December 26th, 2008
Brian McAfee brimac6@hotmail.com
Chilean Communist Party May Be Power Broker In January 15 Run-Off Election.
Chile’s Socialist Party candidate, Michelle Bachelet, soundly defeated her right wing opponents in the December 11 presidential vote but failed to obtain the 50% to become president. Chilean law requires a candidate receive at least 50% of the vote to obtain the presidency. The breakdown was Bachelet 45.95%, Sebastian Pinera of the National Renovation party 25.41%, Joaquin Lavin of the Independent Democratic Union party 23.22%, and Tomas Hirsch of the Humanist party and part of a coalition with Chile’s Communist party 5.40%, Most of Hirsch’s vote coming from the Communist Party.
After the initial presidential vote the two right wing candidates quickly formed a coalition against the Socialist parties Dr Michelle Bachelet. With the combined vote block of the two right wing candidates Bachelet’s lead is greatly reduced. With the likely support of the Chilean Communist party she will retain a narrow lead. Hirsch has split from his alliance with the CP and declared his independence, no longer a factor in the race. With many on the Right being Pinochet loyalists and Bachelet’s solid link with the Left the upcoming run off vote will indicate were Chile is at in Latin America’s current trend toward the Left. Chile’s outgoing Socialist president Lagos’s 70% approval rating may be an indicator. The background of the two candidates differ widely.
Dr Bachelet endured numerous personal tragedies in the years of Pinochet’s coup. Her father, Alberto Bachelet, an air force general loyal to president Salvador Allende, was tortured to death in 1974 by DINA, Pinochet’s secret police. In 1975 both then 23 year old medical student, Michelle Bachelet, and her mother, Angela Jeria, were kidnapped from their home by a gang of DINA men. Both were tortured and deprived of food and water. Because of intervention by some top military officials, the two women escaped execution and were instead exiled to Australia Under the junta. Many women and girls were raped, tortured, and executed. Most of the perpetrators remain unpunished. Bachelet and her mother spent almost 5 years in Australia, then she returned to Chile to do clandestine human rights work. She also became a medical doctor, treating victims of rape and torture committed by the U.S. supported junta.Most of the victims were members of Chile’s Socialist and Communist parties.
Democracy was restored in Chile in 1988. As a politically active outspoken critic of the U.S. supported fascist dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, Bachelet became president Ricardo Lagos’s choice to head the national ministry of health. She served in this capacity from March of 2000 then in a stunning move, President Lagos appointed her defense minister in 2002. As a former victim of military crimes, this move signaled a complete overhaul of Chile’s military establishment. While she endorsed efforts to prosecute officers for their crimes against the civilian population, Bachelet obtained and continues to have the respect of the majority of the military and their families. There were over 3,000 murdered by the junta during the Pinochet years, a national wound that has not yet healed. “There was a group of Pinochet supporters who thought when the wives of the disappeared died off, the problem will die with it,” Bachelet said, “But their children and grandchildren have taken up the flag.”
Sebastian Pinera, a PhD in economics and a successful businessman, has strong ties to the media and is said to be a billionaire. He has had an ongoing affiliation with the Chilean Right. Despite the harsh realities of the past, the current president Ricardo Lagos as well as his likely successor, Dr. Bachelet, have their vision set firmly on the future, dealing with the current complexities of the economy, social issues, and the environment. Bachelet will have to take a closer look at The CP’s three platform positions, greater democratization to fully break away from the rights undue influence on Chile’s political system. A reconsideration of Chile’s privatized healthcare system and better pension fund system. Time will tell.
Comments Off
December 25th, 2008
More young people voted for who should win Big Brother than in the 2001 General Election. The average eighteen year old can name more past Pop Idol contestants than members of the cabinet. Are young people really not interested in those who govern their lives or is politics plain unfashionable?
Let’s admit it. A lot of politics is boring. Fashion, sport and the media all hold a glamour that politics can’t easily compete with. Tony Blair’s past ambitions of becoming a rock star are not going to send youngsters flooding to the polls. Scantily clad dancing girls are not going to sex up the budget… politics isn’t about that. People in suits don’t excite youngsters as they seem to have little in common with them. Yet show teenagers a petition against animal testing and most would jump at the chance to sign it. Because, “That’s not really politics, is it?”
Politicians do not need to dredge up stories of their forgotten youth. Instead they should be concentrating on showing youngsters just how they can influence issues that matter to them through politics. CD prices, the legalisation of cannabis and saving the world all have much greater appeal than pensions and taxation. Get young people involved on the issues that concern them, and show them how much more effective their voices can be in an organisation that lays down the very laws that govern our country than a pressure group.
Democracy is a wonderful thing and affects us all. We need to prove to young people that, like them, we have strong beliefs and are not afraid to stand up for what matters. It is the duty of politicians to properly represent every member of the British public, regardless of whether they can vote yet.
