium and plutonium production and prevent new nuclear weapons to be added to present stockpiles - already dangerously too high;

-- spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined plus multi-billions off-the-books, for secret programs, and for agencies like the CIA;

-- advocates preventive, preemptive and "proactive" wars globally with first-strike nuclear and other weapons under the nihilistic doctrines of "anticipatory self-defense" and remaking the world to be like America;

-- rescinded and subverted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) to illegally develop new biowarfare weapons; in November 1969 and February 1970, Richard Nixon issued National Security Decision Memoranda (NSDM) 35 and 44; they renounced the use of lethal and other types of biological warfare and ordered existing weapons stockpiles destroyed, save for small amounts for research - a huge exploitable loophole; the Reagan and Clinton administrations took advantage; GHW Bush to a lesser degree;

-- GW Bush went further by renouncing the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that prohibits "the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons....;" on May 22, 1990, GHW Bush signed it into law to complete the 1972 Convention's implementation; what the father and Nixon established, GW Bush rendered null and void; "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is his central policy document for unchallengeable US hegemony; among other provisions, it illegally advocates advanced forms of biowarfare that can target specific genotypes - the genetic constitution of individual organisms.

"What if those weapons fall into the hands of the wrong people?"

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Thus the rise of the dark angels.

emissions trading is really stupid ...

2008-07-14T10:51:00.001+10:00

.. a) it won't work and (worse, worser, worst!) ...

.. b) it's trading with the Devil[1], aka the Great Satan

-=*=-

[Dreaming: What we would like - from our so-called free-market capitalism - is enough food, water and housing for all; a chicken in every pot, an SUV/4WD always full of fuel in every double/triple garage McMansion driveway, for use whenever a change from the wide-flat 5.1ch 'home-entertainment' system was however fleetingly desired, and cheap medical insurance ensuring that we all live to be 100+. Not gunna happen.]

-=*=-

There are at least three possible ways of limiting emissions of the main greenhouse gas (namely CO2), two of which (cap and trade, tax) directly involve so-called market mechanisms.

But. If 'the invisible hand' really worked as claimed, we would hardly be in the position we're in (namely, the coming greedastrophe®, including resource wars and mass-starvations.) Thinking that cap and trade and/or tax will solve the greedastrophe is just as much dreaming as the 'chicken in every pot' above. Of the two, taxing would be by far the most effective, as well as simple and easy to implement - but it's not the preferred option, since no-one can make any money out'a taxing something - except the taxing authority, namely governments - and as 'everyone' knows, governments are not just hated by capitalists, they are to be killed off wherever and as quickly as possible (starve the beasts!)

Only blind utopists believe that humans can live without effective police, or that markets will function without effective regulation. Yet markets have been steadily de-regulated, now mostly well beyond the point of utter corruption (Think Telstra's Trujillo: "We want to leverage our monopoly!" Bah! 'All' he wants is to rip us off, like all the rest of such capitalists.) Ergo, any cap and trade system will be rorted, and the effort will fail - while probably loading up the sheople® with ever more misery.

-=*=-

I mentioned at least three possible ways of limiting emissions, and here is the 3rd, the only method absolutely guaranteed to work: leave the carbon in the ground. Reduce carbon mining to the point of a sustainable planet, ASAP. Set the target, so many tons that may be mined then burned without burning up our ecosphere; set the time frame, then progressively *reduce* the amount mined to the point of guaranteed sustainability. Uncorrupted, fully regulated supply and demand will do the rest; a fair rationing/price control mechanism could be incorporated, so that all people could get equal access, and that at a fair price.

Just get on and do it!

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] devil —n. 1 (usu. the Devil) (in Christian and Jewish belief) supreme spirit of evil; Satan. 2 a evil spirit; demon. b personified evil. 3 a wicked person. b mischievously clever person. [POD]

absolute obscenity vs. utter futility ...

2008-07-13T17:51:00.001+10:00

  .. seems they just can't leave their criminality ...

    .. but d*g might help those who help themselves

-=*=-

The US ended WW2 on a 'high note' as 'top d*g,' letting off a few extra 'bungers' for effect. 'Only' a lousy few extra (non-Anglo) collaterals: «The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings.»

I dimly recall reading a book about those bombings, and wondering why they (the US) didn't demonstrate their demonic constructions without actually going so far as to murder so many innocents. Of course, that viewpoint ('murdering innocents') is a bit controversial, for the utterly simplest of reasons: those 'who dunnit' felt somehow justified, and those who dunnits had (still have) supporters, and both groups need to avoid any cognitive dissonance (aka guilty consciences, assuming any of that sort actually have any sort'a consciences at all.)

At the time, they (the US, as apparently other war parties) were heavily into propaganda. (Sadly, we find that the propaganda just never stopped). Among other bits, we got this from Truman:

  "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
[9Aug’45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman]

It is (scarcely) possible that Truman was in error because he did not allow himself to be properly informed, but we now know that: «Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.» [My emphasis.]

It is a task that truth-seekers (I am one) set themselves, to uncover the facts behind (lying!) propaganda. Another piece of that WW2 A-bombing propaganda was that the bombings avoided (one quarter, one half, one million - you choose a number, just as they did) - allied casualties. It's a lie that the sheople® easily, even eagerly, swallowed back then, just as some still do.

Aside: truth-seekers may also be called revisionists[1] as an attempted slur, but I don't see anything derogatory in exposing lies to reveal the underlying truth. As an illustration, a quote:

  «He concluded that, while there was no masterplan for expulsion, the IDF played a significant part in precipitating the flight of more than 700,000 Palestinians from Palestine. The Birth was followed by half a dozen books that helped to consolidate Morris's reputation as a rigorous revisionist historian.»

Comment: it's from a review of another book, one that puts the lie to the Israeli "David vs. Goliath" propaganda myth. Sadly, as an offset to that good work, the author seems to fall foul of some jihadi/Islamo-fascism rubbish:

  «The only major departure from the evidence, and from common sense, is the stress on the jihadi character of the two-stage Arab assault on the Jewish community in Palestine. Echoing Samuel Huntington's silly and superficial notion of a "clash of civilisations", Morris depicts the 1948 war as "part of a more general, global struggle between the Islamic east and the west". The empirical evidence for this view is utterly underwhelming, consisting as it does of a collection of random quotes.»

Parting shot: what's going on now, as then, in the immediate surrounds to Israel, is the IDF (*not* defence, but actually *attack* forces) attempting to murder in order to steal ever more land and water.

Getting back 'on-track:' instead of moving to any sort'a 'peace dividend,' the US moved us on - even before the end of WW2 - to the 'cold war.' The A-bombings were carried out for at least three reasons not admitted: (1) because they could; they'd spent the dough and had the 'toys,' (2) they wanted data from 'real live targets' (at least four possible targets were reserved as pristine; they could do that because they were not militarily significant), and (3) to 'send a message' - to Russia, and the world: "See what we can - and will - do." The 'save our boys' excuse was not much more than a propaganda furphy - directed at and swallowed by the sadly Oh so gullible sheople.

-=*=-

Now, skipping to the present, we come to a very important article cited by Bob Wall (G'day!):

  «There are basically three main rationales for keeping the imperial adventure in Mesopotamia going in one form or another. First, that it is a fight against terrorism, a battle to uphold the values of civilization against the evil Islamofascist hordes. (This is the argument always offered for public consumption, and it may well be that a few of its champions actually believe it.) Second, that the United States must dominate this all-important oil region as a matter of vital national interest, regardless of the "legality" or "morality" of the project. (This is the "savvy" insider view, the realpolitik of the Cheney Faction and "gritty realist" commentators.) Third, that U.S. forces must remain in Iraq until the country is stable enough to ensure an "orderly" withdrawal. (This is Barack Obama's public stance -- one which, as we noted the other day, virtually guarantees many more years of occupation. Not to mention Obama's plan to leave behind a "residual" force -- of up to 80,000 troops -- even after his "orderly" withdrawal.)»
[Disorderly Conduct: Subverting the Bipartisan Paradigm on Iraq]

In the above, we can see three elements, (1) the propaganda lies they feed to the sheople, (2) the geopolitical/Realpolitik excuses for the so-called sophisticated murdering thieves, and (3) the political cop-out for the so-called representatives.

-=*=-

It was only ever a matter of time, before the magnitude of the US' depravity would be seen in all its filthy tawdriness; we knew all along it was murder for oil in Iraq, and now we can see all the grisly details emerging. With the latest mooted oil-deals, the mainly US oil-majors will attempt to get fully 75% of the value, vertically integrating their rip-offs, as I've always maintained, from the sand to the sea. Cost (honestly reckoned) plus 10% would be fair, leaving the Iraqis their sovereign share - but it is not, under the great Satan's current plans, so to be.

Thanks to the internet, and thanks, but "No, thanks!" to GWBush&Co, we may ever more clearly see the US' criminality emerging. Books from Blum, Chomsky, Perkins & Klein - among a growing multitude - give witness.

Read the whole chris-floyd/William Pfaff article, and the other stuff Bob puts up.

Then try to work out how the US crooks can be stopped.

-=*=-

Fazit: The neoCons and their PNAC are neither unique nor new. US depredations began long ago and have continued down to the present, through Afghanistan and Iraq and now threatening Iran. We may contemplate how this could come about, and here I think of the "Harvard Business School (for Sharks.)" More than one commenter has said that one can't be both honest and successful in competition with 'that lot.' Perkins' "Hit Man" gives us a glimpse, as does Klein's "Shock Doctrine/Disaster Capitalism," Blum's "Rogue State" and "Killing Hope" list out the crimes. But, and this is where the absolute obscenity vs. utter futility comes in, the mostly US capitalist system *is already filthy-rich*, rich far beyond avarice. They just can't spend it, they've got so much. And yet the ravening greed continues, threatening our very ecosphere, truly our one and only life-support system.

Q: How will they, the greed-masters, live, when our ecosphere collapses?

Talk about futile, Q: How will they live, by eating their money?

One last Q for now: If they're so clever, why do they have to employ murdering violence and theft?

  «Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits.»
[Edward M. Kennedy]

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] revisionism n. often derog. revision or modification of an orthodoxy, esp. of Marxism. revisionist n. & adj. [POD]

revisit v. (-t-) visit again. [ibid.]

revitalize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing) imbue with new life and vitality. [ibid.]

no appeal to decency works (A-bombing) ...

2008-07-02T15:51:00.007+10:00

  .. no hope for truth and justice ...

    .. no honour among murdering thieves

-=*=-

Preamble: I am by profession no historian, rather I have become a 'seeker of truth (and justice)' by force of events. By the same token, neither is the 'scribe' known as Max Hastings by profession an historian, rather he was mainly a newspaper person and was also born after WW2. As for the troll calling her/himself variously 'spinifex,' 'C Parsons' and 'Eliot Ramsey,' we may judge only by what s/he writes. Finally, WD ethics: what ethics?

Purpose: IMHO, we the sheople® are being propagandised, on a massive scale. What is presented, by politicians (from both 'sides'), via the corporate MSM, in a well-integrated web of deceit, is a propaganda effort aimed at both shoring up some sort'a élite and enabling that élite to rip us off, as they continue to enrich themselves ever more obscenely beyond avarice. My intent is to illustrate aspects of these lies, with the hope that others may see and understand, then demand - as I do - justice for all.

-=*=-

Even 'Blind Freddy' ort'a have realised by now, that the B, B & H invasion of Iraq was not what it was initially 'promoted' as. If you think that 'promoted' is not the correct expression, then I'd remind you of one 'joke' made at the time (2002), something like one doesn't "introduce new products in August"[1]. Long story short and in clear text: they lied to us (a sample of 935 lies documented here.) I define this 'they' as not 'just' the (lying!) politicians themselves but also the (venal!) MSM (incl. big bits'a the AusBC & SBS, boo! Hiss!) So far, nothing new. But before 'moving on,' I must emphasize: the politicians - on both 'sides' - are not properly representing us (rather, they toe the 'big end of town' line), and the 4th estate, by relaying and amplifying the politicians' lies are traitors to us, we the sheople - just as both lying politicians and venal MSM are traitors to 'our' (US, UK, Aus & Israel) putative but failed democracies.

The 'joke' at [1] is headed "Why now?" and one could well ask "Why this, why now?" - Q: Why should I consider the lies currently being pushed by some ugly troll, when I usually scream totally ignore? A: Because some lies are simply too egregious to stand unchallenged. (Yes, sadly hooked. Again. Still. Looping; Q: Who/what can set me free? A: The truth, leading (eventually) to justice!)

-=*=-

A veritable flood of lying propaganda forms a common background to these four events of interest (as of course to far more), two from the past and two from the (possible) future:

1. The A-bombing of Japan.

2. The (illegal) invasion of Iraq.

3. The (much threatened) invasion of Iran.

4. The (possible, probable) excess-CO2 induced greedastrophe®.

-=*=-

The A-bombing of Japan.

Old: The topic was well treated here, "Is All Fair In Love and War?"

A curious oddity: The commenter C Parsons repeatedly alleged that the Japanese emperor had 'sacked' his cabinet. On being challenged (by Bob Wall, g'day!) - no response whatsoever was ever forthcoming.

New: The topic is now getting a re-run here, "While truth regrows its torn-off limbs."

An even greater oddity: The commenter Eliot Ramsey has taken up the C Parsons allegation of 'cabinet sacking' with a vengeance. Ramsey now gives as reference a book by one Sir Max Hastings, as if this was some sort'a be-all and end-all. Perhaps the 'flavour' of Hastings may be sampled here [2,3,4]. My comment: the flavour of Hastings is uncannily similar to that of the Parsons/Ramsey construct itself; no wonder Ramsey is pushing Hastings like mad. Keyword: unbalanced, to say the least, and NB: still no substantiation for "sacked."

To do: any WD pretence that Eliot Ramsey is not the same commenter as C Parsons must be abandoned (as I have done long ago), and WD might explain exactly why the banned Parsons is now allowed, even actively encouraged, to comment as Ramsey. Otherwise, Q: WD ethics: what ethics? A: Well, as we see; as good as none.

Conclusion on CP/ER: The deploying of at least one undeclared alias marks Parsons/Ramsey as a liar and violator of the WD commenter ethics. As such a liar, should s/he to be extended the benefit of the doubt on any matter? If so then why? I say not; once a (premeditated!) liar, always a liar. That CP/ER is a pushed-paradigm propagandist is just too obvious, even for 'Blind Freddy.' That s/he is actually encouraged by WD is scandalous.

Q: Any more lies and liars? A: More than a few. First off is an obvious lie from Truman, that Hiroshima was a military target. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians. Then there was a cover-up. Lies and cover-ups; same old same old.

  "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
[9Aug’45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman]

Patently false, then:
  «Three days after publication of Mr. Burchett's shocking dispatch, Mr. Laurence had a front-page story in the Times disputing the notion that radiation sickness was killing people. His news story included this remarkable commentary: "The Japanese are still continuing their propaganda aimed at creating the impression that we won the war unfairly, and thus attempting to create sympathy for themselves and milder terms. ... Thus, at the beginning, the Japanese described 'symptoms' that did not ring true."»
[Goodman&Goodman/The Hiroshima Cover-Up]

Backing up a bit:
  «Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war.»
[Mark Weber/Was Hiroshima Necessary]

Going back even further:
  «... on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials.
...
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.»
[ibid.] Citation posted by Bob Wall on July 14, 2006 - 10:25am.

(Note: January 20, 1945 preceded both the battles for Iwo Jima and Okinawa, hardly minor matters. Yet surrender overtures already existed... hmmm?)

My comment: One might think, that the way to reduce *all* casualties, would be to stop the war as soon as possible - yes, also consistent with some sort'a 'justice,' i.e. not letting anyone get away with any nefarious goings-on - say. The Japanese were clearly seeking to surrender - but *none* of their efforts were even acknowledged, let alone explored - that we can see. The one absolute sticking-point for the Japanese, namely the preservation of the person of the Emperor, was *accentuated* by the US throughout in the negative, right up to and past the bombing - then abruptly conceded. Can we theorise as to why? To keep the war going until the bombs were ready, say?

Let me be perfectly clear: I do not dispute, even for the smallest part of a pico-sec, that the Japanese acted in extremely barbarous ways. The real questions vis-à-vis the A-bombing are two: (1) was the end of the war delayed so as to enable the deployment of the A-bombs (my answer: yes), and (2) was the A-bombing a war crime (my answer: also yes).

