Earlier this week, it was announced that the Federal government was going to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two giant mortgage insurers in the United States. This is, of course, in direct violation of the free market ethic which states clearly that failing businesses must be allowed to fail. Propping up nonviable enterprises supposedly only leads to a weakened economy. This is the economic Darwinism model.
In response to this former baseball pitcher Jim Bunning (R-KY) said, "I thought I woke up in France. But no, it turns out socialism is alive and well in America."
Well, I'm sorry to say that it gets worse, Jim.
Not only are the Fed and the American government bailing out corporations, they're also Nationalizing them.
Nationalize? Isn't that the root word of "Nazi" as well as the soul of godless Communism? I can't believe George Bush and his toadies have given over to socialism.
The only question is now: will anyone invade the U.S. and overthrow this communist dictatorship? If there's one thing we know it's that socialism never, ever, ever works. It just leads to impoverished people living the everyday horror of public medicine and public education. It leads to having your nation blockaded and sanctioned and all sorts of turmoil.
In fact, in every South American country that has tried it, there have been vicious coups: in Chile in 1973; in Venezuela at least twice in the last six years; in Nicaragua in the 1980s. Yes, socialism leads to violence.
So who will rescue the poor American people from this socialist evil? Who will march an army in to the United States, occupy Washington D.C., get loans from the IMF and World Bank and impose austerity measures on the government of the United States? Maybe China or Russia could do it, in the name of liberation of course. In theory Canada and Mexico could do it but the Canadian snowmobile army doesn't run very well in the American winter and I've been told that Mexicans never learn to speak English so they'd run in to language problems.
But it maybe impossible for the Chinese Army to reach North America for lack of transport capacity. And alas the Russians are busy fighting with the Georgians. We can only hope that George Bush and his people see the error of their ways and return to the only real workable model for democracy: cutthroat free market capitalism. Any other option is simply not freedom.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Tax Break Insanity
Mr. Harper, you've already squandered the surplus. You squandered it so quickly that you couldn't even buy the icebreaker that was part of your vaunted "Arctic Sovereignty" plan nor your supply ships that were part of your central "revitalizing the military" concept.
And now you're going to offer $750 to everyone who buys a new home?
Besides being an obvious bribe for votes, what could this hope to accomplish? Should we lure more people in to debt that they can't afford? Is this really going to change the number of people buying new homes? How much will it cost and how are you going to pay for it? You've already run a deficit. Do you even know what you're doing?
And now you're going to offer $750 to everyone who buys a new home?
Besides being an obvious bribe for votes, what could this hope to accomplish? Should we lure more people in to debt that they can't afford? Is this really going to change the number of people buying new homes? How much will it cost and how are you going to pay for it? You've already run a deficit. Do you even know what you're doing?
Monday, September 15, 2008
Pushing Back Against Empire
The government of the United States and its sycophants in the media are happy to trash talk the United Nations whenever they can.
On the rare occasions in which the U.N. actually stops the United States from doing something, or at least declares its opposition, the U.S. will declare it unrealistic and ineffective.
Of course, when the U.N. does try to do the right thing, the U.S. will use its veto in the security council to prevent any actual action. The U.S. has used its veto more than any other nation with such power. In fact, it has used its veto more than all of the other four nations combined.
For decades now, especially through the Cold War, most of the nations that weren't under Soviet thrall would support the U.S. as the lesser of two evils. When the U.S. knocked over democratically elected - but left-leaning - governments in Iraq, Iran, Chile, Nicaragua and other places, it was opposed by some and tolerated by many others as part of the "fight against communism".
In Nicaragua, the United States committed terrorism. It helped a group of rebels it invented (the "Contras") to attack non-military targets throughout Nicaragua with the intent to bring down the democratically elected Sandanista government. The whole while, the Sandanista themselves were called terrorists bent on destruction. The two sides had their day in court and the U.S. was found guilty of terrorism.
Normally, what the United States tells people to do is what they end up doing. This is especially true in the United Nations where it is considered important to placate the Americans.