Comments Off
December 25th, 2008
On Israel National Radio: “Shimon Peres ordered the murder of Yitzhak Rabin”
Israeli David Rutstein appeared on Israel National Radio this week and leveled his most serious charge ever: Shimon Peres ordered the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. The radio host Alex Tramain’s reaction to this politically explosive charge appears as if Shimon murdering Yitzhak is known by all and is just part of history.
Although Alex, the host, is laid back and easy going, Israelnationalnews and radio.com have a right wing reputation. So David Rutstein reminds his audience that the Rabin murder can influence the coming election in Israel. Regardless of political beliefs, Left, Right or Center, all should be deeply concerned about bringing the killers of Yitzhak Rabin to justice. All are encouraged to join the pursuit for justice for Yitzhak Rabin. Don’t let Shimon Peres get away with murder!
David Rutstein interview - Israel National Radio’s 12 minute interview with David Rutstein is available at this site, but is only available at Israel National Radio until Sunday as part of an hour show.
“Shimon Peres ordered the murder of Yitzhak Rabin” according to David Rutstein www.yitzhakrabin.co.il, www.shimonperes.net, www.yigalamir.com, www.arielsharon.co.il, www.barrychamish.com and http://kemplervideo.blogspot.com in English The Kempler video proves that Yigal Amir shot blanks. The 10 minute video is available online.
Barry Chamish and David Rutstein, both Israeli citizens, clearly state that Shimon Peres ordered the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of blessed memory and NO ONE SUES THEM!
Comments Off
December 24th, 2008
As Iran fails to show at the Vienna meeting with the
International Atomic Energy Agency to explain about the
announced resumption of its nuclear activities at a site
previously sealed by the IAEA, immediate referral to the U.N.
Security Council becomes inevitable and necessary.
France, Britain and Germany - the “EU-3″ - have led negotiations
with Iran over its nuclear weapons program since 2003. The talks
broke off late last year when Iran unilaterally breached its
agreement by resuming suspended activities of the nuclear fuel
cycle in Isfehan plant. IAEA board of directors consequently
agreed to refer Iran to the Security Council at its next meeting
which would be sometime in March 2006.
Later a “Russian plan” surfaced suggesting Russia to perform the
enrichment process for Iran and Iran would return the nuclear
waist back to Russia. This would help keep the part of fuel
production process that could lead to bomb grade uranium outside
of the country and yet enable Tehran to have a nuclear
technology. This would have been a half way solution only if
Iran’s real intention was to produce electricity.
But the Russian plan was actually another opportunity for Tehran
to buy a little more time and that was how they approached it.
First it took about ten days for them to acknowledge the receipt
of an official proposal while the Russians kept insisting that
they had communicated the plan to Iran.
When it got to a point that Iran could no longer deny receiving
the plan, they started playing another game saying there needs
to be meetings to talk about details. But apparently this time
the west had enough experience to let Iran waist another six
months. Iran was told to accept the plan and then details can be
discussed. That was what rang the bell of the game ending into
Iran’s ears. It was over.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the
United States and its European allies have the votes to bring
Iran before the U.N. Security Council for possible censure over
its nuclear ambitions, signaling increasing skepticism that
continued negotiations with Iran will ever succeed.
The game Iran has played for the past three years makes it’s
nuclear intention obvious. While this country supports
international terrorism and continues meddling in Iraq and
interfering in the Middle East peace process, having such
powerful technology at hand is obviously intimidating to the
rest of the world. Letting Iran to continue its work towards the
bomb is no longer justifiable.
Iran’s only interest in “Russian plan” or any other plan as such
is the opportunity to buy more time to push it’s nuclear weapons
program forward and for the sake of peace in the world it should
not be allowed to succeed.
Authors Website Address:
http://www.stopfundamentalism.com
Comments Off
December 23rd, 2008
“Fahrenheit 9/11″ auteur Michael Moore recently fueled the epidemic of hatred for America by denouncing his own country and his own people to the foreign press. The UK’s Mirror printed Mr. Moore’s observation of Americans: “They are the dumbest people on the face of the earth…in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks…We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.” (1)
That’s right. We are. In fact, we’re stupid enough to believe that we have a great country. Why? Let’s look at the facts…
In 2002, the US Census Bureau estimated that 32.5 million people, from places Moore claims our children can’t find on a map (2), lived in the United States, the largest foreign-born population in America since we started keeping records in 1850. (3) Why are all these people risking drowning, hardships, cultural barriers and possible contamination by our laziness, aggression and arrogance, incompetence, shallowness, and sexually explicit media? Why do people such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger come here, entertain, take advantage of opportunity, and enrich our economy through business and philanthropy?
Shock time: Americans are not nearly as despised as Al-Jazeera would have you believe. In fact, the PEW Global Attitudes Project reports that in its 2004 survey, roughly half the respondents in Russia, Turkey and Morocco say people who have moved to the U.S. have a better life (natives of Germany, France and Britain who responded to the survey disagreed, but that’s hardly a surprise, even though Britain has always been a friend).4
None of the usual pat phrases such as “land of opportunity,” “let freedom ring,” and “democracy, democracy, democracy,” seem to explain why Elian Gonzalez’ mother died to bring him to America.