One more thing for now:
  «Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the "patriotic" political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to one million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands. Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90%) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war.»
[John V Denson/The Hiroshima Myth]

My comment: They'd have to deploy some excuse, even if 'only' to avoid mass cognitive dissonance. And so the lies are propagated, also by filthy trolls. My tip: read all the linked articles, compare to reality, decide for yourselves.

-=*=-

Fazit: That lying propaganda is deployed at all is a disgrace on our so-called leaders, and a damnable failing of our MSM. That apparent amateurs are 'in the game' too is perplexing; what could possibly be in it for them? One might think that combating lies everywhere they manifest would be the democratic duty of all citizens - but obviously a duty not taken up by all. Some of the worst may be the enablers, those who are presumed to be smart enough to detect bullshit, but nevertheless fail to proscribe it. Too bad.

Nothing can be done about the past, but if the lying propaganda is not exposed and effectively countered, we will not be able to avoid some real nasties like the (much threatened) invasion of Iran and 'the biggie,' the (possible, probable) excess-CO2 induced greedastrophe®.

All hands to the pump!

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] CNN.com - Marketing Iraq: Why now? - September 12, 2002
White House chief of staff Andrew Card told The New York Times last week, ``From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'' ...
[archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/schneider.iraq/]

[2] Why we had to use the bomb on Japan
By MAX HASTINGS
Last updated at 11:01 18 September 2007
[dailymail.co.uk/Why-use-bomb-Japan]

[3] Sunday, Feb. 17, 2008
THE BATTLE FOR JAPAN
Max Hastings' analysis in a bombshell
By KEVIN RAFFERTY
[japantimes]

[4] Mutinous jibe angers veterans
Frank Walker
December 2, 2007
[theage.com.au/mutinous-jibe-angers-veterans]

there are lies, there are trolls ...

2008-06-26T16:51:00.004+10:00

  .. and there are war crimes

    .. that grouping is observable

Preamble: I'm interested in justice via truth. I call this 'reflexive altruism;' I wish to be left in peace, and ask only the same from and for my neighbour. Naturally enough, this should automatically rule out any and all aggression[1]. Q: What goes wrong? A: Socialization[2], more accurately, the failure of same.

I like to consider 'binary splits,' so when I speak of 'being left in peace' I mean (1) in the physical sense; i.e. me'n my near&dears, our possessions etc., then (2) in the mental sense, i.e. my mind. My mind is also subject to a binary split, namely (1) into thoughts aka rationality (mostly, and largely 'under voluntary control') and (2) into emotions aka feelings (often reactive).

I 'package' the previous in my own attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality which includes 'do unto others,' and a corollary 'do no harm.' Some basic moral tenets are no lies, no cheating, no theft and no murder. There're others one could add, like 'love thy neighbour,' say ... but here a few hasty words: my morality is wholly independent from, even hostile to - all religion. Any similarities could be due to ancient plagiarisms, i.e. not mine; I claim 'common sense' as a sufficient source.

Then I pause; "Why this?"- "Why now?" - and the answer is because we (most sheople®) and our once jewel-like ecosphere both - are up s**t-creek, and again I fall into ennui[3]. Actually, from the choices there offered, the German Weltschmerz seems to fit best.

One other thing, in his 'robotics' musings, Asimov considered a 'positronic potential' which motivated his robots; this potential, generated in the robot 'brain' based on its observations, could be negative - to inhibit certain (harmful) actions or positive, to encourage certain (helpful) actions. He was, of course, describing an analogue of a net mental state of (normal!) humans, namely our sense of right and wrong. Only when this sense is disabled and/or corrupted is immoral behaviour possible.

End of preamble; a summary of my rationale (n. fundamental reason, logical basis. [neuter of Latin rationalis: related to *rational] [POD]).

-=*=-

The problem: as above, we (most sheople) and our once jewel-like ecosphere both - are up s**t-creek.

The 'usual' four points:

1. The greedastrophe®; the coming excess CO2-caused climate collapse.

2. The US regime's criminality, typified by the illegal invasion of Iraq; murder for oil.

3. The Israeli regime's criminality, typified by the illegal invasion of now largely ex-Palestine and surrounds; murder for land and water.

4. Out of control, mostly US-inspired capitalism. This is 'behind' all of (1) to (3) and more: this out of control capitalism is also ripping us (we the sheople) off.

-=*=-

The claim is that mostly US-inspired capitalism has triumphed over all alternatives, my counter-claim is that while this capitalism may be in the ascendency, it is actually in the process of failing - and in the worst ways; a) it's 'leading' us over the greedastrophe cliff towards a deliberate apocalypse, and at the same time b) it's 'leading' to ever more obscene inequalities. Here is an item in support of my counter-claim: The Poverty of Reaganism-Bushism by David Michael Green. One minor point that is made is that alternatives to capitalism were often if not exclusively attacked via personality attacks (like against the excesses of Stalin or Pol Pot et al.), and a point that is equally often missed is that alternatives to US-inspired capitalism exist and function well, see some European variations on social democracy.

That leads to the next claim, that 'democracy' has triumphed over all alternatives, and the reason for me using quotes around 'democracy' is my counter-claim here, that we (US, UK, Aus & Israel, say) do not have correctly functioning democracies at all. We simply do not have at least three critical requirements for a properly functioning democracy; (1) our so-called representatives do not represent us, we the sheople, as their ultimate priority (they have mostly sold-out to the 'big end of town'), (2) the vast majority of voters are not sufficiently engaged (side-tracked by TV, say) and are by no means adequately informed (see next), and (3) the full and frank discovery and dissemination of the requisite facts no longer takes place (assuming it once did), thanks but "No, thanks!" to the corrupt and venal MSM (incl. Big bits'a the AusBC & SBS; boo! Hiss!)

The above situation, i.e. the problem as described, has existed and evolved, since at least (my arbitrarily chosen starting point), the horrendous WW2 A-bombing of Japan (1945). The reason why these dual events, one at Hiroshima and the other at Nagasaki are not widely recognised as war crimes are two; a) the generation of so-called "victor's history" - another name for lies, and the dissemination of such lies as propaganda directed at the sheople by - ta ra! - the corrupt and venal MSM. The lie they try to 'sell' is that the A-bombing was to save soldiers' lives by shortening the war (an easily provable lie, some evidence given here (thanks JAS); look for July 21, 25th & 26th.) The real reasons are more likely to be a weighting of these four: (1) they could; they'd spent the dough and built the 'toys.' (2) They wanted to see the effect on a target population, in this case mostly (innocent!) civilians. (3) They wished to send Russia a signal: "See what we can - and will - do!" (4) They, the decision makers, were criminal. IF my analysis is true THEN we can call the A-bombing mass-murder for data and effect.

On a somewhat parallel track and time-frame, the modern 'nation' known as Israel was established as an armed camp on an arguably illegal basis (UN, 1947) and has been expanded fairly continuously ever since, mostly by violent means and always at the expense of the hapless legal owners of much of the land in and around the now sadly mostly ex-Palestine. I call this violent (Zionist) progress towards some wished-for "Greater Israel" murder for land and water.

-=*=-

The "Ah ha!" moments are two: (1) the internet arrived, and (2) GWBush&Co sent mostly US grunts into Iraq to pink-mist their way to capturing Iraq's 'patrimony,' aka murder for oil. The 1st (internet) enabled the discoveries prompted by the 2nd (B, B & H's criminality.) All - or hopefully most - is now revealed, see the problem description above. As a truth-seeker I've had my hands full now for over 5 years, a voyage of discovery I'd rather not have had to undertake, but needs must. On the way I've encountered some 'static,' namely people who, for whatever reason, fail to perceive or agree with the truths I've found and reported. Erroneous ideologues, I call 'em, and the worst of the worst are the inveterate liars - another ta ra! - the trolls.

Musing: it does seem that the liars are all on 'the other side' (well, what else?) - and worse, they lie without compunction[4]. That's as understandable as it's reprehensible, since they 'support' (= *they are*) the side (USrael) which murders for spoil. Just can't get worse than that.

Then: why lie? - Silly question; to attempt to hide or disguise their filthy, murdering misdeeds.

Fazit: we have recently seen a particular troll disgrace him/herself. Goodie. S/he clearly failed kindergarten (thanks JP), in other words, was not sufficiently socialized. As for the troll, so his/her 'keepers.' Any objection to "insufficiently socialized" could possibly be made on the grounds of outright psychopathic illness.

-=*end*=-

PS I intended at one point to extend this towards the Marx quote below. Some other time, perhaps.

Ref(s):

[1] aggression n. 1 unprovoked attacking or attack. 2 hostile or destructive behaviour. [Latin gradior gress- walk] [POD]

[2] socialize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing) 1 mix socially. 2 make social. 3 organize on socialistic principles. socialization n. [ibid.]

[3] ennui

Ønoun
(French) an ennui bred of long familiarity
BOREDOM, tedium, listlessness, lethargy, lassitude, languor, restlessness, weariness, sluggishness, enervation;
MALAISE, dissatisfaction, unhappiness, uneasiness, unease, melancholy, depression, despondency, dejection, disquiet; German Weltschmerz.
-opposite(s): ANIMATION; CONTENTMENT.
[New Oxford Thesaurus of English]

[4] compunction
noun [MASS NOUN] [usu. with NEGATIVE] a feeling of guilt or moral scruple that prevents or follows the doing of something bad: they used their tanks without compunction. [POD]

[5] social —adj. 1 of society or its organization, esp. of the relations of people or classes of people. 2 living in organized communities. 3 needing companionship; gregarious. —n. social gathering, esp. of a club. socially adv. [Latin: related to *sociable] [ibid.]

[6] socialism n. 1 political and economic theory advocating State ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. 2 social system based on this. socialist n. & adj. socialistic adj. [French: related to *social][ibid.]

[7] communism n. 1 a social system in which most property is publicly owned and each person works for the common benefit. b political theory advocating this. 2 (usu. Communism) the form of socialist society established in Cuba, China, etc., and previously, the USSR. [French: related to *common][ibid.]

[8] Marx saw capitalists as expropriating the surplus value created by workers, and accumulating ever-increasing amounts of capital, as the workers (the proletariat) grew ever poorer.
[The OXFORD World ENCYCLOPEDIA]

Quote: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

  Critique of the Gotha Programme (written 1875, but of earlier origin)

The formula of Communism, as propounded by Cabet, may be expressed thus: - ‘the duty of each is according to his faculties; his right according to his wants’.

  in North British Review (1849) vol 10"
[The Oxford Dictionary of QUOTATIONS]

Some Israel-Palestine questions.

2008-06-23T09:35:00.003+10:00

I thought it worth highlighting this article titled Can You Pass The Israel-Palestine Quiz? There is the opportunity for people to compare their knowledge of the issue with the answers provided in the article and also with what is printed by some in the media and blogosphere.

Anyone wishing to take issue with the answers provided are invited to do so with reasoned, substantiated responses. Past experience shows that they usually fail to do so.

Now, a few examples to whet the appetite:

1. Who wrote the following in 1891? “We abroad are used to believing Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed, and anyone who wishes to purchase land there may come and purchase as much as he desires. But in truth this is not the case. Throughout the country, it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains that are not fit to grow anything but fruit trees – and this only after hard labor and great expense …”

2. Who declared the following in 1930? “Land is the most necessary thing for our establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands in Palestine, we are bound in each case of the purchase of land and its settlement to remove the peasants who cultivated the land so far, both owners of the land and tenants.”

3. Who, in 1919, wrote the following, in a secret memorandum submitted to the British cabinet? “For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country [i.e., we do not accept the principle of self-determination for the Arabs of Palestine] … the four great powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land …”

4. According to Mandatory Palestine's first modern census, conducted in 1922, approximately what percentage of the total population were Jews?

5. Approximately what percentage of Mandatory Palestine's inhabitants were Jews in 1947?

6. Approximately what percentage of Mandatory Palestine's land was allocated for the Jewish state by the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan (which supported the division of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state)?

7. Approximately what percentage of Mandatory Palestine's land was owned by Jews at the time of the 1947 UN Partition Plan?

Over to you.

I'm smarter than you are ...

2008-06-19T14:51:00.003+10:00

.. and I have this big - errr, stick, to prove it

.. subtitle: but if you think you're smarter, then prove it: spot the error.

-=*=-

All show, and no 'go.'

One thing, and one thing only, can we thank GWBush for.

And that is, that he is just sooo stupid, that his stuff-up was no ordinary stuff-up; he let perhaps the world's *biggest* secret right out'a its bag. WYSIWYG.

Some people say that the US 'led' war against Iraq, 'enabled' by the US (+ UK, Aus) regimes' telling of at least 935 well-documented lies, 'enabled' by the complicity of a venal and traitorous corporate MSM (with BBC, AusBC & SBS et al. 'hanging on'), carried out despite the lack of a definitive UNSC resolution, and in the face of massive world-wide anti-war sentiment (the ignoring of which resulting in the eventual, ultimate disillusionment then however reluctant acquiescence of a great many of the US' + world's 'sheople®,') - that the US 'led' war against Iraq was a stuff-up, here referring to its *execution*. IMHO that's simply not the case, although corruption, war profiteering, mismanagement and outright incompetence undoubtedly are all present, even overwhelmingly so.

But no; the *real* stuff-up, also in Afghanistan, was the US&Co 'going in' at all. The illegal invasion of Iraq, now been morphed into a brutal occupation, each more criminally murdering that the other, did an important thing to me, and presumably to many other similarly concerned citizens all around the world. Sooo, just what is it, that GWBush's utterly stupefying idiocy did to me?

Why, it made me open my eyes, that's what.

-=*=-

There I was, just minding my own business (career, cars, fun, family, home), being perhaps a typical Ocker, one of the great Aussie unwashed, in short: a 'fully paid-up' member of the sheople. One could have said (although I didn't - and don't:) "Der, I didn't think!"

Whereas I never didn't think outright, one big thing that I didn't think was that many of the world's so-called leaders were not leaders so much as liars, and what they lied about were important things - like life and (arbitrary, criminally caused) death.

Another rather unpleasant surprise (massive understatement!) - was finding out - after being rudely jolted - that Israel was, is not - and never was the putative innocent, hardly done-by "David" being confronted, even surrounded by hostile and worse (Arab/Muslim) "Goliaths." The gruesome reality is quite different - in fact the exact opposite; Israel is and always was the aggressor, killing Palestinians and surrounding peoples (aka murdering) for land and water, in the (criminal) pursuit of some erring ideologue Zionists' dream of a "Greater Israel."

In a roughly parallel process, I also discovered that the world's economy, dominated as it is by the US&Co, is also largely a criminal enterprise, that is to say it is capitalism gone mad, with the 'buy low - sell high' scheme, always suspect, now taken to such obscene levels by out'a control neoliberal ideology, say, aka the Washington consensus, or the Chicago School, in short deregulation, globalisation, privatisation etc.; supposedly free - but mostly not - largely corrupt and/or captive markets also gone mad (think: oil price), that the perpetrators are now grinding down (could be called penalising - just for being alive), impoverishing so-called normal people - 'we, the sheople,' in contrast to 'them, the rippers-off and rulers' - impoverishing to the point approaching penury if not starvation for the bulk of the world's population, all with the feared excess-CO2 caused collapse of our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere looming.

Well may we say: "The end is nigh!"

But it doesn't help just being alarmist, we need a diagnosis and subsequent solution.

We need to know exactly the how and the why, and what to do to fix things.

Have you, dear reader, worked out the question posed by my title?

-=*=-

Fazit: "A flaw?" "The flaw?" - yes.

Re-stating: everyone thinks they're *right* - as in correct.

It's a corollary of 'cognitive dissonance[1];' sheople® (as opposed to 'thinking people') mostly tend to take the 'path of least resistance' (mad if ya don't), most end up in the rather dismal rut of so-called normal existence, but for a 'select few' it goes wrong. The effect probably begins in the (pre-)school yard, when a few 'hard cases' (aka psychopaths[2]) work out that it's easier to grab whatever from some 3rd, instead of actually working for it.

Ta, ra! Enter, the bully. A person who thinks that force can substitute for talent or brains or both.

That is "the flaw" - behind the miserable actions of both the US and Israel.

Like everyone else, they think they're *right* - as in correct.