But not today.
The United Nations members have voted to make Father Miguel d'Escoto, a former Sandanista government official, the head of the General Assembly.
That can't sit well in the Bush Administration. Look at it. The very same sociopathic crowd that gave us the terrorist attacks on the Nicaraguans is now going to have to deal with a guy who was the target of those very attacks.
Talk about uncomfortable. Imagine if they have to have dinner together or something.
What it tells me is that the American power is waning. From Venezuela to Bolivia and down in to Chile. In Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The ability of the Empire builders in the United States to force their will upon developing nations around the globe and in the United Nations in New York is weakening.
Sunshine through the clouds in my opinion.
On the rare occasions in which the U.N. actually stops the United States from doing something, or at least declares its opposition, the U.S. will declare it unrealistic and ineffective.
Of course, when the U.N. does try to do the right thing, the U.S. will use its veto in the security council to prevent any actual action. The U.S. has used its veto more than any other nation with such power. In fact, it has used its veto more than all of the other four nations combined.
For decades now, especially through the Cold War, most of the nations that weren't under Soviet thrall would support the U.S. as the lesser of two evils. When the U.S. knocked over democratically elected - but left-leaning - governments in Iraq, Iran, Chile, Nicaragua and other places, it was opposed by some and tolerated by many others as part of the "fight against communism".
In Nicaragua, the United States committed terrorism. It helped a group of rebels it invented (the "Contras") to attack non-military targets throughout Nicaragua with the intent to bring down the democratically elected Sandanista government. The whole while, the Sandanista themselves were called terrorists bent on destruction. The two sides had their day in court and the U.S. was found guilty of terrorism.
Normally, what the United States tells people to do is what they end up doing. This is especially true in the United Nations where it is considered important to placate the Americans.
But not today.
The United Nations members have voted to make Father Miguel d'Escoto, a former Sandanista government official, the head of the General Assembly.
That can't sit well in the Bush Administration. Look at it. The very same sociopathic crowd that gave us the terrorist attacks on the Nicaraguans is now going to have to deal with a guy who was the target of those very attacks.
Talk about uncomfortable. Imagine if they have to have dinner together or something.
What it tells me is that the American power is waning. From Venezuela to Bolivia and down in to Chile. In Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The ability of the Empire builders in the United States to force their will upon developing nations around the globe and in the United Nations in New York is weakening.
Sunshine through the clouds in my opinion.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Harper: Canadians becoming Conservative
Stephen Harper has declared that you and I (Canadians in general) are becoming more conservative.
The first thing I wanted to see were examples. I wanted to see if he meant social conservative or financial conservative.
I know we aren't getting to be more socially conservative, what with our attitudes toward abortion, birth control, decreasing church attendance and everything else. Fortunately, this was not his thesis. He was arguing that Canadians are more amenable to financial conservatives ideas.
Such as?
"On Saturday, Harper said the fiscal prudence he advocated as a young member of the Reform Party in the late 1980s has now become conventional wisdom."
That's interesting. While I understand that the word "conservative" implies balanced budgets, all the Conservative, or Progressive Conservative, governing that I have seen involved deficits. Mike Harris, Ernie Eves, Brian Mulroney. I'm only in my 30s though, so maybe there were other Conservative governments which I don't remember.
In the G&M article, "free trade ... and spending restraint" are also mentioned. Is there really that much support for "free trade"? You have to remember that most Canadians did not support NAFTA. I don't think most of us like it even now. It was just the wealthy political types and the journalists and their media masters who loved it so much.
As for spending restraint, good luck with that Mr. Harper. You just barely restrained your government from going in to annual deficit, and that by cancelling that icebreaker and those "much needed" supply ships for the military. I believe that it was the month of May 2008 that showed the first deficit in years. How did your philosophy of "spending restraint" bring us down from surpluses so quickly?
No, I don't think Canadians are becoming more conservative, in the financial or social sense. It was the Liberal side of things that balanced the budget. The only reason you're ahead, Mr. Harper, is Stephane Dion's lack of charisma.