But perhaps we as Americans are stupid enough to believe that those phrases actually mean something. Perhaps we are the dumbest people on the face of the earth. “Dumb” in this case can mean “nave,” generally meant as an insult, as in “Don’t be so nave about why al-Qa’eda hates us so much.”
These days, anyone who doesn’t adopt the de rigueur attitude of boredom and yawning in the face of just about everything is called nave. But Americans have always been known for innocence and openness.
Beverly West quoted actress Alicia Silverstone in Culinarytherapy. Ms. Silverstone, perhaps channeling President Abraham Lincoln’s optimism, once remarked, “Like when I’m in the bathroom looking at my toilet paper I’m like ‘Wow! That’s toilet paper!’ I don’t know if we appreciate how much we have.” (p. 184)
The idea of anything-therapy and the overuse of “like” appear to the global audience to be authentically American, impressed with our own coolness in one breath and cheerfully mangling the English language in the next, not to mention taking the words of a nubile young Hollywood actress (who starred, interestingly, in a contemporary remake of Jane Austen’s satire on manners Emma) as wisdom. Being excited about toilet paper seems, in this high-tech age, a little backward and disingenuous.
Yet all major religions, particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition on which America as we know it was founded, emphasize gratitude as part of spiritual consciousness. Gratitude for the simplest of things, like toilet paper. The great composer Aaron Copeland based his “Appalachian Spring” symphony on the Shaker song of gratitude, “Simple Gifts.”
“Simple” is often a synonym for “dumb.” Yet if simplicity means stupidity, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau were prize idiots. Both of these quintessential American philosophers emphasized simplicity.
In a land of high-speed Internet, 500 channels, strip malls, and coffee companies proliferating like WMD, simplicity seems a foreign concept. Yet in America, we’re “simple” enough to believe that we live in a land of liberty, that (political correctness aside) we can pray, say, or sing whatever we want. We’re simple enough to believe that there still is a personal God, no matter what name we praise; that our kids have the right to attend church, despite the brouhaha over “one nation under God” in the Declaration of Independence; and that (reality shows and a 50 percent divorce rate aside) saying “till death do us part” still means something.
We’re nave and open enough to believe that, “conniving, thieving, smug” CEOs notwithstanding, we can work hard, start businesses, take care of our families, and create a life that we can be proud of when we leave this world. Even the much-vilified Martha Stewart is admired as a self-made American success story, someone who has used traditional homemaking arts to build a worldwide brand that emphasizes the good life. So much for the idea that Americans are a land of instant macaroni-and-cheese and fast-food eaters. Yes, people sue McDonald’s over getting fat, but the majority of Americans work hard, try to eat well (often together as a family), and pride themselves on playing fair and upholding the law.
Despite celebrity trials, racial prejudices, judicial snafus, serial killers and publicity-hungry lawyers, we still think that “the little guy” still gets a day in court and a fair trial by jury. There is still a sense of personal responsibility for oneself, one’s fellow citizens, and one’s children.
Despite increasing pressures that erode childhood, our kids still have faith in parents to set limits, to be an example, and to lay the foundation for a good life. Certainly many of the young men and women we have seen interviewed in Operation Iraqi Freedom represent the best and the brightest. Our children exhibit the unique dedication to serving others that so many of our leaders, from President Kennedy to Eleanor Roosevelt to Colin Powell, extol. Ms. Stewart advocated teaching disadvantaged women how to start their own businesses. In America, even some of our high-profile so-called criminals want to improve life for others.
We’re simpleminded enough to believe we can make a difference abroad and in our own communities. We have a strong commitment to preserving the earth for future generations. From Thoreau to Rachel Carson to the eco-friendly celebrity spokesperson of the week, Americans show a love for the natural beauty of the earth, a beauty that we celebrate in our own homeland. Many of our citizens support recycling, controls on pollution, wilderness/rainforest conservation, and wildlife preservation. As the riots at the 1999 WTO Summit in Seattle show, Americans can be quite over-zealous when supporting their causes. In short: Americans care.
This should come as no surprise. Our ancestors banded together to secede from British rule. Even in our fight for liberty, we held opposing views, contrarian views amongst ourselves. The Whigs who supported the Revolution and the Tories who supported England clashed with the fervor of their descendants, demonstrators with opposing views on wars from Vietnam to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
This passion for ideas, this devotion, may seem to undermine the unity we boast of. We’re nave enough to protect the free expression of ideas, even sometimes seemingly at great cost. You don’t see death squads breaking into antiwar protesters’ homes. For all the controversy over the Patriot Act, people who disagree with the US government do not simply disappear without a trace. Case in point: “Fahrenheit 9/11.” It has made over $1 million (the first documentary to do so), yet people coming out of movie theaters don’t get dragged into unmarked cars and interrogated. You can’t be more critical of the government than Mr. Moore, and yet he won an Oscar for “Bowling For Columbine.” Unlike Soviet artists who criticized Communism, Americans are not forced to flee their homeland–the rest of us won’t stand for it.