But of course, they are wrong. So wrong, that not some merely trivial force is being applied, but murdering military (dishonourable!) force up to the level of genocide - for that is what's being done, to the hapless Palestinians, to Afghanis, to Iraqis. And in the wider world, by US-inspired capitalism gone mad, to us, we the sheople. The only difference is the mechanisms employed; in and around Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq it's direct, dishonourable military violence, for the rest of us it's slow deprivation and impoverishment.

Both the US and Israeli regimes, melded into a single monstrous entity I refer to as USrael, think themselves somehow exceptional - they think - and go so far as to say - that they are exceptional; i.e. somehow smarter than the rest.

BUT: They can't make it stick - without their big sticks, aka murdering violence and/or theft.

Let's face it, daaarlings - that's not smart, they are exceptional alright, but not as they claim; their exception is in being criminally, murderingly stupid.

It may not be a "small man's (?) problem", but it certainly is a "small minds problem." It's psychopathic.

No normal person needs to lie or steal. No thief, on the other hand, can get away his or her theft - for long if ever - without lying about it. That, then, is the mark of the psychopaths; i.e. lying, cheating and stealing. Finally, killing. Look around Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq, Q: What do you see? A: Lying thieving murderers at work.

A so-called open and shut case: QED.

Note: The psychopaths will never voluntarily stop, and certainly not when politely asked - since they only understand force, so a countervailing force is required. Incidentally, as the recent regime change in Aus shows, Lab is as good as indistinguishable from Lib, just as Dummocrats are from Repugs 'over there.'

-=*=-

Long story short: we the sheople cannot hope to violently resist, they would just start killing any who tried. No, we have to work - through the only mechanism peacefully available to us: i.e. the ballot box. We have to vote our problems out, and that means *both* the Lib/Lab ugly twins; put 'em both last - in your chosen order, natch - on every ballot. If 50%+1 of the voters everywhere did so, we'd be on our way out'a the disgusting dead-end we're in.

Well, it's a theory.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] cognitive dissonance
noun [MASS NOUN] Psychology the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

[2] psychopath
noun a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
DERIVATIVES
psychopathic adjective
psychopathically adverb

the table of manipulated illiteracy

2008-06-19T14:13:00.007+10:00

The table (refer to is this someone's (Fiona Reynolds'?) idea); the left is 1st copy, the right is 'final.' The font has been changed to a mono-spaced, and 'filler' characters (i.e. ^) have been added as appropriate, to make the comparison easier. Many changes are 'only' cosmetic, others go to the troll's illiteracy (but again, why change at all?) Note, the table is a looong way down; don't know why, but please scroll down.

is this someone's (Fiona Reynolds'?) idea ...

2008-06-17T14:27:00.014+10:00

.. of "Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent?"

(And if not hers (my tip, 99%), then whose? But we do know exactly where...)

-=*=-

Disclosure: I term myself a 'seeker of truth.' The way I work is to gather as much information (web; MSM, blogs) as I practically can, and compare such info with 'reality' - as far as I can discern it. In this way I conclude, for example, that both the US and Israeli regimes continually lie to us, on their way to committing grievous crimes, which I characterise as 'murder for spoil.'

Apart from the impending greedastrophe® (threatening to end forever 'life as we would like to live it'), the biggest problems faced by the world are the two rogue states already mentioned, their heinous crimes and the lying propaganda they deploy as attempted 'camouflage.' But it's not 'just' the principals, there appear from time to time apologists and worse - active, lying trolls. I have personally encountered such, and I make no secret of my animosity towards same. What is particularly galling, is the 'assist' given to the principals by the venal MSM, and to the trolls by their 'hosts.' I now regard anyone telling lies on behalf of the principals as 'enemy,' and those who give assistance to liars are held in scarcely less contempt.

Q: Why does any of this matter #1?

A: In the first place, I think that truth matters. It the 2nd place, the troll attacks directed at me were outrageous - but worse, they had the active 'support' of the host's management. I "no longer felt safe" - and was not safe. I maintain the rage.

Part of my modus operandi is to 'archive' some items of interest. I was a bit surprised to find some such archived items were later changed. Without further comment, some before/after 'evidence:'

[Notes: I've moved the table to the end, so it may be perused in some comfort. When I've previously pointed out malignancies such as these, the 'evidence' dried up. It is thought - proof is offered - that the Eds now 'go over' the troll's input, in order to clean it up. It is - also evidently - at least some times a two-stage process, and the effects can be seen if one gets a copy as edited the first time, then a copy as 'finally' edited. I expect that this new evidence will also now dry up. See table below[1].]

Q: Why does any of this matter #2?

A: Apart from the obvious illiteracy revealed, there are a couple'a problems; 1) why do the Eds (yes, plural) change the troll's text? (Suggestion: to erase 'fingerprints.' Haw!) The illiteracy revealed resembles, within visible, realistic bounds, that of a banned former contributor, namely Jay White. Either Jay White or Paul Morrella - or both - are noms de plume. (Just A. Nobody: «...does it matter if PM is JW? After all JW was a non [sic] de plume as well.») As such, personal attacks are not to be allowed - and yet 2) exactly that, i.e. personal attacks from this troll were not 'just' allowed but were encouraged. Then, 3) the JW/PM imbroglio is not an isolated incident, there is another active troll known as CP/ER, (CP having been banned, ER appeared almost instantly - and was OKed by g*d herself, i.e. MK) - and yet a third, AC, whose 'unmasking' was an emergency action by the management. (How many anony-frauds are there, anyway?) At the very least, any noms de plume should be clearly identifiable i.e. visibly labelled as such. Anything else is unfair to honest posters operating under their actual names. Now I've wasted enough time - far more than it perhaps warrants - on this problem, although I have spent my time up to this point in the name of pursuing justice via truth. But time-wasting being one'a the prime troll objectives, I'm not gunna waste any more of mine on them. As for the trolls' hosts, IMHO, by these fingerprint-erasing actions actively 'enhancing' their whole troll saga, their claim to "Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent" looks just that tiny bit shabbier (perhaps more like fraudulent - to say the very least, eh?)

[1] The table; the left is 1st copy, the right is 'final.' The font has been changed to a mono-spaced, and 'filler' characters (i.e. ^) have been added as appropriate, to make the comparison easier. Many changes are 'only' cosmetic, others go to the troll's illiteracy (but again, why change at all?) Further note, I moved the table to a new post. The table is a looong way down; don't know why, but please scroll down; you may see it here: the table of manipulated illiteracy ... (It should open in a new 'window.')

the mortal danger of denial ...

2008-06-14T12:29:00.001+10:00

.. and no, it's not all about you!

.. subtitle: what *really* matters.

-=*=-

Preamble: the systems that we have are not just wrong but are also outright bad.

Our 'democracies' (US, UK, Aus + Israel) are dysfunctional; of at least three prime requirements (switched-on electorate, free and fair information flows, valid choice of candidates) - we have as good as *none*. It's no good to say well, democracy is the worst form of government - except all others, when what we've got is just not democracy at all, it's *something else* masquerading[1] under the name of democracy. Quite clearly, something that is false is not the truth; 'not the truth' is - a lie.

Principle of exclusion:

1. If someone is ill-informed, or just does not think, then that person (many!) is excluded (from my consideration) - and such people (too many!) - form the sheople®.

2. If someone deviates from the truth, either by commission or omission, whether deliberately (by design) or 'just' accidentally(??!) - then such people are excluded (from my consideration) - and are termed liars. This obviously includes a lot'a people, not *just* the venal MSM (incl. big bits'a the AusBC & SBS) - but 'untruthers' everywhere, aka all filthy liars.

3. If a representative fails to properly represent their electors, as their absolute 1st priority, then such representatives are excluded (from my consideration) - and are termed traitors.

In the early days of my blogging, just as in the early days of my actual life, I decided lies were not for me; for both moral and practical reasons, I would be a 'seeker (now reporter) of truth.' But it wasn't then and it isn't now enough; I seek justice via truth, as in:

"Fair go, ya mug!"

To tie-up the principle of exclusion: if something is not truth, it/they (lies) are to be excluded. If something is not just, it/they (injustices) are also to be excluded. Obviously, lies and injustices abound, the task is a) to identify and then b) to eliminate each and every one.

To end my preamble, these two:

1. 'Man does not live by bread alone.' Totally stripped of any and all superstition (aka 'religion,' say), we have not just a physical existence but also a mental one (the latter depending solely on the former).

2. Sooo, my answer to Q: "What *really* matters?" is A: To live in peace; not just with adequate sustenance for physical existence, but also for mental peace as well: bread and justice.

-=*=-

Musing: "I think, therefore I am." We live for the moment, however that may be defined. The brain is a physical construct; it takes time for the electrical impulses thought to constitute thoughts to propagate (our 'software' functions), and more time for the swirling chemical (energy, hormone) fluids to circulate (hence 'wetware.') Well may we say 'carpe diem,' and recall a computer analogy: 'garbage in, garbage out.' We have needs (air, food, clothing & shelter) and wants (imaginings), our wants are manipulable (creating demand, worst = both religion and 'selling a war.') Obviously, people manipulating wants in 'support' of negative 'outcomes' (illegal invasion of Iraq, say; a dastardly crime of exactly Nuremberg proportions) - are also criminals themselves.

-=*=-

Specifics: Greedastrophe®, Israel, Iraq, Iran.

I had a friend (now dead, sadly) who used to say: "Ya don't bullshit y'r friends!" - Well, I don't BS anyone; what must be said here:

Greedastrophe®. If nothing is done or not enough (current apparent course), our life-sustaining biosphere may be damaged beyond its ability to sustain us. Drastic action is required (here I exclude so-called climate-change sceptics aka deniers); current 'leader/rulers' are failing us.

Israel. What can be said, about this middle-east malignancy? Not too much; WYSIWYG, an invasion (conventionally if not correctly identified as 'Zionist') of outsiders killing to steal the prior legal owners' land and water. That they 'hang' their arguments on the holocaust is obvious, what they don't see is that they now 'ape' their former persecutors in every important detail.

Iraq. Illegal invasion now been morphed into brutal occupation. 'Murder for oil' can neither be ruled out nor denied; usually war should pay for itself and in this case that's how. There can be no doubt, see Cheney's oily machinations. The lying-denying language is quite specific: geo-strategic concerns, also in this 'bucket' come advanced military bases, i.e. the US jackboot on the world's cowardly supine neck. Whether 'Zionist' desires for some "Greater Israel" played a part is superficially denied - but is also probably undeniable. Democratisation is a furphy, one cannot democratise by invasion at the point of a gun, and the self-proclaimed democratizers have no functioning democracies themselves. The murdering perpetrators and erring apologists both lie and deny - but to no good effect; we (truth-seekers) see all.

Iran. Any attack by USrael must be seen for what it would be, a criminal act of naked aggression.

-=*=-

Intermezzo: Why lie? Silly of me for asking; to deceive, to hide something - most likely, bigger crimes. The world's biggest criminals are two, the US and Israel. Together, via the M-W report's Israel Lobby, forming USrael, these crooks are lying, denying - and murdering for spoil. All the accessory/apologists, the professional (venal MSM) and amateur (erroneous ideologue) propagandists, all of these liars only try to conceal the vicious murdering-thief type USrael criminal actions.

-=*=-

Mechanics: Some way must be found to force the representatives to properly represent. Then if/when different, rulers must be made to rule wisely; either shit or get off the pot (detested Ameri-speak; spit!) Note the use of 'force,' 'must be made.' This is not a call for violent revolution - but since it appears that the 'power-grabbers' only understand force (apart from their lies (consider undoubted intimidation), almost their only other tool is a (military) hammer), then some form of violence must be used, and here I have but one slim hope: that the pen really is mightier than the sword. Sheople awake, demand your universal human rights!

-=*=-

Fazit: Truth will out; to attempt denial is to lie. In the end, we're all dead but it's what we do in the meantime that matters; my stance is clear: I advocate justice for all, via truth everywhere.

-=*end*=-

PS random thoughts:

Inclusive/exclusive, arrogance and ignorance, not just of youth.

Truth vs. lies; selective, hypocrisy, utterly lacking any sense of irony.

-=* =-

Ref(s):

[1] masquerade —n. 1 false show, pretence. 2 masked ball. —v. (-ding) (often foll. by as) appear falsely or in disguise. [Spanish máscara mask]

Justice stands up.

2008-06-13T05:15:00.004+10:00

G'day Phil, well five justices of the US Supreme Court stood up for the fundamental principles of justice in striking down a key part of the Military Commissions Act. From Glenn Greenwald (former constitutional lawyer):

In a major rebuke to the Bush administration's theories of presidential power -- and in an equally stinging rebuke to the bipartisan political class which has supported the Bush detention policies -- the U.S. Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision (.pdf), declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional. The Court struck down that section of the MCA because it purported to abolish the writ of habeas corpus -- the means by which a detainee challenges his detention in a court -- despite the fact that Constitution permits suspension of that writ only "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion."

As a result, Guantanamo detainees accused of being "enemy combatants" have the right to challenge the validity of their detention in a full-fledged U.S. federal court proceeding. The ruling today is the first time in U.S. history that the Court has ruled that detainees held by the U.S. Government in a place where the U.S. does not exercise formal sovereignty (Cuba technically is sovereign over Guantanamo) are nonetheless entitled to the Constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus whenever they are held in a place where the U.S. exercises effective control.

One of my first thoughts when I read of the decisions was about who voted yes, and who nay. %-4, well, I had a good idea of who the nays were. Greenwald on the matter (and with concerns I share):

Three of the five Justices in the majority -- John Paul Stevens (age 88), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 75) and David Souter (age 68) -- are widely expected by court observers to retire or otherwise leave the Court in the first term of the next President. By contrast, the four judges who dissented -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito -- are expected to stay right where they are for many years to come.

John McCain has identified Roberts and Alito as ideal justices of the type he would nominate, while Barack Obama has identified Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ginsberg (all in the majority today). It's not hyperbole to say that, from Supreme Court appointments alone, our core constitutional protections could easily depend upon the outcome of the 2008 election.

That justice should depend on partisanship is a concern but there are examples of how it has infected the US system, the Florida recount decision of 2000 might well be the prime example - and look what has resulted from that.

Such as:

In its decision, the Court emphasized (and revived) some of the most vital principles of our system of Government which have been trampled upon and degraded over the last seven years (emphasis added):
The Framers' inherent distrust of government power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty. . . .
Where a person is detained by executive order rather than, say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review is most pressing. . . . The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause of detention and the Executive's power to detain. . . .

Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.
In ruling that the CSRTs woefully fail to provide the constitutionally guaranteed safeguards, the Court quoted Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 84: "The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, in all ages, is the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." It is that deeply tyrannical practice -- implemented by the Bush administration and authorized by a bipartisan act of Congress -- which the U.S. Supreme Court, today, struck down.

"... designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times" is point that needs emphasis as the Bush administration has torn away chunks of the Constitution (that "scrap of paper") under the cover of the :"war on terror". Of course, they are not the only ones who have so attacked their systems. he opportunity arose and some governments have been only too willing to exploit it.

For now, we can savour the moment when principle once again stood up. The hope is that it is more than a moment and that others will be inspired to restore and protect the fabric of their systems.

hate-speak ...

2008-06-11T12:13:00.003+10:00

.. no excuses - not 'no more,' just none

-=*=-

It 'dawned' on me some-when - OK, I might'a been a bit slow - that the AusBC has been transmitting propaganda at us. I just examined my 'input' archive, a somewhat casual (i.e. not totally rigorous) record of my thoughts as submitted to various 'blogs,' including the old SMH webdiary and CT/HYS. Result: 369 occurrences of 'propagand' and the very 1st on 13May'03. Here's a (longish) 'snip:'

«IF somebody tells you that they are going to war BECAUSE another party has WMDs AND that party does not have any AND the invading 'power' knew it all along THEN that somebody (Bush, Blair and Howard, Powell, Straw, Downer, the whole sordid bunch) did lie. I don't care for dissembling, disingenuity, disinformation or propaganda (in all its forms and so the list goes on;) but with Howard we've got no choice - and as far as knowingly dishonest, and/or intended to deceive or all those together and more, never a truer word spoken in jest - and that's not fooling.»

[me/left, right, outright,13May'03]

-=*=-

That was 'back then,' this is now. But before we leave the past, there're still a few things to be recalled. Like, for example, 7.30's Kerry O'Brien going off to the US (immediately prior to that illegal invasion - briefing tour?) - and the subsequent 'make-over' the 7.30 program format received. Then, there was the endless stream of 'talking heads' (detested Ameri-speak - spit!) The coming war was 'talked-up,' basically 7.30 followed the US (venal!) MSM's lead.