The first thing I wanted to see were examples. I wanted to see if he meant social conservative or financial conservative.
I know we aren't getting to be more socially conservative, what with our attitudes toward abortion, birth control, decreasing church attendance and everything else. Fortunately, this was not his thesis. He was arguing that Canadians are more amenable to financial conservatives ideas.
Such as?
"On Saturday, Harper said the fiscal prudence he advocated as a young member of the Reform Party in the late 1980s has now become conventional wisdom."
That's interesting. While I understand that the word "conservative" implies balanced budgets, all the Conservative, or Progressive Conservative, governing that I have seen involved deficits. Mike Harris, Ernie Eves, Brian Mulroney. I'm only in my 30s though, so maybe there were other Conservative governments which I don't remember.
In the G&M article, "free trade ... and spending restraint" are also mentioned. Is there really that much support for "free trade"? You have to remember that most Canadians did not support NAFTA. I don't think most of us like it even now. It was just the wealthy political types and the journalists and their media masters who loved it so much.
As for spending restraint, good luck with that Mr. Harper. You just barely restrained your government from going in to annual deficit, and that by cancelling that icebreaker and those "much needed" supply ships for the military. I believe that it was the month of May 2008 that showed the first deficit in years. How did your philosophy of "spending restraint" bring us down from surpluses so quickly?
No, I don't think Canadians are becoming more conservative, in the financial or social sense. It was the Liberal side of things that balanced the budget. The only reason you're ahead, Mr. Harper, is Stephane Dion's lack of charisma.
Freedom of Speech and Religion
Freedom of speech is so important and so is freedom of religion.
I'm not just saying this because I want the freedom to not-believe in any religion. I'm also saying it for the Westboro Baptists and other fanatics of the world. Please, by all means, show us your hatred filled, dark, fanatical hearts and so we can see you for you are. Let us see the racists, the bigots, even the holocaust deniers, right out in the open where we can see them.
It's only the bright light of day that can scatter the cockroaches.
So I cling to that inalienable truth: let every person have freedom of speech. If the idea is putrid, then it will go to its death ever more quickly by its exposure.
On another note, if religious people didn't feel free to speak their minds, we wouldn't get to see things like the following either, and that would be sad. Because nothing makes religion silly like silly people following it.
"He's like a Mountie, he always gets his man."
I'm not just saying this because I want the freedom to not-believe in any religion. I'm also saying it for the Westboro Baptists and other fanatics of the world. Please, by all means, show us your hatred filled, dark, fanatical hearts and so we can see you for you are. Let us see the racists, the bigots, even the holocaust deniers, right out in the open where we can see them.
It's only the bright light of day that can scatter the cockroaches.
So I cling to that inalienable truth: let every person have freedom of speech. If the idea is putrid, then it will go to its death ever more quickly by its exposure.
On another note, if religious people didn't feel free to speak their minds, we wouldn't get to see things like the following either, and that would be sad. Because nothing makes religion silly like silly people following it.
"He's like a Mountie, he always gets his man."
Friday, September 12, 2008
Serious Things Shouldn't Make Me Giggle
But this did:
Venezuela ejects U.S. Ambassador
It's really not a laughing matter, but it still made me smile. I wish my government had this kind of courage. For example, when Maher Arar was being held in Syria, being tortured, and the U.S. government was refusing to cooperate in returning him. That would have been a good time to send the U.S. Ambassador for a walk (I think it was Paul Celucci at the time).
My favourite part of the article:
He doesn't need to provide evidence. The fact that the Bush Adminstration instantly supported the military coup, before it became news, is more than enough evidence that they don't support democracy in Venezuela.
The evidence is out there for everyone to see.
Still ... "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced that the U.S. ambassador has 72 hours to leave Venezuela" ...
Venezuela ejects U.S. Ambassador
It's really not a laughing matter, but it still made me smile. I wish my government had this kind of courage. For example, when Maher Arar was being held in Syria, being tortured, and the U.S. government was refusing to cooperate in returning him. That would have been a good time to send the U.S. Ambassador for a walk (I think it was Paul Celucci at the time).