Lest we forget, it was recently-deceased and much-praised former President Ronald Reagan who uttered the famous phrase, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” His administration was hardly free of controversy, and yet “the Gipper” maintained a cheerful optimism, an openness to the “Evil Empire,” and yes, a nave belief that America was “a shining city on a hill.” Reagan was actually dumb enough to believe that America would prosper long after he left office. From this standpoint, “the Gipper” personifies Mr. Moore’s idea of American idiocy.
In that case, the countless mourners, including children too young to have heard of President Reagan, who streamed by the casket in the Capitol Rotunda and at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library all suffer from a collective lobotomy. For that matter, so do the world’s most famous figures, including Mr. Gorbachev and Dame Margaret Thatcher, who all responded to President Reagan’s uniquely American character.
At this rate we’ll be a nation of Forrest Gumps, which wouldn’t be all bad if it meant we could have his decency and kindness (not to mention Tom Hanks’ sense of history).
Oh wait…maybe we do. Perhaps that’s what Mr. Moore means when he calls us “the dumbest people on the face of the earth.” By that standard, we’re an entire nation of “Jeopardy” champions.
So the next time people here or abroad say, “You Americans are the world’s dumbest people,” we can say with pride, “Yes, we are. God Bless America!”
1 June 26, 2004, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/26/103545.shtml
http://www.msnbc.com/news/970612.asp?0cv=CB20&cp1=1
2 Michael Moore pointed to a National Geographic survey of American children, http://geosurvey.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/. NAEP and Gallup have also reported geography deficiencies. However, it should be noted that in 2003, 84 percent of eighth graders could puzzle out the motivations of a character in a Langston Hughes story, cf. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/results2003/. Also, there was an overall gain across all grades in mathematical since 1990, cf. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/results2003/
3 http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0073.html
4 http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206
Movie reviewer/screenwriter Kristin Johnson composes personalized poems, speeches, toasts, vows, and family memories. Visit http://www.poemsforyou.com to order your personalized memories. She is also co-author of the Midwest Book Review “enthusiastically recommended” pick Christmas Cookies Are For Giving: Stories, Recipes and Tips for Making Heartwarming Gifts (ISBN: 0-9723473-9-9). A downloadablemedia kit is available at our Web site, http://www.christmascookiesareforgiving.com, or e-mail the publisher (info@tyrpublishing.com) to receive a printed media kit and sample copy of the book. More articles available at http://www.bakingchristmascookies.com
Comments Off
December 23rd, 2008
HE’S BACK
After a year of silence, Osama bin Laden has filled the world’s headlines with an audiotape, and the predictable opinions are being heard. Is his offering of a truce a sign of weakness or strength? Is he making such statements because he is harried or is the statement a result of the recent U.S. missile attack in Pakistan? All of these questions are to be expected from a media that has usually asked: Is he really alive? Where is he? It rarely asks: What did he say/mean?
Bin Laden’s public statements - which have almost never been aired in full-length in the U.S. mainstream media - have been made primarily based on his religious/ideological considerations. He has consistently justified Al Qaeda’s actions and those of other jihad groups as a defensive struggle against Western encroachment on Islamic societies and the ‘apostate’ regimes currently ruling Muslim countries. Moreover, he has consistently elaborated basic themes: one-sided U.S. support for Israel at the expense of the Palestinians; U.S. historical and current support for ‘apostate’ Muslim regimes, such as that governing Saudi Arabia; the West’s pilfering of Muslims’ natural resources, especially oil; and the West’s cultural, political, and military attack on Muslims worldwide.
After the 9/11 attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., Al Qaeda was criticized by those within its own ideological persuasion, not for having attacked the U.S., but for not having followed correct religious procedures. It had failed to get the proper religious/legal rulings in support of such an attack; had not warned Muslims, women, children, and innocent civilians; and had not made an offer of peaceful resolution - all before attacking.
As of today, all of these conditions have been fulfilled with respect to the next attack in the U.S. Religious rulings have been obtained, warnings have been issued, and offers of a peaceful resolution - to accept a truce if the U.S. offers one - have been made. In Bin Laden’s mind, and in the minds of likeminded fundamentalist jihadists, all the preconditions have been met for directly attacking the United States. This is the real meaning of the audiotape.
Comments Off
December 18th, 2008
I like Bill O’Reilly. I do. I have read two of the man’s books, all his columns, and when I lived in the United States, I listened to the “O’Reilly Factor.” I agree with him on many issues. I do so not because of his political worldview but because he makes sense, most of the time, and challenges me with the factshe makes me think.
Nevertheless, I am afraid we have to part company regarding his stance and support of the Minuteman Project.