So now, Q: What have we got?

A(1): We now know, what we suspected (99+%) all along, and that is, they lied. Not 'just' the politicians ("All politicians lie!") - but the MSM, including via the AusBC & SBS. Boo! Hiss!

A(2): At least 935 lies were deployed by GWBush&Co (if 'needed,' find the articles yourself.)

A(3): The endless stream of 'talking heads' were, on the whole, 'on the take;' the US versions have now been shown to have been 'fully briefed' by the Pentagon. Circularity, anyone? Even the truly liberal media 'caved in.'

A(4): The US Senate (Phase II report) has now 'chimed in,' confirming the distortions, specifically, that the 'intel' was not wrong; it too, was infested with deliberate lies, even 'sexed-up' in UK parlance. (If 'needed,' find the articles yourself. Also refer 'Downing St. Memos.')

I'm not doing links; anyone interested *knows* most if not all of this stuff, but it's interesting (even if 'only' for me), to take a bit of a perspective-view now and again. I have, over my 'blogging career' had various arguments, it turns out (IMHO!) that the simplest arguments work best.

I like to say WYSIWYG: 'What you see is what you get.' We could also call it 'the lens of reality.'

With the exception of 'the biggie,' aka the greedastrophe® - time for dealing with which is trickling away, partly - possibly mainly - due to our next biggest problems, which are these 'myths:'

1. The US: "Truth, Justice and the American Way!" (What utter BS.)

2. Israel: "Brave (little) David, confronting (murdering hordes of) Arab-Goliaths!" (Even worse BS.)

I contend - for me alone, who cares about 'the/any other;' i.e. "Stuff you Jack, I'm OK!" - I contend that these myths are exactly that and more: they are lies. Pure and utter lies - with no redemption, and no redemption possible. And I got those lies - partly, possibly wholly - from the AusBC (since that's almost all the MSM that I ever 'consume,' with only the tiniest of exceptions (F1).)

-=*=-

Sooo, what??! - Well, try this:

Hasbara in The troops come home, the lies are revealed

by Alan Curran on June 10, 2008 - 9:09pm

Angela, Hasbara (??????, also spelt Hasbarah) is a noun that literally means "explanation". Where does the word "goyim" come in? I have not heard that word for years.

I am at the moment looking through 438,000 Google hits on Palestinian propaganda. I will get back to you as soon as I can as there is a lot of garbage to wade through. I am reading about the so called peace activist Rachel Corrie. This is a story the Palestinians have twisted around.

The Arabs have got to realise that Israel is here to stay, and if they are not prepared to accept this they are going to finish up with a lot of martyrs.

It should be noted, that 'Alan Curran' is a nom de plume. There is no way to recognise such, merely fortuitously disclosed (perhaps only to those who actually witnessed the event), after the 'Curran' cyber-identity painted itself into a corner. Exactly who is this Curran? Just A. Nobody? (Haw! The "A" is for another - fraud.)

Then, this:

Anther reply to Roslyn Ross that the balanced WD team may well not publish:

Bigotry And The End Of Webdiary

Roslyn Ross.

Your repeated comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany are beneath contempt, qualify your rantings as antisemitic by any accepted criteria or definition, underline a profound ignorance that permeates everything you write, disqualify you from any serious part in this or any other discussion and highlight the essential problem of Webdiary attempting to be taking seriously as a "moderated" site while at the same time hosting the likes of you.

The only "bitter irony" here is that WD has published without any apparent qualm, once again, your truly disgusting slur, and yet this reply may well be deemed to be unprintable by the moderator on duty. Again.

Your presence here disqualifies WD from any serious consideration anywhere. It has been responsible for the loss of a number of valuable commenters. It is appalling that your comments should be allowed publication without comment while the comments of those who take issue with your serial rubbish are cut or selectively criticised. That the rubbish you write has actually been described as "moderate" reflects badly on this site.

WD has become just another hate site. I've tried to stick it out longer than others who have pointed this out, in the hope a crisis might make this place see sense.

You are a racist and a bigot Roslyn Ross. You shame Webdiary. And you reveal why Webdiary does not deserve to survive in its current form.

Posted by: Geoff Pahoff | Thursday, August 03, 2006 at 23:03

My comment: Pahoff has been (most probably rightly) called an arch-Zionist.

Another comment: Here, Pahoff was/is right: "WD has become just another hate site." Just got the timing wrong.

Yet another comment: Pahoff has the nerve to call someone a bigot? Haw again, in spades.

Shortly following the Alan Curran spit, comes another:

Halitosis Of The Zombies in The troops come home, the lies are revealed

by Geoff Pahoff on June 10, 2008 - 11:25pm

...
Then I have a quick look at what the Israel bashers are saying. And those who are pretending to be neutral. The anti-west bigots as driven as the ugliest lynch mob. Like above.
...

My comment: Anyone who wishes to side-step the venal MSM lying propaganda can see that Israel occupies land stolen from the hapless - legal owners, aka the violently, often murderously, dispossessed Palestinians.

What Israel is up to - quite visibly, see new settlements etc., is their own brand of murder for spoil, in this case for land and water. See Zionist (ugly! wet!) dreams of a "Greater Israel." It's all there out in the open (hidden in plain sight), for anyone who cares to properly look.

Now, not only do we get (lying!) propaganda via the AusBC and SBS, we now get it from the one place we once thought could have been our way out'a the filthy shit. No longer so, if it ever (eternal optimist!) was.

But note again, it's not 'just' propaganda, rather it's also hate speech. Pahoff 'taught' me almost all of what I know about hate speech (see blood libel, say), and it's a funny thing: that it is exactly those who rave and rail about anti-US this and/or anti-Israel that, who are the very ones who also rave about hate speech. We, the truth seekers, don't lie, we don't need to lie, we just don't do it. And we do not hate - US citizens, say, or even Zionists so much, but we do hate, with a true and purple passion - but with perfectly good reasons, so it's much more like deplore, the USrael murdering-thief type actions. The true haters, mateys, are the pro-war, pro-US, Pro-Zionist lying agitator/accessories, aka 'murder for spoil' apologists. But they are not 'just' haters, they are also the true sickos.

Will they, won't they? The growing fear that Iran will be attacked.

2008-06-10T09:53:00.005+10:00

G'day Phil, as has been noted in previous posts and elsewhere there are indications and fears of an attack by the US and/or Israel against Iran. On proposition is that Bush would launch an attack as a way of leaving his mark on history. It would certainly achieve that, but history would not be likely to as kind as Bush thinks. There has been the annual AIPAC conference in the US where the pollies show due obeisance and the rhetoric is hot and has little reality to truth. But then truth matters little when there are agendas and delusions in play. Nior does it matter to those who propagandise in other forums or to those who facilitate such activities, even though they say they are frightened by the possibilities this thread will examine.

A great deal of material has been posted in various places about this issue - a special note of appreciation for Craig Rowley's efforts at another place. Despite this, the liars continue to lie and the ignorant and prejudiced continue to exhibit their ignorance and prejudice despite the evidence that has been presented. Such people should read more and type less.

One inhibiting factor in the plans to attack Iran has been the military. Perhaps it is a case of "We need a new general".

WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials firmly opposed a proposal by Vice President Dick Cheney last summer for airstrikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) bases by insisting that the administration would have to make clear decisions about how far the United States would go in escalating the conflict with Iran, according to a former George W Bush administration official.

J Scott Carpenter, who was then deputy assistant secretary of state in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, recalled in an interview that senior Defense Department (DoD) officials and the Joint Chiefs used the escalation issue as the main argument against the Cheney proposal.

McClatchy newspapers reported last August that Cheney had proposal several weeks earlier "launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iran", citing two officials involved in Iran policy.

Has Cheney changed his mind?

WASHINGTON - Once again, notably in the wake of last week's annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference and the visit to the capital of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, there's a lot of chatter about a possible attack by Israel and/or the United States on Iran.

Olmert appears to have left the White House after meeting with President George W Bush and an earlier dinner with Vice President Dick Cheney quite satisfied on this score, while rumors - most recently voiced by neo-conservative Daniel Pipes - that the administration plans to carry out a "massive" attack in the window between the November elections and Bush's departure from office, particularly if Democratic Senator Barack Obama is his successor, continue to swirl around the capital.

When you're on a bad - and dangerous and criminal - idea, stick to it.
Note the usual suspects. A notable attendee at the AIPAC conference was Barack Obama. He does not fill one with confidence on matters related to the ME.

The failure by Barack Obama to chart another course in the Middle East, to defy the Israel lobby and to denounce the Bush administration’s inexorable march toward a conflict with Iran is a failure to challenge the collective insanity that has gripped the political leadership in the United States and Israel.

Obama, in a miscalculation that will have grave consequences, has given his blessing to the widening circle of violence and abuse of the Palestinians by Israel and, most dangerously, to those in the Bush White House and Jerusalem now plotting a war against Iran. He illustrates how the lust for power is morally corrosive. And while he may win the White House, by the time he takes power he will be trapped in George Bush’s alternative reality.

We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to stay the hand of Israel, which is building more settlements-including a new plan to put 800 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem-and imposing draconian measures to physically break the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. We need, most of all, to prevent a war with Iran.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, in a letter to President Bush on May 8, threatened to open impeachment proceedings if Bush attacked Iran. The letter is a signal that planning for strikes on Iran is under way and pronounced.

Might be a bit late.

Singing the same song.

A digression on the matter of investigations. McClellan to testify. So might Patrick Fitzgerald.

More on Obama - Chris Floyd and Arthur Silber.

On other ways of getting at Iran.

Of course, it's all the president of Iran's fault. Well, if you believe that ...

he who laughs last ...

2008-06-09T08:37:00.002+10:00

.. what a sad and sorry tale

-=*=-

Three things:

1. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has tried to reassure Iran ... (that the 50+/- permanent US bases in Iraq, say, are no threat in the ME.)

2. Tales From Inside [a liberal] Editorial Board Room - a mechanism in the venal MSM's treason.

3. Aussies honoured on Queen's Birthday ... Former prime minister John Howard, gets a (tinsel!) Queen's medal.

The last laugh is to Howard, he'll never face the hangman.

Thanks, Mr Rudd. What ever else you do will just be commentary.

The rest of us (truth & justice seekers) may laugh or not, but we'll cry, alright.

fact vs. lies ...

2008-06-08T11:21:00.004+10:00

.. goodies vs. bad

-=*=-

G'day Damian,

.. and what a fine kettle of (rather stinky[1]) fish you refer to!

Without naming names - it's not *who* says it, so much as *what* is said, with the refinement that it's not only *what* is said but also heavily *how* - I'd like to reflect a bit, on the 'state of play.'

-=*=-

In the beginning was the revulsion, as the US planned "Shockin' whore" for Iraq was revealed.

Then came the howls of protest: "Leave it to Blix!" "No war!" - "Not in my name!"

But we the sheople®, our fine democracy's voters were spurned, called a mob.

And so the awful witnessing began; who knows how many murdered ('obliterated'), and others' lives destroyed, and how many hapless collaterals 'only' terrorised? But they are 'the other,' so little respected that (this time around) no body counts are revealed, if any done at all.

We 'tracked' the invasion (illegal), as it was morphed into occupation (brutal), we saw Bremer's orders promulgated and now we await the 'oil-law' (patrimony) and 'security pact' (sovereignty) to complete the stage-setting for the ultimate oil-theft. Of course it wasn't *only* oil - undeniable though it is but still a major key (aka war must pay); it's inseparable from the not-so-small matter of permanent military bases, and last but certainly not least, the Zionist (filthy, wet) dreams of a "Greater Israel." But what we see is what we're gunna get, and that is the Middle East dominated by the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag hanging on.

-=*=-

So. Throughout, I have maintained that I am a seeker of truth; the idea being to expose the lies, reveal the truth, and thereby to seek the justice owing to all. Back now, to the kettle of rather stinky fish; I (as others) have encountered opposition during my quest for justice via truth, and it's always puzzled me, Q: "What's in it for them?"

Seems to me there are two possible answers:

A1: Money. (This involves corruption; any in this 'bucket' would naturally deny it, and feign outrage.)

A2: Not money, in which case, what then? Before we attempt an answer here, recall that as a seeker of truth, I claim to have discovered much, the largest aspect (IMHO) being 'murder for oil,' the others being mentioned above. So now, any (A2) answer involves lies (to spell it out, lies in opposition to my discovered truth), and I posit that only (erroneous!) ideology fits. But whatever. Here is a quote - thanks to Bob Wall and g'day! The quote is a bit long:

«“They are so frightened of their own complicity in bringing death, disaster, destruction and ungodly sorrow to Iraq that they can now only resort to astonishing levels of self-delusion to maintain their sanity.”

America, and likely the human race, is undergoing a polarization today that looks suspiciously like the way cellular material gathers at both ends of its capsular playground just prior to mitosis. One camp is making the evolutionary bet that a cooperative enterprise, based on a recognition of universal rights and collective effort, is the way to go. Such beings display qualities of conscience: altruism, responsibility, even guilt. The other camp remains committed to the law of fang and claw, betting that their survival is best vested in dominance and destruction of their competitors i.e. everybody not themselves. We are in an ongoing process of speciation, which is to say that given time, we will evolve into two distinct animals unless one of us proves unviable. It will be easier to tell us apart when we become morphologically distinct and unable to exchange genetic material.

My point is that the belligerents of group 2 are congenitally without conscience or remorse for the sorrow and destruction they cause. It just isn’t in them. When you talk to them about these things - the plight of Mexican immigrants, the suffering of Palestinians, the victims of the Iraq occupation - you may get some boilerplate arguments and justifications, though these are oddly unaccompanied by even a hint of empathy or concern for their fellow man. Such concern is mere poetry to them. Hippie nonsense. They do not struggle with this, or repress their complicity or sandbag themselves behind delusional ideation. They sleep like babies. This is the sign of true monstrosity, that you do not know you are a monster. You go down to the mead hall, eat a half dozen vikings, then go back to your cave for a nice nap.»
[voxclamantis June 6th, 2008 1:58 pm]

-=*=-

So now we know some critical things about the anti-truth opposition - or at least, we can get a good idea from that quote. Following on from «eat a half dozen vikings», it may be worth something at this point to look up 'blood libel.' Although this in turn may well spur a few rants on anti-Semitism, it is not so meant; rather to fix/enhance the context which is criminal, bloody murder. Further: I make no accusations that do not automatically follow from that which is directly observable, which in this case is murder for spoil; i.e. murder for oil by the US in Iraq (Iran next?) - and murder for land and water by Israel in and around the now sadly, mainly ex-Palestine.

IF we have criminal, bloody mass-murder going on (I say directly observable) THEN who will bring the perpetrators to justice? UN? France? Germany? They all seem to have piked, but if it's not one of those three, then who?

I see only one real possibility: people-power. But then, see the referred-to opposition. Boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

To come full circle, and return to the fine kettle of stinky fish, I have a quote and a challenge:

1. Quote: «...old chap, does it matter if PM is JW? After all JW was a non de plume as well.»

2. You know who you are, so to the challenge:

a) IF this statement is not truthful, THEN you are a liar. (Add own qualifiers, i.e. filthy, bloody etc..)

b) IF it is the truth (my 'tip'), THEN how do you know, and what *else* do you know?

So which is it? Note: I do not expect an answer; IF the person were at all honest THEN s/he would'a cleared this up looong ago - or perhaps the whole sad story may never even have happened. The quote shows an utter liar (unlikely, why lie at all? Why this lie?) - or someone up to their armpits in a conspiracy; we know where that conspiracy originated, and where it was played out. I bring it up for the specific purpose of illustrating the gross ethical failures that *swamp* 'that other place, over there.'

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] «or a fine kettle of fish! - meaning that some awkward state of affairs has arisen.»

[cross posted]

US' "Shockin' whore" ...

2008-06-06T12:27:00.002+10:00

.. was - still is - outright state terrorism

-=*=-

G'day Bob,

.. now finished trip#1 through your cited tinyrevolution/Bernard Chazelle's The Meaning of Shock-and-Awe.

Here's a (repeated) excerpt:

  «It's unambiguous. The goal is to use violence to inspire fear in a way that will shut down all or part of society. The objective is the same as that of 9/11: bring a society to its knees by using terror. (The Ullman-Wade book even mentions Hiroshima approvingly as an example of Shock-and-Awe.)»