My favourite part of the article:
Chavez accused the group of current and former military officers of trying to assassinate him and topple the government with support from the United States. He didn't offer evidence. U.S. officials have repeatedly denied Chavez's accusations that Washington has backed plots against him.
He doesn't need to provide evidence. The fact that the Bush Adminstration instantly supported the military coup, before it became news, is more than enough evidence that they don't support democracy in Venezuela.
The evidence is out there for everyone to see.
Still ... "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced that the U.S. ambassador has 72 hours to leave Venezuela" ...
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Who is David H. Wilkins?
Oh, he's the ambassador to Canada from the United States. That's explains this nonsense that only the National Post would print. (My blood pressure was a bit low and I needed something annoying to bring it back up).
Where else would you get the notion that freedom is on the march? No, I'm not kidding. He actually wrote that "freedom is on the march and Al Qaeda is badly diminished."
Who is this guy kidding? His entire article is nothing but lies and distortion.
In reference to Iraq
Sorry. I can't believe that I'm the most vociferous opponent you have, but I don't admit to the success of the surge. The Anbar awakening that is often touted as evidence of success occurred before the surge. Has there been a sudden drop off in violence since the surge? No. Are American soldiers dying less? No.
Welcome to Canada. We may not like our media, but at least they aren't cheerleaders for the government. That means we hear things that Americans don't, like the fact that Al Qaeda is recruiting like crazy ever since the Afghan and Iraq wars started. I think that tidbit comes from "U.S. officials" who tell us, in the same article, that Al Qaeda is strong in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The same article tells us, "...nine American soldiers were killed at a remote base in Kunar province Sunday in the deadliest attack in several years."
Yeah. Sounds like the war on terror is an unparalleled success.
Look Mr. Wilkins. I realize you're not allowed to say anything contrary to the Bush Administration's desires. But you're in Canada now. If you
a) keep up with the "freedom is on march" nonsense while you hold one of our citizens in your torture jail.
b) try to tell us "al-Qaeda [is] badly diminished" when we see more and more death in Afghanistan.
c) tell us that America has a "commitment to freedom for the Afghan people" while we die on the route of a natural gas pipeline.
Then you should expect us to laugh at you and dismiss as one of George Bush's jingoistic liars.
Where else would you get the notion that freedom is on the march? No, I'm not kidding. He actually wrote that "freedom is on the march and Al Qaeda is badly diminished."
Who is this guy kidding? His entire article is nothing but lies and distortion.
In reference to Iraq
Even the most vociferous opponents of the surge are now forced to admit the success of the surge strategy.
Sorry. I can't believe that I'm the most vociferous opponent you have, but I don't admit to the success of the surge. The Anbar awakening that is often touted as evidence of success occurred before the surge. Has there been a sudden drop off in violence since the surge? No. Are American soldiers dying less? No.
Welcome to Canada. We may not like our media, but at least they aren't cheerleaders for the government. That means we hear things that Americans don't, like the fact that Al Qaeda is recruiting like crazy ever since the Afghan and Iraq wars started. I think that tidbit comes from "U.S. officials" who tell us, in the same article, that Al Qaeda is strong in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The same article tells us, "...nine American soldiers were killed at a remote base in Kunar province Sunday in the deadliest attack in several years."
Yeah. Sounds like the war on terror is an unparalleled success.
Look Mr. Wilkins. I realize you're not allowed to say anything contrary to the Bush Administration's desires. But you're in Canada now. If you
a) keep up with the "freedom is on march" nonsense while you hold one of our citizens in your torture jail.
b) try to tell us "al-Qaeda [is] badly diminished" when we see more and more death in Afghanistan.
c) tell us that America has a "commitment to freedom for the Afghan people" while we die on the route of a natural gas pipeline.
Then you should expect us to laugh at you and dismiss as one of George Bush's jingoistic liars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)