In O’Reilly’s April 8th, Foxnews Talking Points, he says the following,
“And the concept is very simple bringing attention to the chaotic border situation by launching a media attractive protest. And the Minutemen are getting a lot of attention.”
I wish I could say Bill was right here: “The concept is very simple.” Perhaps he is referring to the Minuteman’s mantra to just “Observe and Report?” I think there is more to it.
A lot more.
I wonder if Mr. O’Reilly was aware that Chris Simcox, co-founder of the Minuteman project, is probably not the best candidate to be leading a group which claims to just “Observe and Report” at the Mexican-American border.
Miroslava Flores, reporting for the La Voz de Aztlan, writes in December 2002,
“Chris Simcox, the vigilante who recently called for an armed militia and an uprising against Mexican immigrants in Arizona, left Los Angeles two years ago because his life here had become intolerable. Ask anyone who knew him about the kind of person he is, including his former wife, and their faces cringe. His neighbors at 3855 Inglewood Boulevard did not like him and avoided him like “the plague.” They expressed worry that Simcox could soon “crack” and go on a rampage. His colleagues at Wildwood School, where he worked as a kindergarten teacher, would rather not remember or speak of him.”
She goes on to write,
“Simcox’s life in Los Angeles started falling apart when he began exhibiting bizarre behavior about 3 year’s ago. Apparently, he became a delusional paranoiac at the same time he started to talk loudly about a “Mexican conspiracy” to take over Los Angeles. His wife became concerned when he started taking their 13-year-old son to the shooting range in order to prepare him for an “upcoming race war.” His wife eventually divorced him and fought a successful court battle to take custody of her son. At the same time, because of his increasingly irrational racist behavior, his private educational consulting business collapsed.”
Simcox seems to be of the ilk, like Glenn Spencer and his gang, who believe,
“…that migrant workers are not coming to America to find a better life for themselves and their families, but rather to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico. Groups who work on behalf of migrant or immigrant workers, such as MECHA, La Raza Unida, and the Coalicin de Derechos Humanos of Tucson, Az., he regards as “de facto agents of Mexico.”
These men have used 911 as a renewed excuse to persecute Mexican migrant workers. Now let me make this point: Do anyone really think that a highly financed, professionally trained, sophisticated Arab terrorist is going to be sneaking into the U.S. by crossing the dirty and muddy Rio Grande or crawling on his belly through the Canadian woods? I mean, come on!
I wonder if Mr. O’Reilly knows that Chris Simcox, the co-founder of the group he adulates, was arrested in January 2003, by Federal Park rangers for possession of loaded and concealed weapons, disorderly conduct, and interfering with law enforcement on federal land, according to Ernesto Cienfuegos of La Voz de Aztlan.
This is the leader of the group of Mexican-hunters, of which O’Reilly said,
“So three cheers for the Minutemen. Like their ancestors in Concord and Lexington, they’re making a statement. And we all should respect that.”
I wonder if Mr. O’Reilly knows who he is cheering and asking us to respect a federal lawbreaker?
And should not any thinking individual be asking, “What is a man like Simcox doing leading a band of vigilantes?”
I really think there is more than just “Observe and Report” below the surface of this man. Why, if the Minuteman group is there to just “Observe and Report,” has Simcox issued a “call to arms?”
Listen to what Los Angeles Times Magazine writer, Dan Baum, wrote on March 16, 2003:
“Chris Simcox won’t stop fooling with his gun. He paces his tiny office, bouncing on the balls of his feet, and every 15 seconds his hands go to the gun on his belt–hiking it up, adjusting its angle, checking its safety. It’s a big gun, a two-toned .45 in a hard plastic holster, and whenever he is photographed by the media–which is often these days–Simcox makes sure the pistol is in every frame.
Simcox speaks of sovereignty, the Pledge of Allegiance and the rule of law, but his body language is all about the gun. Sooner or later he’s going to use it, he wants everybody to know, in a showdown with the illegal immigrants and Mexican drug dealers he believes are ruining the United States.
“These are enemies who are wrecking our economy,” he says, his eyes shiny with emotion. “This is about national security.”
If Simcox dies in a blaze of border gunfire, so be it, he says. “Damn them. That’s how much I care about my country.”
Simcox would be naught but an anonymous zealot with a death wish if, in October, he hadn’t flamboyantly demonstrated the dictum that freedom of the press is best enjoyed by those who own one. At 42, he is owner, editor and publisher (and reporter, ad director and circulation manager) of the weekly Tombstone Tumbleweed, circulation 1,200. His Oct. 24 issue bore the headline: “Enough is Enough! A Public Call to Arms!” The paper invited readers to join a “Citizens Border Patrol Militia” whose function, Simcox says, will be to “shame the government into doing its job” of controlling the nation’s border with Mexico. “We need some good old-fashioned discipline in this country,” Simcox explains as he fitfully circles the one-room Tumbleweed office. “I invite someone to come up with a solution.”