Here's a comment:

  «The real tragedy here was that in 2003, HDTV sales were fairly low, correspondingly the prices were sky high, and I had to put up with shock and awe, red white and blue cgi graphics, and cheerleading military punditry in low def on a standard 27" teevee.
Oh, the agony.»

Here's a last comment (for now, and long):

  «Harlan Ullman, the military adviser who created the shock-and-awe doctrine, says he doesn't recognize it in action in Iraq.

"The current campaign does not appear to correspond to what we envisioned," said Ullman, principal author of the 1996 book, "Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance."

"This bombing campaign did not immediately go after Iraqi military forces in the field, particularly the Republican Guard divisions and political levers of power, such as the Baath Party headquarters," explained Ullman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

He says that if the air campaign had destroyed a big chunk of Iraq's ground forces, it's possible that Iraqi resistance might have been softened, and U.S. troops might already be in Baghdad by now.

Is it too late for shock and awe now? "We have not seen it; it is not coming," Ullman said flatly.»

I'm supposing that Ullman's implication was that 'his' shock and awe was not the same as what the US actually delivered as "Shockin' whore"; 'his' was prefaced on military objectives?

In other words, IF non-military (Ullman said so) THEN what else but at the whole Iraqi population-at-large. i.e. an utter, outright war-crime - of the 'ultimate' Nuremberg type.

-=*=-

What you see is what you get.

What the Iraqis got was their country's infrastructure as good as totally destroyed. (And it has as good as stayed that way.)

The basis for their civil society; laws, government etc. were also as good as totally destroyed.

Bremer's 'orders' allow for the rape of Iraq's everything, commerce, farming, services, resources, you name it.

The installed 'democracy' is a farce; only candidates who swore not to even try to dismantle Bremer were allowed to stand. The puppet government that resulted is under enormous pressure, even open bribery (threatened violence? Recall "Hit Man") - to sign away anything that remains of Iraq's sovereignty or 'patrimony' (read oil.)

-=*=-

All of this filthy corruption is happening 'in plain sight,' reported as anything but by (crooked!) 'Western' (actually mostly Anglo majors, Israel as poisonous minor) politicians relayed and amplified by their 'pet' venal MSM.

For example, some Australian soldiers are staying in Iraq "to protect the off-shore oil infrastructure." (A closer interpretation: 'Hold hostage?')

All of this from 'the World's policeman,' claimed freedom-loving US. HAW! (Hang all the order-giving bastards, and gaol all their criminal carpet-bagger rip-off followers - for ever.)

Truth must out; justice must be done.

the (corrupt!) microcosm ...

2008-06-03T09:57:00.002+10:00

.. but it's *our* microcosm[1]!

subtitle: squaring a few circles[2]?

-=*=-

It is slightly amusing, to watch a few WD-denizens Oh, so publicly devour each other. Especially delicious is that right at the centre of the storm - actually not 'just' at the centre but adding enormous (misguided!) energy to the maelstrom like the demented dervish she undoubtedly is, is none other than the self-promoting putative madam president[3] of the MK old bags club.

Taking account of possible paranoia and any tendency towards self-selection, it is an easy accusation to make, that the demented dervish deployed her dubious 'charms' against more than just a few of the honest truth-seekers now marked largely by their absence 'over there.' Interesting too, is that exactly the same technique of abuse she claims has her targeted, was the same as that which a certain lying troll directed at me. Did madam putative-president spring to my defence 'back then?' (Detested Ameri-speak - spit!) No, and not on your Nelly, she did not. Partly my fault; I once declared WD to be my workplace, the farmer/fishwife may well have decided to work towards having me ejected from exactly that point. (On grounds that WD is partly her possession, partly her play-pen, and how dare anyone disagree with her - however she may justify that stance. But even murderers (see next bit) - just as child-mind abusers, say - presumably *somehow* feel justified.)

But I tire of it: as Mme. Albright might'a said (but didn't) "The price just ain't worth it." Specifically, although attempts to weed the real nasties out'a WD had some initial success 'back then' (spit!), WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), WD is now - not exclusively, but extensively, a playground open for such bigots and the aforesaid lying trolls.

The WD-nub: commenter to commenter abuse is OK, just as long as it's sufficiently well disguised (Paul Walter to Jenny Hume, Paul Morrella to me), telling any lie is also OK; the rules themselves may be arbitrarily abused (see looong discussions 'in here,' Damian's (g'day) and some less salubrious places (listening, Harr'äh?) - and in the end it all just becomes a corrupt power-play.

Just like 'real life' in fact, hence 'microcosm.' This, then, is the 1st circle that cannot be squared. Despite our hopes and expectations, WD has ground to earth, and is nothing more than a CWA-style Kaffeeklatsch, with neither the intention nor ability to change anything.

-=* =-

Just as some liars appear to prosper in WD (listening, Morrella?), so in the wider world. Try this story:

«US rejects Rudd's claims on 'flawed' Iraq intel
By Washington correspondent Michael Rowland

Mr Rudd told Parliament that the decision to go to war was based on flawed intelligence, a fact he said was not disclosed to the Australian public at the time.

He cited as an example the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

In response, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the Bush administration was acting in good faith on the information it had in the months leading up to the invasion.»

[AusBC]

Well, of course, and kindly pardon my French, but what a pack of flamin' bloody lies!

Not what Rudd said (appears quite reasonable, even surprisingly so in the face of the "US alliance" position seemingly forced on our wide-brown), but what the White House spokeswoman dared to say. That, in the face of the 935 lies - and the recent revelations of McClellan. And all the rest of the evidence pointing to wilful, criminal mass-murder for oil. (Whilst 'helping' Israel's equally theft-by-murder intention of grabbing a "Greater Israel" from the hapless *legal* owners of ex-Palestine and surrounds.)

Hypocrisy hardly gets more breathless than this. And the AusBC regurgitates it without blushing. Shame!

I can't understand how countries like Germany or France can tolerate what USrael are doing. Forget about trying to square any circles, if the liars (all the filthy accessory/enablers, listening, Morrella?) aren't locked up and soonest, and the main criminal order-givers hanged by the neck until dead, then there's just no justice at all.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] microcosm n. (often foll. by of) miniature representation, e.g. mankind or a community seen as a small-scale model of the universe; epitome. microcosmic adj. [from *micro-, *cosmos] [POD]

[2] To square the circle Attempt the impossible:

Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatig:

"Futile is the labor of those who fatigue themselves with calculations to square the circle."

My comment: It doesn't exactly fit (haw!) - But I'm a bit sick of Sisyphean ennui.

[3] madam n. 1 polite or respectful form of address or mode of reference to a woman. 2 colloq. conceited or precocious girl or young woman. 3 woman brothel-keeper. [related to *Madame] [POD]

sunday brunch

2008-06-01T12:02:00.001+10:00

Guests

Start

Middle

End

Yum!

$5(+1)mio lawsuit against Webdiary announced ...

2008-05-29T14:21:00.003+10:00

.. for allowing slander, libel, knowingly lying and general dishonesty, aka deliberately violating their own self-asserted ethics - boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

Based on the new evidence provided on the Road to the Tropics_2366 thread, for perhaps the 1st time clearly and unambiguously documenting deliberate Webdiary malfeasance, I can now initiate legal proceedings against the Webdiary company *and* associated individuals. No company structure should protect these people, each of them knowingly transgressed against their own self-touted ethics, ignoring all reasonable appeals for truth and justice; each jointly and separately allowed the publishing of filthily lying, slanderous and libellous comments, specifically issuing from the cyber-entity known as the Morrella troll.

1. Against Webdiary itself: $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.

2. Against Margo Kingston:  $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.

3. Against David Roffey:    $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.

4. Against Fiona Reynolds:  $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.

5. Against Richard Tonkin:  $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages.

6. Against David Davis:     $1,000,000.00 in unspecified damages - for his conspiracy/collusion in the Morrella troll deployment.

Morrella himself, as an alleged 99.9% confidence fraudulent cyber-entity (see my comparison between the Morrella cyber-entity and a certain Jay White), is thought to be beyond reach - unless his/her true name and address can be ascertained. A special mention must be made of Hamish Alcorn, although largely 'invisible' during the Morrella dramas, nevertheless he may have been involved.

One very real problem here, is that when an entity, a person, a company is known to have perpetrated any single criminal act, they can never thereafter be trusted. It's one thing to have a CWA-style Kaffeeklatsch, another thing entirely to publish untrue, damaging slurs.

At the very latest, Webdiary should'a pulled the plug on Morrella after s/he submitted his Jayson Blair libel against me.

-=*=-

I came to Webdiary in the face of the US (+UK & Aus etc.) *threat* of the "Shockin' whore" illegal invasion of Iraq, that threat was then actualised and has now been morphed into an indefinite, brutal occupation, each more criminally murdering than the other. The US object: possibly to help the (equally criminal!) Zionist's desire for a "Greater Israel," and to make the war pay for itself (over and over; estimated potential 'haul' now over $US27trio) - by stealing (even if 'only' control over) Iraq's 'patrimony,' i.e. murder for oil.

I came to Webdiary in protest against those filthy threats then being made, in the hope of uniting with similar minded people and moving towards stopping the US (+UK & Aus etc.) in their tracks. The general appeal back then is the same as now, namely for justice via truth. We know how our appeals to Howard turned out: he called us a mob, then totally ignored us all, we the (sovereign voter) sheople®.

One of the greatest shocks, deepest disappointments, was after the arrival of the lying Morrella troll just over one year ago, of having Webdiary itself turn on me.

This is, of course, no Darlinghurst courtroom. Any evidence I cared to present is other-where on this site (ancient history perhaps - but should I forget that I've been wronged?) - but look at just these few bits from Fiona Reynolds:

« ... and (2) all such moderators have received varying levels of threats during that period.»

My comment: interesting admission, to the best of my knowledge until today strenuously denied. Is not such a denial a lie?

See [1], then Reynolds:

«Incorrect, and fallacious ... nothing more to be said.»

My comment: Oh, really? Is there a statute of limitations on perfidy? By not specifically addressing Rowley's citing of "the [WD] special deal made to allow the ridiculer his pseudonymity," Reynolds gives tacit agreement that there was such a 'deal' - again, to the best of my knowledge until today strenuously denied. Is not such a denial a lie?

Some comments from another thread moved here[2,3].

Get this: ... given that we know that he knows that we know...

The prosecution rests.

Seems there are lies, damned lies - and WD-lies.

We can be reasonably assured that every criminal on the planet thinks that the crimes s/he perpetrates are acceptable (but only to themselves, natch) - but no crime against me will ever be forgiven. Webdiary jointly and severally allowed slander and libel against me, and in cases have slandered me themselves. This is cyber-crime of the 1st water writ large, and should not be allowed to go unpunished ...

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] Craig Rowley's query:

«Indeed, as one or two of you have acknowledged over time that very point about the special deal made to allow the ridiculer his pseudonymity (which is a deal it seems I cannot mention for fear of censorship), with no answer to my question I simply cannot comprehend how what's been done reflects WD Ethics.»

Fiona Reynolds response:
«Incorrect, and fallacious. IF one takes the position that (original) identity A is the same as (now) identity B, one cannot assume that identity B is the pseudonymous identity. It’s equally plausible that identity A may have been the pseudonym, and if as appears to be the case identity B is that individual’s true identity (insofar as it is possible for us to check), there is nothing more to be said.»

Repeat: Seems there are lies, damned lies - and WD-lies.

[2] justice_via_truth 11:34 said...

IF identity-A (C Parsons) = identity-B (Eliot Ramsey) (*IT DOES*) THEN either -A is false AND/OR -B is false. there's just no way out of it. It means that either -A or -B (most likely both) are undeclared pseudonyms, which WD has eternally denied, both implicitly and explicitly - and MK has gone so far as to forbid any further mention of such. As DR did on the 'map-wiping meme.' Each of these events, the deploying of an undeclared pseudonym, lying about it, or making any 'forbid' ruling and then later allowing exactly that, are all ethical breaches and border on, if not actually embrace, criminality.

Convicted. Self-convicted; CP/ER, MK, DR and the rest, your honour. Which (your putative collective honour) was obliterated then, is now and will so be for all time, the whole lying lot'a ys. Crimes do not expire - 'settled long ago' is pure BS, aka wishful thinking.

Even if we were to accept the not so veiled attempted wriggle-out "if as appears to be the case identity B is that individual's true identity (insofar as it is possible for us to check)," that still leaves C Parsons as a long term liar. Reynolds dances on the head of a pin. Liar is as liar does. No credibility. No honour. No *ethics.*

[3] justice_via_truth 12:17 said...

Addendum: WD lying then trying to wriggle-out is, of course, not the real problem.

The real problem is two: a) the lying trolls, and b) WD's not just tolerance but active encouragement of same, whilst failing to protect honest commentator troll-targets.

It is a troll's function to destroy (truth) and distract (from any attempting remedial action, say.)

Both the Parsons/Ramsey and Morrella entities do exactly that; they endlessly reprise the 'standard,' lying pushed-paradigm propaganda, and it is they and all their ilk's speciality to 'hook' honest commentators.

If we speak of fallacies, we can inspect this dirty, dishonest trick: Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly.

That's what's referred to by 'remorseless ridicule,' say. But the lying, offensively insulting Morrella tops Parsons/Ramsey at every turn. And WD calls all that 'safe debating,' 'robust contesting of ideas;' I call it a travesty. A dishonest travesty, to boot.

[cross posted]

a Morrella-ty play ...

2008-05-27T11:51:00.001+10:00

.. no honesty, no honour - and no progress

subtitle: greedastrophe®: is that what we really want?

-=*=-

Preamble:

It gives me little pleasure to say "S/he is wrong!"

(Note: 'little' is not none. Haw!)

I am a truth-seeker - but not 'only;' I seek justice[1] via truth.

Note 'justness, fairness;' as in "Fair go, ya mug!"

My primary thesis is "Things are crook; we gotta do bedda!"

Which is why this blog-title is:

¡ NoMothS !

No more of the same!

-=*=-

Dramatis personae:

Margo Kingston: a tyrant - but 'our' tyrant.

David Roffey: the BANJO man; self-titled, for acting without thinking.

Hamish Alcorn: a dialectic dilettante.

Fiona Reynolds & Richard Tonkin: general factotums.

Paul Morrella: a filthily lying troll.

C Parsons/Eliot Ramsey: only s/he knows[2]?

Geoff Pahoff: a rabid, right-wing arch-Zionist. Makes threats of violence.

Alan Curran: not quite who he says he is.

Jenny Hume: a nutter hypocrite[3]. (Ooops! Sorry - but not too sorry: an utter hypocrite.)

(Anyone feeling insufficiently insulted may complain, anyone omitted may apply for redress.)

-=*=-

The scene: "Things are crook in Tallarook" is a catchphrase for any adverse situation. And Oh, boy - is our situation adverse!

1. The physical, 'murder for spoil;' general criminality.

2. The political, 'crippled democracies.'

3. The business, 'rip-offs dominate.'

4. The 4th estate, 'corrupt & venal MSM.'

5. The moral, 'TV-dozing, apathetic sheople®.'

6. The threat. As if 1-5 weren't bad enough, 'business as usual' is driving our once jewel-like planet towards an excess CO2-caused climate crash, aka the greedastrophe. With no effective counteraction, we humans may stuff it up in a terminal way.

Comment: All of 1-5 is (should be) known, none should be controversial, my general label for the situation is the 'pushed-paradigm.' Not much of what is superficially asserted by this pushed-paradigm is really what's going on; buzz-words here are "All politicians lie!" and "They hate us for our freedoms" and "We will disarm him!"

All of which and more being bullshit; I counter such with:

"No more war!"

"No more rip-offs!"

"Give us back our democracies!"

And, of course, over all: "Fair go, ya mug!"

-=*=-

Act one. There is only one act; aka reality. Truth is the only correct description of reality; all else is commentary - or worse, destructive distractions, lies and/or outright propaganda.

Roffey: «We don't change the world much but there are a lot of people kibitzing ...»

Me: You said it, matey; but I'd change "much" to "by anything even if at all." But that was our hope; to rescue the world. Silly? Perhaps, but I've pointed out other-when; doing nothing is no option. Then, almost nothing is worse than dashed expectations; draw your own conclusion. I'm not surprised at Roffey's deployment of 'kibitzing[6],' the key here is exactly what 'unwelcome advice' should be tendered, and to whom.

Reynolds: «Webdiary is, after all, supposed to be about the contest of ideas.»

Me: You said it, lady; but if y'wanna have a fair contest then a) y'gotta set fair rules, then b) consistently enforce 'em. And right there is *THE PROBLEM* - as you well know, and now we can invoke hypocrisy - this time, on your behalf.

Reynolds: «... accusing Webdiary management of not living up to its aim ...»

Me: Exactly, also as you well know; and when you (collectively, individually) do that, i.e. *not* live up to its aim, *then* the emails fly. And when no satisfactory 'outcome' is achieved, it can get acrimonious.

WD's fundamental problem is and always has been how to 'handle' the 'dark side,' and - IMHO - WD has consistently erred by extending their favours to the liars and cheats, at direct cost to honest truth-seekers.

Let's face it, everyone thinks (feels) they're correct; any alternative could/would most likely cause cognitive dissonance. (Except in the "No sense, no feeling" cases, which WD also has.) The 'trick' of course is to think/feel correctly, aka based on verifiable facts. Ta ra! - Enter the truth-seeker!

(Ooops! Totally wrong prompt...)

Alcorn: «... you have a race-based theory of domination, and to me it appears not just as a conspiracy theory, but a really silly one.»

Me: You little snot! How dare you?

Morrella: «Never ceases to amaze me the chuckleheads that actually think it works - on any person with an IQ above 80 that is.»

Me: Note the language; 'chuckleheads,' 'IQ above 80.' And this, on a supposedly 'safe debating' site. As for the Morrella 'murder for oil' denial, truth-seekers the world over have been digging, discovering, documenting each individual, concrete step towards the eventual oil-theft; while all that is so-called circumstantial, it is nevertheless actual, verifiable evidence; for Morrella to deny (IMHO simply not possible), without fronting a single shred of countervailing evidence is purely risible (adj. laughable, ludicrous. [Latin rideo ris- laugh] [POD]) But it's a free country, as they say; so by all means, "Go for it." (Detested Ameri-speak? Spit!) WD apparently desires, prefers, actually openly welcomes your sort'a (lying!) contributions.

My comment: Notice this, that Morrella has from the very beginning and then always hidden behind WD's protective skirts. It's called dependency. It's called (mutually reinforcing) cowardice.

Hume: «It is about boundaries and protecting children from exploitation of any kind.»

Me: this is where we go breathless, at this particularly revolting piece of utter hypocrisy. Hume goes ga-ga over a few dirty postcards, while at the same time maintaining her right to otherwise corrupt what surely is the most precious commodity on earth, a child's innocent mind[3], by infecting such minds with the ghastly and cruel death/g*d fear memes. That's 'child abuse' writ about as large as is possible.

Hume: «Anyone hassling, sending abusive or vexatious emails to moderators or repeatedly attempting to post abusive comments on the site should be promptly banned from the site.»

Me: 1. How would we define 'abusive?' Like Curran's suggestion that the IDF (wrong name; should be 'offence') would be the ideal agency to bomb the crap out'a some neighbour?

Me: 2. How about the WD-commenter's 'right of appeal?' See the factotums' responses - ooops! a) They don't always answer either for their actions or their emails, going sphinx-like mute. b) In their quest for (fake!) 'balance,' they cuddle up to criminals.

-=*=-

Intermezzo: It's not *who* says it, but *what* they say. The 'what' can be truth, lies or irrelevancies. Lies to deceive, irrelevancies to distract (see WD's champ, Parsons/Ramsey.) I see the need to correctly identify the 'what' in order to progress towards useful solutions. Lying trolls etc. presumably have other agendas.

-=*=-

Fazit: WYSIWYG. WD is as it is, the inhabitants more or less as happy as pigs in shit, and they're truly welcome to it.

-=*end*=-

Epilogue: I don't *really* care (in the end we're all dead.) Of course I do care a bit - otherwise I could go and have some fun elsewhere, instead of fighting criminality, and its disgusting entourage.

Should the agents provocateurs; the apologists, accessory/agitators and outright lying trolls 'win,' (they can win merely by having no effective opposition), then what?

WHAM! Come the greedastrophe®: is that what we really want?

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] justice n. 1 justness, fairness. 2 authority exercised in the maintenance of right. 3 judicial proceedings (brought to justice; Court of Justice). 4 magistrate; judge. do justice to 1 treat fairly. 2 appreciate properly. do oneself justice perform at one's best. with justice reasonably. [Latin justitia] [POD]

[2] Nah, but not sooo important. In a BANJO-type act, the 'C Parsons' blog-entity was disabled; 'Eliot Ramsey' almost instantaneously, even magically appeared. Thanks DR, thanks MK. That sure was 'transparent,' eh?

Keyword: 'remorseless ridicule,' but that's not accurate. What the Parsons/Ramsey entity does is to endlessly re-hash the pushed-paradigm, which - given the foul nature of that paradigm - cannot do any more than hinder possible progress.

[3] 'Ha, ha' hyacinth, the hypocrite[4] from the sticks.

She's a blowhard[5], sometimes as in 'blows with the wind,' but mostly as in -fly.

Most of all she's a lightweight, with pretensions *far* above her 'station.' (Haw again.)

None of that is important, but the really nasty bit is her insistence that it is her (g*d-given!) right to corrupt child-minds with cruel Christianity-crap. Boo! Hiss!

[4] hypocrisy n. (pl. -ies) 1 false claim to virtue; insincerity, pretence. 2 instance of this. [Greek, = acting, feigning] [POD]

hypocrite n. person given to hypocrisy. hypocritical adj. hypocritically adv. [ibid.]

[5] blowhard N. Amer. informal
noun a person who blusters and boasts in an unpleasant way.
adjective acting or appearing in such a way.

[6] kibitz
verb [no OBJ.] informal, chiefly N. Amer. look on and offer unwelcome advice, especially at a card game.
n
speak informally; chat: she kibitzed with friends.
DERIVATIVES
kibitzer noun.

ORIGIN 1920s: Yiddish, from colloquial German, from German Kiebitz ‘interfering onlooker’ (literally ‘lapwing’). [Oxford Pop-up]

evil is as evil thinks ...

2008-05-26T11:31:00.008+10:00

.. but s/he who evil does is worst - a criminal[1,2].

-=*=-

Preamble: I have occasionally been queried (or worse) as to why I include definitions. The 'simple' answer is to ensure that any reader is left in less doubt as to my intended meaning. Sooo, let's 1st consider criminal. We immediately have to take one step back and ask "What is a crime[2]," and yet another, "What is a law[3]?" Then we are in a bit'a trouble, since a) laws are artificial, i.e. human constructs, b) some maintain that one can't legislate morality (a furphy[4], since if not morality what then?) - and c) some laws are known to be more or less complete asses.

As an aside, what of the current controversy over photographs of sexually immature people, aka children? This, from SMH letters 24-5May'08:

«Photos of nude children are "honest and beautiful". Isn't that the stock defence of the child pornographer?»

Now, it should not primarily be a question of art; one could (should) ask: was it legal to procure the photos? Whether there was/is any arty-farty (aka prurient[5]?) interest is very much a 2ndary, but nevertheless still an important question. To put the photos to rest, I think we can (should) all agree that it is the job of the police to detect crime, not to censor art. So Q: Did some crime precede (and produce) this putative art?

We are humans and have feelings; we run on morality, not laws. Laws are (or better perhaps, should be) only there 'to help' - to discourage morality boundary-jumping, and if such boundaries are exceeded, then to punish - i.e. no pain, no gain. (Argh! Detested Ameri-speak; spit!)

The primary idea, though, is (should be) one of deterrence. Lawbreaking is serious - but we are drowning under a flood if it, from the so-called élites (of the US, UK, Aus & Israel say), through our representatives, the venal MSM - and on 'down' to a certain jolly hockey-sticks Kaffeeklatsch I used to frequent. End of preamble.

-=*=-

No prizes then for having guessed, that this blog-item concerns exactly that Kaffeeklatsch, and any morality (actually, a certain lack thereof) and/or criminality (lots thereof) involved. Disclosure: I was 'invited permanently out,' probably ultimately because of my somewhat colourful language, here's a sample:

1. The collective entity I refer to as the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodles (now UK+F) with dag, are all in greater or lesser degree (mass-) murdering for spoil. These are the worst and most criminal of thugs. The prime task of the US-led entity at the moment seems to be the seizing of control over the world's oil, by murdering force (free markets, anyone? Haw!) - at a time when burning any more fossil fuel (above a tiny, life-sustaining minimum) is condemning us all to a grisly and lingering excess CO2-caused greedastrophe® death.

And while we're doing 'collective entities' here's another:

2. Riddle me this: why does USrael, the entity formed from the US and its M/I/C-plex, plus Israel and its I/J/Z-plex, 'melded' together by the neoCon cabal, say, and M-W's Israel Lobby etc., have to murder for spoil? Why can't they just buy stuff, like you'n I have to?

Picking up now, on the word 'cabal;' I once used it in a particular way, only to be confronted with:

«... you have a race-based theory of domination, and to me it appears not just as a conspiracy theory, but a really silly one.»

(My reference was to the PNAC/neocon cabal; as it has lately been pointed out, there are few neocons indeed, without some Zionist connection. Actually, «There is no such thing as a neoconservative who is not allied with Israel»; slightly - but not too much - different.)

What I should have said to the 'dialectic dilettante' back then is this: You little snot! How dare you?

Suffice it to say, it was all mostly downhill after that. Also, a funny thing happened - I believe it's called radicalisation[6]. A critical step leading up to my eventual ejection occurred just over one year ago; here's sample of the sort'a filthy, lying and underhand battle then being waged against me:

«... I suggest you read the link carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair.»

A competent quick Google should show the original occurrence, and part of the subsequent strife; in the 2nd case an intervention on my behalf by an 'honest/friendly,' (g'day.) What is to be noted is the demonstrable fact that the moderators/management a) allowed the publication of such rubbish at all, but worse, b) on repeated appeal (all the way 'up'), they supported the lying troll. Now, I don't mind being 'out,' in fact I'm much better off. But, a new occurrence of the moderators attacking another honest/friendly over the weekend was brought to my attention. My first reaction: Boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

Now we can take a breather - and go on to investigate two things:

1. My statement 'above,' namely that "we are drowning under a flood" of crime, and

2. That this flood includes "a certain jolly hockey-sticks Kaffeeklatsch."

The dastardly deployer of the Jayson Blair slur was then as now a lying troll. Specifically, 'it' purported to dispute 'murder for oil' by GWBush&Co in Iraq, a 'special case' of murder for spoil, another example of which is murder for land and water in and around the now sadly mostly ex-Palestine. (As I write (10:03), a spy reports an occurrence of the lying troll as having been active 4 hours 53 min ago.) [Needless to say, the Jayson Blair affair was only one 'blip' on the long and deep descent of the NYT, formerly a pillar of the now venal MSM.]

As one of a number of 'murder for oil deniers' (note perfect similarity to 'holocaust denier'), the lying troll did not - because it simply could not, it's just not possible to - provide any proof in support of its denial. But the troll was allowed - encouraged to be, is there still. Another Boo! Hiss!

The battle - my battle against the lying troll - was lost - with assist from the moderators/management acting against me, rather than ensuring 'a fair & safe debating space.' Fact.

We switch now, to WYSIWYG, i.e. what you see is what you get: the US, along with its running-dog poodle with dag, inflicted "Shockin' Whore" on Iraq, an illegal invasion now morphed into a brutal occupation, each more murdering than the other, for a few reasons, yes (but none 'honourable'), one of which was the intent of the theft of, even if 'only' control over, Iraq's oil. We see this (those of us with eyes wide-open); we see it and we know. We who care have been battling that ever since first hearing of it, and one of our chosen battle-grounds was the now Kaffeeklatsch.

The last bit of WYSIWYG is the (valid) question: just why do the Kaffeeklatsch moderators/management support obvious criminal types like the before-mentioned lying troll, the arch-Zionist (you love that, don'cha, eh? Any more threats y'wanna make against me?) - and the 'remorseless ridiculer?' These mentioned amongst lesser others, like fake-named businessmen, puffed-up pro-wars or child-mind abusing farmer/fish-wives, say. (Anyone feeling insufficiently insulted may complain.) Exactly what's in it for them, the moderators/management?

Another link I have previously asserted, is that of criminal to accomplice to accessory[7]. I contend, that the above-mentioned lying troll etc. malefactors[8] are providing support for criminals, and those who enable the provision of that support are accessories. Basta. And so a final thought:

Honi Soit Qui Mal Pense![9]

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] criminal —n. person guilty of a crime. —adj. 1 of, involving, or concerning crime. 2 guilty of crime. 3 Law of or concerning criminal offences (criminal code; criminal lawyer). 4 colloq. scandalous, deplorable. criminality n. criminally adv. [Latin: related to *crime] [POD]

[2] crime n. 1 a offence punishable by law. b illegal acts (resorted to crime). 2 evil act (crime against humanity). 3 colloq. shameful act. [Latin crimen] [ibid.]

[3] law n. 1 a rule enacted or customary in a community and recognized as commanding or forbidding certain actions. b body of such rules. 2 controlling influence of laws; respect for laws. 3 laws collectively as a social system or subject of study. 4 binding force (her word is law). 5 (prec. by the) a the legal profession. b colloq. the police. 6 (in pl.) jurisprudence. 7 a the judicial remedy. b the lawcourts as providing this (go to law). 8 rule of action or procedure. 9 regularity in natural occurrences (laws of nature; law of gravity). 10 divine commandments. be a law unto oneself do what one considers right; disregard custom. lay down the law be dogmatic or authoritarian. take the law into one's own hands redress a grievance by one's own means, esp. by force. [Old English from Old Norse, = thing laid down] [ibid.]

law-abiding adj. obedient to the laws. [ibid.]

lawbreaker n. person who breaks the law. lawbreaking n. & adj. [ibid.]

[4] furphy
noun (PL. -ies) Austral./NZ informal a rumour or story, especially one that is untrue or absurd.
ORIGIN First World War: from the name painted on water and sanitary carts manufactured by the Furphy family of Shepparton, Victoria.

[5] prurient adj. having or encouraging unhealthy sexual curiosity. prurience n. [Latin prurio itch] [ibid.]

[6] radicalize (also -ise)
verb [with OBJ.] cause (someone) to become an advocate of radical political or social reform: some of those involved had been radicalized by the Vietnam War.
n initiate or introduce fundamental or far-reaching changes in: the push to radicalize 16–19 science education.
DERIVATIVES
radicalization noun. [Oxford Pop-up]

[7] accessory n. (pl. -ies) 1 additional or extra thing. 2 (usu. in pl.) small attachment, fitting, or subsidiary item of dress (e.g. shoes, gloves). 3 (often foll. by to) person who abets or is privy to an (esp. illegal) act. [medieval Latin: related to *accede] [POD]

[8] malefactor n. criminal; evil-doer. malefaction n. [Latin male badly, facio fact- do] [ibid.]

[9] A quote/motto or thought for the today:
Evil to him[her] who evil thinks.
(Honi Soit Qui Mal Pense)
King Edward the Third, Motto of the order of the Garter
English king 1327-1377 (1312 - 1377)

Comment: A detested English monarch. All are, by some. Possibly most - at least around here, in our wide-brown.

The Stations of the Cross ...

2008-05-21T12:59:00.003+10:00

.. Ys'c'n all 'ave a relax - not religious

-=*=-

Preamble (long): 'Pure' logic would assure us, that as there are many more religions than anyone can 'reasonably' poke a stick at, then no so-called secular[1] state should concern itself with religion at all, let alone singling any particular one out.

Well, of course, 'pure' logic is not in play - or any sort'a proper logic at all when it comes to religion (aka belief without basis), and we have all of B, B & H making various claims to/about religion. Israel, as the 4th leg in our Anglo-Judaic democracy mess, seems to be inextricably entwined with religion (amongst other 'perversions.')

Speaking of perversions[2], as I've recently written, the three so-called Abrahmic variations ... Christianity, Islam & Judaism. ... each has an associated morality. The number-one commandment in each resembles "Thou shalt not kill!" There are other commandments, but no religion has a monopoly on morals. I have my own attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality (based on reflexive altruism, aka "The Golden Rule." Some basic moral tenets are no lies, no cheating, no theft and no murder. There're others, like love thy neighbour, say ...