So what do we have going here? The co-founder of The Minuteman Project, Chris Simcox, has:
•A Felony Arrest Record
•Seems obsessed with his hand gun
•Wants everyone to know that sooner or later he will use his gun in a showdown with illegal immigrants
•He says that if he dies in a blaze of border gunfire then “so be it.”
His Oct. 24 issue of his own newspaper bore the headline: “Enough is Enough! A Public Call to Arms!
Does it take being a rocket scientist to figure out that there is moreA LOT MOREto this group being on just a “Observe and Report” mission?
Ok, O’Reilly. There you have it. What says you?
Doug Bower is a freelance writer and book author. His most recent writing credits include The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Houston Chronicle, and The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Transitions Abroad. He lives with his wife in Guanajuato, Mexico.
His new book Mexican Living: Blogging it from a Third World Country can be seen at http://www.lulu.com/content/126241
Comments Off
December 18th, 2008
We are currently seeing a build up in China of their military, with 7 new classes of warships. Buying of 15 Billion worth of jet fighters from Russia, advances in Space which can lead to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Electromagnetic Weapons, training and recruiting of personal for army. Taiwan is extremely concerned as is Japan, Russia is thrilled having been able to sell them technologically advanced weaponry. Our defense industry is upset seeing sales go to other countries, also alarming in our trade deficit and money flows out of our country to China, which is being used to buy the weapons in the first place. Airbus is establishing a military division to catch some of that money flow too, having watched Boeing which also sells military and commercial make major end roads to markets thru R and D partially coming from US Government, which as we know has been a debate in the EU and fair trade rules as Airbus is funded in part and subsidized by European governments who are simultaneously deficit spending. The selling of weapons in the world is quite alarming and makes the case for Iranian or North Korea’s nuclear weapon ambitions a tough one, in that shouldn’t a country have the right to defend itself? A worthy debate although a government, which has proved untrustworthy in the past obviously should never be trusted with such destructive power which once used would surely change the history of mankind.
China is aware of the World’s concern with the largest population base in the World and expanding industrial might, such concerns are warranted. One issue of supreme insight would be that of Dr. Einstein; “You cannot simultaneously prepare and prevent war.” China says it wants to defend itself. Which is a noble cause of any nation, right? Yes, but the question is from whom? No one country on Earth is up to a challenge of the Chinese Military, except maybe the US, which of course is a trading partner whose purchases are funding their economy and their war machine. Having the world’s largest and most powerful Army, Air Force and Navy has been for over 25 years undisputed territory of the United States. Chinese war theory predicts forcing political will without use of force or if possible not fighting a single battle as adequate method. If China wishes to force its political will with Taiwan, then who might defend them? Will the US show up for a political game poker game where each side tries to bluff the other. Chinese culture is much different than Western Culture despite the closeness in the end goals of the civilizations (certainly worthy of discussion for another topic). China is well aware of the tension created by this build up and the power and what that means for its future forceful negotiations of will. China currently does not wish to rock the boat until it has the military might to play at the poker table with the EU or with the United States and has suggested a Hotline to Washington DC in the interim. Keeping up communication is important to peaceful solutions to military issues, but are we playing into a grander plan. By opening military force hotline are we in fact admitting and raising their status as a World Power?
China, US Discuss Setting Up Defense Hotline
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-05o.html
“Beijing (XNA) Feb 01, 2005 - Chinese Defense Ministry and its US counterpart rounded off their first special policy dialogue here Tuesday with both voicing their satisfactions, a sign of warming ties between two militaries of the two countries.”
China is also testing its power and practicing the modern art of war:
China, Russia To Hold First Ever Joint Military Drill
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-05n.html
“Beijing (AFP) Feb 01, 2005 - Russia and China will conduct their first ever joint military exercises in August or September to better coordinate the fight against terrorism, state media reported Tuesday.”
The United States if it really expects to remain the world leader militarily ought to take notes of these trends and set a course to maintain the ability to negotiate from a position of strength and be prepared to make an example of any nation which tries to force our their will against us or our allies with annihilating force so that China realizes that we are not into the bluffing game and will not tolerate imperialism from any other nation in the future periods. Without such a demonstration China will test us with Taiwan and then other allies to see how far we can be pushed. Such a series of signs will be very similar to a previous set of threats which history had showed us during Germany’s build up to power. We should be ready to negotiate but not fear the ultimate example and display of power to put away any possible attempt for any other nation to bluff us into backing down on what we know to be right.
This should not be a considered a warning of future events to come, but we should be ready and prepared to defend the free world and use unheard of force if necessary and all those in the wake should know in advance that we do not do threats, we do not play with bluffers and we will prevail no matter what. Do not challenge the free world and never mistake the United States’ acts of kindness for a sign of weakness.