I have heard it said that one cannot legislate morality, but it is claimed that we live in a society governed by laws. Although some laws might be asses, a reasonable wo/man would conclude that whatever laws we make should be just (—adj. 1 morally right or fair. [POD]) It is this word 'just,' and justice, that we now pursue.

Pseudo-quote:

GWBush, "G*d made me do it!"

Actual quotes:

Tony Blair, "I passionately believe ..."[4] (Haw! What 'peace process' can apply to 60+ years of killing to steal?)

John Howard, "... and according to the Judao/Christian ethic which is meant to govern conduct in this country ..."[5] (Haw! See above discussion on commandments.)

(Aside: Yes, Howard is gone, had to go; good riddance. But the replacement differs only in minor degrees - if at all.)

Funnily enough, in the current 'us v.s them' scenario, Christianity & Judaism are on 'our' side, and Islam on the 'other.' (Us good, them bad.) Indeed, it has been alleged, that Bush&Co are on a crusade, as well as pursuing murder for oil and a "Greater Israel" - say.

However, it is also widely acknowledged that they are all lying in their teeth, and have absolutely no 'right' on their side - except the hollow boast: "Might makes right." The hell it does!

So, (long story short:) any claim of 'separation of Church and State,' just as any claim that our so-called democracies follow the edicts of Judao/Christian ethics falls flat on its (bigoted![3]) face. Truth can be glimpsed, despite the venal MSM attempts at concealment. An what an awful, ghastly truth it is.

-=*=-

Preamble (summary): Not much of the above is new or surprising. That "All politicians lie" has come to be accepted, thanks - but "No, thanks!" to the non-small contributions made by Howard. That the US-led 'coalition of the killing' (illegally!) invaded Iraq with the intention of (brutally!) occupying it in order to steal (even if 'only' control over) oil, or that Israel is similarly pursuing the intention to steal land and water - should not seriously be in dispute. Sooo, Q: What's 'new?' - A: These two:

-=*=-

1. A review by "Economic Hit Man" Perkins of a new book "Right is Wrong" by Arianna Huffington.

2. A 2002 video possibly missed (thanks ICH), the BBC's "The Century of the Self," and some commentary by medialens.

The 1st, according to the review, summarises what's wrong (in the US, and following them, the wider world, with some few exceptions), and the 2nd lays out how the dreadful deeds described could be done.

Quote from the review:

«Her assessment of the current hijacking of a nation that emerged from World War II as the hero of freedom and the defender of democracy is insightful, eloquent, and shockingly informative. Most of the world -- outside the United States -- understands that the corporatocracy (those who run our biggest corporations and, through them, control the majority of our politicians) have not only emasculated us, but have sent us spinning toward global environmental disaster.»

[John Perkins/Exposing the Wrong Side of Right]

Quote from a medialens report on the video:

«"Politicians and planners came to believe that Freud was right to suggest that hidden deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears. They were convinced that it was the unleashing of these instincts that had lead to the barbarism of Nazi Germany. To stop it ever happening again, they set out to find ways to control the hidden enemy within the human mind." (The Century of the Self - The Engineering of Consent, BBC2, March 24, 2002)»

[Media Alert: The Unspoken Rule of Media Reporting]

What? Freud? I mean, we know the name ... but look at the next paragraph:

«It is a remarkable claim, and one that could only be taken seriously in a culture that has been largely stripped of political awareness. In fact post-1945 (like pre-1945) "politicians and planners" set out to +promote+ dangerous and irrational desires and fears in the service of profits and power, not peace. Similarly, far from setting out to "stop it ever happening again", post-war U.S. policies generated repetitions of Nazi-style barbarism throughout the Third World.»

[ibid]

And there, dear readers, you have it.

-=*end*=-

Epilogue: My title is "The Stations of the Cross," but this missive is not religious; I am myself irreligious (adj. lacking or hostile to religion; irreverent [POD]). But religion is one of the cards cynically in play, mainly as a disguise, a distraction - and as a 'weapon' of sheople®-control. The 'Ace' is hypocrisy, i.e. saying one thing and doing another. My discovery of the video provides a vital new-for-me part in the "Who, how & why?"

Quick summary:

1. WW2 ended not with a (peaceful) whisper, but with a (murdering) bang - actually two, the (criminal!) A-bombings of Japan.

2. Some Freudian/psychological theory was deployed, ostensibly to avoid any recurrence of the Nazi-catastrophe - but was 'subverted' to 'commercial' interests. (There have been two waves, the 2nd being the 'me generation' one.)

3. Corporations (mainly US) have come to dominate world commerce, not based on a fair price for anything, but rather what the market will bear (nothing too criminal in that, but see (4), next). Worth a separate thread is "The Washington Consensus," aka globalisation. But the 'news' here is basically all bad - except for the crooked, fat-cat beyond obscene avarice so-called élites.

4. The underlying basis is not freedom but fear, not 'rule of law' but criminality, not democracy but secret manipulations (no wonder the term sheople occurred to me.)

Fazit: New is (2). We the sheople are not only being lied to while being ripped off - but secretly manipulated (no surprise perhaps, but the method, along with misdirected motive is). Little is as it seems (disgusting lies via and by a venal and traitorous MSM), and worst, we appear to be headed over an excess-CO2 caused climate-crash cliff, aka greedastrophe®. As well as the Perkins review, I recommend reading the video description[6] and the three medialens reports[7,8,9]. One possible 'next step' for me is to find out more on the Freud angle.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] secular adj. 1 not concerned with religion; not sacred; worldly (secular education; secular music). 2 (of clerics) not monastic. secularism n. secularize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing). secularization n. [Latin saeculum an age] [POD]

[2] pervert —v. 1 turn (a person or thing) aside from its proper use or nature. 2 misapply (words etc.). 3 lead astray from right conduct or (esp. religious) beliefs; corrupt. 4 (as perverted adj.) showing perversion. —n. perverted person, esp. sexually. [Latin verto vers- turn] [ibid.]

[3] bigot n. obstinate believer who is intolerant of others. bigoted adj. bigotry n. [French] [ibid.]

[4] This is 'a good one' from Blair:

«We have no option if we care about Israel, if we care about the plight of the Palestinians, if we care about the peace of that region, we have no option but to strive for the re-launch of that peace process and when I said earlier that I intend to do everything I could to advance it, I mean that. I went there once, I will go back again. I will give my time and commitment as much as it takes in any way that I can do to help. And I do it because I passionately believe that if this conflict is not resolved the consequences for Israel are dire, the consequences for the Palestinian people are terrible, but what is more the consequences for the world are disastrous.»

[Labour Friends of Israel]

All anyone can do, is shake their head; the utter hypocrisy is 'breathless.'

Anyone serious about ending the tragedy which is Israel could do so instantly and in a single stroke: give back all the stolen land to its proper owners, namely the cruelly dispossessed Palestinians.

[5] Here is a different bit from Howard:

«Around the world the undeniable fact is that the common element in all the acts of terrorism in recent years has been a perversion of the Muslim religion. I stress a perversion. Not a true practice of it, because Islam repudiates, as does Christianity and Judaism, terrorism and violence, but that's been a common thread and that is why it is reasonable to talk about extremism within the Muslim community without being accused of being prejudiced against Muslims. You don't have fundamentalist and evangelical Christians blowing up Trade Centres. You have criminal elements in all societies but what these people are doing is justifying their actions according to a religious belief. Now, that is just quite different and something that we have to confront in a sensible way.»

[Howard 060301/INTERVIEW WITH KARL STEFANOVIC]

Howard speaks to the 'manufactured' enemy, Islamo-fascism/extremism.

Anyone who thinks this is not 'dog-whistle' politics has not been paying attention.

In case anyone still needs proof, see Pape's "Dying to win."

[6] The Century of the Self
Adam Curtis' acclaimed series examines the rise of the all-consuming self against the backdrop of the Freud dynasty
Tuesday March 21st, 2006

«"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized."
- Edward Bernays»

[review/URL list]

[7] Media Lens critiques aspects of the film (1st bit already mentioned),

The Unspoken Rule of Media Reporting: The BBC's The Century of the Self

[8] - Part 2

[9] - Part 3

AusBC bias ...

2008-05-18T10:51:00.003+10:00

.. again? - no, still

-=*=-

Please consider the following:

Medicare surcharge to cost $1.7b: audit

Posted May 18, 2008 09:03:00

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan says he does not accept figures commissioned by the private health industry, which show changes to the Medicare surcharge levy will cost state governments $1.7 billion.

[AusBC/justin]

-=*=-

You can see a part-copy of the news article itself below[3].

Note what is said, and the way it's said, specifically:

In the justin headline: «... to cost $1.7b: audit»

In the article headline: «... 'to cost states $1.7b'»

(Note the word audit dropped and the addition of single quotes.)

In the article body: «The private health industry says it commissioned a report from accountants ...»

An audit[1] (scrutiny of accounts, i.e. of some existing record) is different from this so-called 'report,' which is in fact somebody's estimate, but the words audit and report have been deployed interchangeably.

In both: will cost.

As opposed, say, to may cost - if the estimate were to be correct.

-=*=-

In these days of 'the quick sound-bite,' where nearly everyone is rushed and few have the time or inclination to follow-up on the full story, sometimes all that is absorbed is the headline. Which in this case (as in far too many others), gives quite a misleading impression. The conjunction of 'audit' and 'will cost' give a false sense of fact - where what is actually in play is a (somewhat dubious? Self-serving?) estimate.

-=*=-

So. Is this deliberate malfeasance, 'simple' carelessness, utter ignorance - or worse?

(Tip: the AusBC is a so-called professional organization, paid for using public funds, i.e. our dough, where 'our' is defined as ours, we the sheople®'s.)

-=*end*=-

PS I'm really fed-up with being lied to, not just by politicians via the MSM, but also by the MSM itself, of which the AusBC is a shameful part - and qualifies both the MSM and the AusBC to be referred to as venal[2]. It's not that I think that the AusBC actually takes bribes, but by departing from the truth, by giving advantage to black-hats, they are a) misusing our dough and b) misinforming the sheople. IMHO, traitorous behaviour: boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] audit —n. official scrutiny of accounts. —v. (-t-) conduct an audit of. [POD]

[2] venal adj. corrupt; able to be bribed; involving bribery. venality n. venally adv. [Latin venum thing for sale] [ibid.]

[3] Medicare changes 'to cost states $1.7b'
Posted May 18, 2008 09:03:00

«Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan says he does not accept figures commissioned by the private health industry, which show changes to the Medicare surcharge levy will cost state governments $1.7 billion.
...
The private health industry says it commissioned a report from accountants ...»

[AusBC/news/stories/]

'definitive' Einstein ...

2008-05-15T13:51:00.002+10:00

.. what you see is what you get

subtitle: fact vs. fiction, and vicious bullies

-=*=-

Possible US slogan:

"Truth, Justice and the American Way!"

Possible Israeli slogan:

"Gimme! It's ours, some g*d said so! We are 'David...'"

(Yep, David alright, as in King David Hotel, or this, Remember the King David Hotel. Yeah, sure it's Galloway; so what? We search for the shining truth, no matter where it is, or who points it out. Take it up with The Guardian.)

-=*=-

Preamble: We now know, thanks mainly to the internet, with a vicious impetus from the gruesome actions of GWBush&Co (thanks, but "No, thanks!" to B, B & H), namely their "Shockin' Whore" illegal invasion of Iraq, now turned brutal occupation, each more murdering than the other - we now know that all is not what 'they' (the baddies) try to make it seem. I repeat certain bits both for emphasis and 'not forgetting,' the latter being one of the intents of the criminals. By not mentioning the bad bits, 'they' hope we will forget; we must not. What should be crystal-clear by now, to all but the most comatose of the TV-somatized sheople®, is that we are being lied to, by vicious, theft-by-murder villains most vile.

-=*=-

More preamble: From 'Bringing up Baby:' "Be a good [boy/girl]!"

Ummm.

This is interesting, because?

Well, because of the massive assumption, which is that the poor little sprog knows what's right'n what's not. Q: How does s/he know? A: Because the parents ('primary carer(s)') have carefully educated the child, that's how. Then: Oh, really? It's easy to specify a workable morality; here's my attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality (based on reflexive altruism, aka "The Golden Rule" which has a history well in excess of 2000 years...) - it then becomes a question of the learning ability of the students, the success of the educators, and - sadly - the apparently unavoidable few who fail to teach (shame!) - or worse, fail to learn, either from a lack of ability (idiots?) - or, now worst: enter, the psychopaths. Now, the kindergarten becomes a microcosm[1]. What we see played out there hardly varies from the world of the so-called grown-ups.

What goes well is the vast majority who do learn to get along with their peers (termed well socialised) - and the nasty little 'flies in the ointment,' the few immoral/amoral psychopaths, the liars, cheats, thieves and bullies - who then proceed to cause mayhem.

One major difference between our kindergarten microcosm and the big, wide world is that in the latter, the immoral/amoral psychopaths, the liars, cheats, thieves and bullies turn to murder, and the mayhem they cause extends to genocide. See the sadly now mostly ex-Palestine, see Afghanistan, see Iraq.

Another major difference is that in the kindergarten, adults are in control; in the big, wide world the psychopaths, now masquerading as so-called leaders, or as some sort'a so-called élites, have declared themselves outside the law, outside all acceptable morality, having seized power - from us, we the sheople, the true sovereigns in a properly functioning democracy, these psychopath bullies rule at the point of both a lie and gun.

-=*=-

Intermezzo: Motto vs. slogan[4,5].

Another US slogan:

"In g*d we trust! (All others pay cash.)"

This brings up 'fact vs. fiction,' aka truth vs. lies.

Contrast that one may live by a motto vs. another may deploy a slogan to deceive.

It is a fact that most people, the vast majority, decent to a fault(!!?) - know the difference between right and wrong. Specifically, it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal - or murder. Including myself in this decent group, the law-recognising and law-abiding sheople, I can relay my mottos: "No lies!" "No crime!" "No war!"

We the sheople recognise that we need police, to restrain (as far as possible, and assuming that our police do not go corrupt) - to restrain any criminal psychopaths.

On the other hand are the so-called 'leaders' who deploy slogans, aka lies: "We will disarm him!"

Such so-called 'leaders' ignore some/all law and recognise no police.

A slogan above introduced religion, aka 'belief in some g*d.' Being 'supernatural' by definition, religion is not based on any fact at all; more in the next bit.

But before we get to that next bit, riddle me this: why does USrael, the entity formed from the US and its M/I/C-plex, plus Israel and its I/J/Z-plex, 'melded' together by the neoCon cabal, say, and M-W's Israel Lobby etc., have to murder for spoil?

Why can't they, as all others, pay cash?

-=*=-

Example 1: no g*d from Einstein[6]

Religion - and here I address the three so-called Abrahmic variations; Oh, how ironic: Christianity, Islam & Judaism. Each is a belief system revolving around some putative g*d, and each has an associated morality. The number-one commandment must be some variation of "Thou shalt not kill!"

The ironies abound, imagine GWBush claiming religion - and then sending the US off to slaughter untold numbers of Iraqis, lots'a them being Muslims. As a belief system - in an imaginary concept - religion has no place in the 'real' world, hence the desired total separation of religion and State.

My totally g*dless 0th commandment: "Mind your own business; leave other people alone and above all, do no harm!"

-=*=-

Example 2: lying propaganda from NYT/Friedman[7]

The cited article is sooo bad, one is tempted to classify it as parody.

The 4th Estate's function is to inform, without fear or favour. Pushing lying propaganda totally violates this 'responsibility,' all those who do so are traitors - to us, we the sheople.

-=*=-

The nub; long story not so short: people tell lies[2] in a futile attempt to try to disguise some malfeasance. (Warning: believing such lies may be dangerous to your health or worse, dangerous to the health of our once-jewel-like planet.) Since there are almost no 'harmless' malfeasances, it is wrong to perpetrate a harmful malfeasance, and lying about it only extends the crime[3]. Note the definition; some crimes may be as arbitrary as some (ass-like!!?) law may define, but some crimes are 'naturally' evil, i.e. in contravention of all acceptable morality.

It is these latter form of crimes, namely pure evil, being perpetrated in the above-mentioned places, i.e. in and around ex-Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq. And the 'rumble' is, that Iran may very well be next.

-=*=-

How utterly ghastly - it's just not good enough. We most stop the criminality.

We, the sheople must reclaim our democratic rights.