“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/
Comments Off
December 15th, 2008
In typical bureaucratese, the pensive EBRD analyst ventures with the appearance of compunction: “A number of projects have fallen short of acceptable standards (notice the passive, exculpating voice - SV) and have put the reputation of the bank at risk”. If so, very little was risked. The outlandish lavishness of its City headquarters, the apotheosis of the inevitable narcissism of its first French Chairman (sliding marble slabs, motion sensitive lighting and designer furniture) - is, at this stage, its only tangible achievement. In the territories of its constituencies and shareholders it is known equally for its logy pomposity, the irrelevance of its projects, its lack of perspicacity and its Kafkaesque procedures. And where the IMF sometimes indulges in oblique malice and corrupt opaqueness, the EBRD wallows merely in avuncular inefficacy. Both are havens of insouciant third rate economists and bankers beyond rating.
Established in 1991, “it exists to foster the transition towards open market oriented economies and to promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in the countries of central and eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics. The EBRD seeks to help its 26 countries of operations to implement structural and sectoral economic reforms, promoting competition, privatization and entrepreneurship, taking into account the particular needs of countries at different stages of transition. Through its investments it promotes private sector activity, the strengthening of financial institutions and legal systems, and the development of the infrastructure needed to support the private sector. The Bank applies sound banking and investment principles in all of its operations. In fulfilling its role as a catalyst of change, the Bank encourages co-financing and foreign direct investment from the private and public sectors, helps to mobilize domestic capital, and provides technical co-operation in relevant areas. It works in close co-operation with international financial institutions and other international and national organizations. In all of its activities, the Bank promotes environmentally sound and sustainable development.”
Grandiloquence aside, the EBRD was supposed to foster the formation of the private sector in the revenant wreckage of Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkan, Russia and the New Independent States. This it was mandated to do by providing finance where there was none (”bridging the gaps in the post communist financial system” to quote “The Economist”). Put more intelligibly, it was NOT supposed to transform itself into a long-term investment portfolio with equity holdings in most blue-chips in the region. Yet, this is precisely what it ended up becoming. It avoided project financing like the plague and met the burgeoning capital needs of small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) grudgingly. And it refuses to divest itself of stakes in the best run and most efficiently managed firms from Russia to the Czech Republic. In a way, it competes head on with other investors and commercial banks - often crowding them out with its subsidized financing.
One of its main mistakes, in a depressingly impressive salmagundi, is that it channelled precious resources to this budding sector (SMEs), the dynamo of every economy, through the domestic, decrepit, venal and politically manhandled banking system. The inevitable result was a colossal waste of resources. The money was allocated to sycophantic cronies and sinecured relatives (often one and the same) and to gigantic, state-owned or state-favoured loss makers. Most of it lay idle and yielded to its hosts a hefty income in arbitrage and speculation. As banks went bankrupt, they wiped whole portfolios of EBRD SME funds, theoretically guaranteed by even more bankrupt states.
Thus, the only segments of the private sector to benefit handsomely from the EBRD were lawyers and accountants involved in the umpteen lawsuits the EBRD is mired in. It is a growth industry in “countries” such as Russia. This is the melancholy outcome of indiscriminate, politically-motivated lending and of a lackadaisical performance as both lenders and shareholders. In the spirit of its first chairman, the suave and titivated Attali, the bank is in a constant road show, mortified by the possibility of its dissolution by reason of irrelevance. It aims to impress the West with its grandiose projects, mega investments, fast returns and acquiescence. In thus behaving, it is engaged in a perditionable perfidy of its fiduciary obligations. It lends to criminal managers, winking at their off-shore shenanigans and turning a blind eye to the scapegrace slaughter of minority shareholders. It throws good money after bad, cosies up to oligarchs near and far and engages in creative accounting. Instead of Westernizing the Easterners - it has been Easternized by them. Its sedentary though peregrinating employees are more adept at wining and at dining the high and mighty and at haughtily maundering in the odd, tangential, seminar - than at managing a banking institution or looking after the interests of their nominal shareholders with the tutelary solicitude expected of a bank.
Consider two examples:
MACEDONIA
The nascent private sector is nowhere to be found in the list of projects the EBRD so sagely chose to falter into here. The Electricity and Telecoms monopolies are prime beneficiaries as is the airport. The EBRD is also a passive shareholder in both big universal banks - until recently, conduits of state mismanagement. The SME and Trade Facilitation credit lines were conveniently divvied up among five domestic banks (one went belly up, the managers of two are under criminal investigation and one was sold to a Greek state bank). Despite vigorous protestations to the contrary, none of this money reached its proclaimed entrepreneurial targets. Two loans were made to giant local firms - the natural preserve of commercial lenders and equity investors the world over. The EBRD contributed nothing to the emergence of a management culture, to the development of proper corporate governance, to the safeguarding of property rights and the protection of minority shareholders here. Instead, it colluded in the perpetuation of monopolies, shoddy and shady banking practices, the pertinacious robbery titled “privatization” and the pretence of funding languishing private sector enterprises.
RUSSIA
Its 2 billion US dollars portfolio all but wiped out in the August 1998 financial crisis, the EBRD has now returned with 700 million new Euros to be - conservatively but not more safely - lent in major energy and telecom behemoths.
The historic, pre-1998, portfolio appears impressive. Almost 11 billion US dollars were generated by the EBRD’s less than 4. The bottom line reads 94 projects. Yet, when one neutralizes the infrastructural ones (including the gas and energy sector) - one is left with less than 50% of the amount. Add “infrastructure-like” projects (water transportation and the like) - and less than 30% of the portfolio went to what can be called proper “private sector”. Moreover, even these investments and credits were geared towards traditional and smokestack industries: mining, food processing, pipelines, rubber and such. Not an entrepreneur in sight. And the EBRD’s meagre loan-loss provisions and reserves cast serious doubts regarding the mental state of both its directors and its auditors.
To varying degrees, these two countries are typical. Development banks, like industrial policy, import substitution and poverty reduction, have gone in and out of multilateral fashion several times in the last few decades. But there is a consensus regarding some minimum aims of such bureaucracy-laden establishments - and the EBRD achieves none. It does not encourage entrepreneurship. It does not improve corporate governance. It does not enhance property rights. It does not allocate economic resources efficiently. It competes directly with other - more desirable - financing alternatives. It is not equipped to monitor its vast and inert portfolio. By implication it collaborates in graft, tax evasion and worse. It is a waste of scarce resources badly needed elsewhere. It should be administered a coup de grace. And its marbled abode - so out of touch with the realities of its clients and its balance sheet - should be sold to someone more up to the task. A bank, for instance.
About The Author
Sam Vaknin is the author of “Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited” and “After the Rain - How the West Lost the East”. He is a columnist in “Central Europe Review”, United Press International (UPI) and ebookweb.org and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com. Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.
His web site: http://samvak.tripod.com
Comments Off
December 14th, 2008
These days, speaking with most Democrats is like being “Alice, In Wonderland”. Most of them seem to be going under the old saying “Don’t Confuse Me With The Facts”, it seems that many of their statements are based on emotions instead of reality. I used to enjoy discussing politics, especially with people that disagreed with me (I felt that I might learn something new or different.). I still do, but lately I have found that, while I still enjoy discussing politics with Independents and Republicans, I no longer enjoy discussing politics with most Democrats. They almost all say the same things and they sound as if they are reading from a script.
Numerous Democrats that I have spoken with have stated, to paraphrase, “I don’t like Bush (They never say President Bush), he’s a thief and a liar and he is owned by the oil companies. He only cares about the rich. Nothing he says or does can be any good. Additionally, he is not smart enough to be President.”. The words they actually use are much worse, I just don’t wish to repeat them here.
The first thing that they all say is “Bush and his cronies stole the presidency from Vice-President Gore (They say President or Vice-President when speaking about President Clinton or Vice-President Gore.) in 2000.”. They say “Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.”. They say “Bush has ruined our economy”. They say “Bush was too slow in handling the Katrina disaster because he is prejudiced against blacks.” They say, “Bush has turned the world against us.”. Some are now even saying, “Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing to stop it so he would have an excuse for invading Iraq.”. When I ask them how they know these things they quote David Letterman, Jay Leno, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Edward Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand and numerous other far left politicians, celebrities and newscasters.
I attempt to discover all sides of the issues so I watch NBC News, Fox News and CNN, I read the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Forbes and other magazines and newspapers. When I ask my Democrat acquaintances if they watch Fox News, they all say “No, it’s too right wing.”. When I ask if they read the Wall Street Journal, Most say “No, it’s too biased.”, and even the ones that do admit to reading the Journal say, “I only read the financial pages.”. When I ask if they read or watch any conservative media at all, they say “No, all that you find in the conservative media are lies and cover ups.”.
When I try to counter some of their anti Bush statements with facts, they usually become upset and say “I don’t want to hear your facts, they are all lies spread by ‘big business’ and ‘right wing religious groups’, and even if they are true, I don’t care.”. “I don’t like Bush and that’s all that matters.”. When I ask them for proof of their allegations against President Bush, they usually either quote someone on the far left or say “Everyone knows it’s true.”. If I push them further they get upset and refuse to discuss the matter further. I have found that if you just listen to them and don’t disagree with them, they can talk forever about how bad President Bush and the Republican Party are. However, if you disagree with any part of anything they say, they will usually end the conversation immediately by changing the subject.
I don’t necessarily agree with, or even care for, everything that President Bush says or does, but the strident clamoring of the Democrats is forcing me to, more and more, side with him and the Republican Party. I am a Republican, but used to consider myself an Independent and voted my conscience rather than for a political party. Now, the blatant partisanship and lack of reason displayed by the Democratic Party has forced me to become an ardent Republican. The Republican Party, at least, still embraces some liberals and moderates. The Democratic Party appears to be trying to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with the far left.
David G. Hallstrom, Sr. is a retired private investigator and currently publishes several internet directories including www.resourcesforattorneys.com a legal and lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public. For more lifestyle information see lifestyle.resourcesforattorneys.com, the Lifestyle directory from Resources For Attorneys.
Comments Off
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
|
|