-=*end*=-

PS (Reprised) How? Just how can we save our once jewel-like planet?

a) Get a morality, see my attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality.

b) Demand honesty, from the MSM (AusBC!), from business and from our so-called leaders.

c) Demand honest representation (or devolve to direct citizen government - by CIRs, say.)

After all, daaarlings, it's 'only' our democratic right.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] microcosm n. (often foll. by of) miniature representation, e.g. mankind or a community seen as a small-scale model of the universe; epitome. microcosmic adj. [from *micro-, *cosmos] [POD]

[2] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [ibid.]

[3] crime n. 1 a offence punishable by law. b illegal acts (resorted to crime). 2 evil act (crime against humanity). 3 colloq. shameful act. [Latin crimen] [ibid.]

[4] motto n. (pl. -es) 1 maxim adopted as a rule of conduct. 2 phrase or sentence accompanying a coat of arms. 3 appropriate inscription. 4 joke, maxim, etc. in a paper cracker. [Italian: related to *mot] [ibid.]

[5] slogan n. 1 catchy phrase used in advertising etc. 2 party cry; watchword. [Gaelic, = war cry] [ibid.]

[6] Belief in God childish, Jews not chosen people: Einstein
Posted May 14, 2008 07:00:00

«As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.»

[AusBC/Einstein]

[7] The New Cold War
By Thomas L. Friedman
The right question for the next U.S. president isn't whether we talk or don't talk with Iran. It's whether we have leverage or don't have leverage.

«For now, Team America is losing on just about every front. How come? The short answer is that Iran is smart and ruthless, America is dumb and weak, and the Sunni Arab world is feckless and divided. Any other questions?»

[nyt/OpEd]

My comment, 1: Tosh, otherwise known as bullshit. All the US is losing(lost!) is credibility, those in the know always knew that the US had no honour left to lose. As for ruthless, America is number one, and the only dumb ones are those who don't see USrael for the utterly wicked criminals that they are.

My comment, 2: IMHO, Friedman is a liar and propagandist; I recognised other such as he in the run-up to "Shockin' Whore", specifically one Judith Miller and the 'home-grown' Tony Parkinson and many (far too many; zero required) of RN/breakfast's presenters, from Peter Thompson 'back then' to Fran Kelly now. There is simply no excuse for any of these foul, lying propagandists.

vacuously, heinously criminal ...

2008-05-14T11:21:00.001+10:00

.. totally without scruple or shame

subtitle "Some of my best friends are ..." [1,2]

-=*=-

I just read a real shocker: David Bromwich/Euphemism and American Violence (thanks for the link; g'day).

Below are some quotes, with my spontaneous comments [3,4,5].

My earnest recommendation is to read it all, now.

-=*=-

Part of the article discusses US torture of 'suspects,' ordered from 'on high,' including all the way 'up' to GWBush.

The reason 'they' - here meaning the forces of darkness masquerading as 'US security operators,' be they so-called secret agencies like the CIA, the US military, or some amorphous, becoming ever more ubiquitous 'contractors' or whatever-the-hell - just why 'they' may be getting away with torture (only so far is the hope), could lie in TV programs like the 'fictional' "24" and/or outright (lying!) propaganda - plus the above two qualifiers, i.e. vacuous and heinous, as applied to the obvious callous disregard for anyone but themselves displayed by both the US 'ruling élite' and the US sheople®, followed closely by all other such so-called élites and sheople everywhere, where not just US torture actions but more generally, US' naked and mass-murderingly criminal aggression goes effectively unopposed. And while we are mentioning US torture and murdering war crimes, we must also here include Israel, since as M-W have shown, the utterly malevolent influences 'in control' of both the US and Israel are melded into one (utterly disgusting!) entity, referred to by me as USrael. Phew!

(I'd apologise for the preceding convoluted construction, but I'm too distraught to untangle it.)

Five+ years now 'down the track,' in the cold, hard light of reality, where the illegal invasion of Iraq has now morphed into a brutal occupation, each more murdering than the other, the only possible reasons which may still be considered to have motivated B, B & H plus a few other psychophantic odds'n sods, all collectively 'the coalition of the killing' to embark on "Shockin' Whore" against Iraq are:

1. The US M/I/C-plex (with the illegal sprog's I/J/Z-plex) needs an enemy, more helpfully a war, to justify their continued funding, even very existence.

2. The US M/I/C-plex 'wants' to control Iraqi oil.

3. The I/J/Z-plex 'wants' a "Greater Israel."

4. With an 'outside' chance, the Anglo/Judaic 'ruling élite' 'wants' to crusade against, if not annihilate Islam.

-=*=-

I call the "Shockin' Whore" invasion illegal because that's what it is, even Annan eventually admitted it. The fact that the UN failed to prevent it indicates the end of any UN pretensions. The law is often called an ass; it is in fact an arbitrary construct. Whatever, that aggressive, invasive murdering war is wrong can hardly be contentious. The question then becomes:

a) How dare they, and

b) how can they expect to get away with it?

I have found a possible explanation; here's another quote from Bromwich:

«"If a Power coerces once," wrote H.N. Brailsford in his great study of imperialism, The War of Steel and Gold, "it may dictate for years afterwards without requiring to repeat the lesson." This was the design of the American "shock and awe" in Iraq. Looking back on the invasion, one is impressed that so clear-cut a strategy could have evaded challenge under the casual drapery of "democracy."»

As far as I'm concerned, the 1st coercion was the A-bombing. It's been all downhill since then.

-=*end*=-

PS One'a the bits they throw at us is: "We don't bargain with terrorists!"

Q: But who, exactly, are world's most feared terrorists?

Epilogue: Most of the so-called 'free' world appears to be in the thrall of the US, whose main idea of 'fun' seems to be utterly immoral murdering theft. As long as the craven cowardice exhibited by the rest of the so-called 'free' world continues, this murdering theft is most likely not just to continue, but get worse.

Then, of course, there's the excess CO2-caused greedastrophe®, 'coming down the pike.' (Detested Ameri-speak; spit!)

Ref(s):

[1] vacuous adj. 1 expressionless. 2 showing absence of thought or intelligence, inane. vacuity n. vacuously adv. [Latin vacuus empty] [POD]

[2] heinous adj. utterly odious or wicked. [French haïr hate] [ibid.]

[3] Oh, how fiendishly 'clever:'

«It would be hard to find a precedent for the sophistical juggle of these explanations. The secret in plain view was not a judgment about present or future policy, but an imposed acceptance of something past. President Bush, in 2002 and later, sought and obtained legal justifications for ordering the torture of terrorism suspects, and it is known that American interrogators used methods on some suspects that constitute torture under international law. If these acts had been admitted by the attorney general to meet the definition of torture, those who conducted the interrogations and those who ordered them, including the President, would be liable to prosecution for war crimes. Because the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials remains vivid today, the very idea of a war crime has been treated as a thing worth steering clear of, no matter what the cost in overstretched ingenuity. Thought of a war crime does not lend itself to euphemistic reduction.»

[4] How did they do it?

«Indeed, the single greatest propaganda victory of the Bush administration may be the belief shared by most Americans that the rise of radical Islam - so-called Islamofascism - has nothing to do with any previous actions by the United States.»

GWBush: "They hate us for our freedoms!"

[5] So much for our so-called democracies:

«But say a thing often enough, so as to subdue the anxiety of a people and flatter their pride, and, unless they have come to know better with their own eyes and their own hands, they will accept the illusion.»

All together: "Murder for oil!"


[original] There's a little there for everyone	[forgery?] There's a little there for everyone
in Guantanamo Habeas Corpus- the road to freedom	in Guantanamo Habeas Corpus- the road to freedom
by Paul Morrella on June 17, 2008 - 5:21am	by Paul Morrella on June 17, 2008 - 5:21am
Richard Tonkin, naturally the latest ruling is seen straight down the lens of political convenience; thus, rendering most opinions on it, completely meaningless.	Richard Tonkin, naturally the latest ruling is seen straight down the lens of political convenience; thus^ rendering most opinions on it^ completely meaningless.
I'd add ruling against capital punishment as another reluctance shown by the Courts - though, I think you get the drift. Any person of the belief that this ruling negates the legality of holding the detainees is going to be sadly disappointed. Any person believing that American Courts; a bastion of soft liberal tenda^cies are going to be even more disappointed still. The decision of course makes absolutely no judgement on the detainees^ guilt or innocence. Now unless one comes from the school of terrorism is all a figment of the imagination; the odds are pretty good that at least someone will be found guilty, and to borrow a phrase: "they'll fry for their sins".	I'd add ruling against capital punishment as another reluctance shown by the courts - though, I think you get the drift. Any person of the belief that this ruling negates the legality of holding the detainees is going to be sadly disappointed. Any person believing that American courts^ a bastion of soft liberal tendencies are going to be even more disappointed ^^^^^. The decision of course makes absolutely no judgement on the detainees' guilt or innocence. Now unless one comes from the school of terrorism is all a figment of the imagination; the odds are pretty good that at least someone will be found guilty, and to borrow a phrase: "they'll fry for their sins".
...	...
What does it mean politically? Well, that all depends on the luck of the draw - and^ of naturally^ the timing ^^ it. Whilst it's true mitigating circumstances of innocence haven't been public, neither have circumstances regarding guilt. This particular "cone of legal silence" will not persist in an American Federal Court. It doesn't automatically play that this is a good thing for any particular pol^tical stance moving into election 2008.	What does it mean politically? Well, that all depends on the luck of the draw - and, ^^ naturally, the timing of it. Whilst it's true mitigating circumstances of innocence haven't been public, neither have circumstances regarding guilt. This particular "cone of legal silence" will not persist in an American Federal Court. It doesn't automatically play that this is a good thing for any particular political stance moving into election 2008.
Playing devil^s advocate, what does this mean for McCain? It means he gets down on his knees (find a God if he hasn't already got one), and prays. He prays the best (and not brightest) bunch of criminal cretins find their way to the head of the habeas corpus queue.	Playing devil's advocate, what does this mean for McCain? It means he gets down on his knees (find a God if he hasn't already got one), and prays. He prays the best (and not brightest) bunch of criminal cretins find their way to the head of the habeas corpus queue.
In the case of such a events taking place the detainees will face the highest political Court in the land; ^^^ Court of public opinion, and trial by media. At such a time, constant references to Obama's voting patterns will find a very monotonous regularity of appearing. References to his middle name (not by McCain of course; most certainly not), will not be going MIA either.	In the case of such a events taking place the detainees will face the highest political court in the land: the court of public opinion, and trial by media. At such a time, constant references to Obama's voting patterns will find a very monotonous regularity of appearing. References to his middle name (not by McCain of course; most certainly not), will not be going MIA either.


[original] The Saving Of Backsides	[forgery?] The saving of backsides
in The troops come home, the lies are revealed	in The troops come home, the lies are revealed
by Paul Morrella on June 13, 2008 - 5:07am	by Paul Morrella on June 13, 2008 - 5:07am
Michael de Angelos^	Michael de Angelos:
^My question really was where are our memorials for them- who we would not have won the war without?	“My question really was where are our memorials for them - without whom we would not have won the war?
	Note: She actually changed a quote!
Well, if you were^ say^ from England/Europe you may have a point (before the USSR destroyed the goodwill). I highly doubt it was the reason Australia or the United States eventually won their respective battles. Still, you could argue Russia should think about a memorial to the lend lease program. If nothing eles, it'd be a nice touch.	Well, if you were, say, from England/Europe you may have a point (before the USSR destroyed the goodwill). I highly doubt it was the reason Australia or the United States eventually won their respective battles. Still, you could argue Russia should think about a memorial to the lend lease program. If nothing else, it'd be a nice touch.


[original] The Never Ending War	[forgery?] The never ending war
in The troops come home, the lies are revealed	in The troops come home, the lies are revealed
by Paul Morrella on June 12, 2008 - 12:41am	by Paul Morrella on June 12, 2008 - 12:41am
Richard:^ ^I haven't picked up on the Holocaust stuff and if I haven't I apologise. Holocaust denial is quite rightly an unconsidered opinion base on Webdiary. Interested in where you detected this.. I try to be on the lookout.^	Richard:: “I haven't picked up on the Holocaust stuff and if I haven't I apologise. ^Holocaust denial is quite rightly an unconsidered opinion base on Webdiary. ^Interested in where you detected this.. I try to be on the lookout.”
I don't think anyone has posted denial of the Holocaust on this thread. The allegation I've read (more than once) is that Jews use the Holocaust as an excuse for bad deeds upon others.	I don't think anyone has posted denial of the Holocaust on this thread. The allegation I've read (more than once) is that Jews use the Holocaust as an excuse for bad deeds upon others.
There's never any proof given (I've never witnessed any), that Jews use this as an excuse for "apparent gains". Maybe I'm wrong, and someone can correct me, who knows? All I can say is that its ^^ not happened to date.	There's never any proof given (I've never witnessed any)^ that Jews use this as an excuse for "apparent gains". Maybe I'm wrong, and someone can correct me, who knows? All I can say is that it has not happened to date.
The idea of an all powerful "Israeli Lobby" censoring descent is absolutely ludicrous. This particular subject would be the numero uno descent subject on the net. There are literally tens of thousands of sites pro and anti Israel. Everybody gets more than their fair share of "voice" on the subject.	The idea of an all powerful "Israeli Lobby" censoring dissent is absolutely ludicrous. This particular subject would be the numero uno dissent subject on the net. There are literally tens of thousands of sites pro and anti Israel. Everybody gets more than their fair share of "voice" on the subject.
Richard: Geoff was being facetious re an Israel Lobby, methinks. As for the quote, Paul, I've amended as that was mine. Thanks, though, was worrying.	Richard: ^Geoff was being facetious re an Israel Lobby, methinks. As for the quote, Paul, I've amended as that was mine. ^Thanks, though, was worrying.


[original] The Retribution In Heaven	[forgery?] The retribution in heaven
in Hope and loss - a sad Iraqi connection	in Hope and loss - a sad Iraqi connection
by Paul Morrella on June 12, 2008 - 2:22am	by Paul Morrella on June 12, 2008 - 2:22am
Michael de Angelos^ ^The Labor Party must be planning retribution and there is so much to choose from – simply getting at the truth is going to destroy a few careers over the next few years.	Michael de Angelos: "The Labor Party must be planning retribution and there is so much to choose from – simply getting at the truth is going to destroy a few careers over the next few years."
Didn't the government just put him forward for the highest possible Australian award? The continual punishment (international speaking tours, and awards) must be just heart breaking for him.Next week; in a fit of rage, Mr Rudd, may give ^^^ the title Duke, and a fifty acre manor.	Didn't the government just put him forward for the highest possible Australian award? The continual punishment (international speaking tours^ and awards) must be just heart^breaking for him.Next week, in a fit of rage, Mr Rudd, may give him the title Duke, and a fifty acre manor.


[original] Blogs And Life	[forgery?] Blogs And Life
in Road to the Tropics	in Road to the Tropics
Submitted by Paul Morrella on June 7, 2008 - 6:10am.	Submitted by Paul Morrella on June 7, 2008 - 6:10am.
...	...
And a brilliant blog weapon it can be (even when on the receiving end). Strangely enough, the masters of such a blog weapon, generally have the happy knack of knowing the line.	And a brilliant blog weapon it can be (even when on the receiving end). Strangely enough, the masters of such a blog weapon generally have the happy knack of knowing the line.
PS the most despicable thing I've "blog" witnessed (my eyes still can^t believe it) is a person (in living blog) go against people he once publicly swore loyalty toward; as-well, as make ^ public, private "correspondence". There are many words for this action (which I won't use); however, there are times, people take actions that well deserve the lable: Never to be trusted.	PS the most despicable thing I've "blog" witnessed (my eyes still can't believe it) is a person (in living blog) go against people he once publicly swore loyalty toward; as well as making public, private "correspondence". There are many words for this action (which I won't use); however, there are times, people take actions that well deserve the label: Never to be trusted.
I assure this particular person (actually, I swear to this person), if I ever find myself in a situation of being helpful or hurtful toward you (may never happen, and hopefully for him it doesn't), I will make my full opinion known. There's an art to picking up friends, and there's a real art finding enemies - the test for you; has been past ^ with flying colors.	I assure this particular person (actually, I swear to this person), if I ever find myself in a situation of being helpful or hurtful toward you (may never happen, and hopefully for him it doesn't), I will make my full opinion known. There's an art to picking up friends, and there's a real art finding enemies - the test for you; has been passed with flying colors.