jeff.hume.ca

I've decided to post an essay I wrote for a Political Science course I took this year called Global Networks. The essay is titled Getting Away With Murder - Respected Countries and the War Crimes Issiue and it explores the issues surrounding crimes committed by respected countries during times of war which often go unpunished and unidentified. Special attention is paid to bombing campaigns in World War II and war crimes in Vietnam as examples.

It is likely that nobody will actually end up reading this as it clocks in at 16 pages and I don't expect anyone to. I am mostly uploading this for archiving purposes.

I was thinking that the Terri Schiavo case couldn't get any worse at this point. I was wrong. It has.

If you expressed your support to Terri Schiavo and her parents fight to keep her alive, you may begin to receive a steady stream of solicitations, according to a Local 6 News report.

Terri Schiavo's parents have agreed to sell their list of supporters to a direct-mailing firm, Local 6 News reported.

The company, "Response Unlimited" pays about $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 6,000 e-mail addresses.

A spokesperson for the Schindlers confirmed that they had agreed to sell the information, but won't say for how much.

What the hell?

Regardless of your politics or opinion on this controversy, I think this is incredibly slimy and insulting. By doing this, Schiavo's parents are exploiting for gain the very people who supported them. I'm hoping that there's some mistake or nuance here that I'm missing.

Matt Tiabbi writes in the New York Press, an "alternative" newspaper, about the lack of media coverage concerning the end of the search for non-existant WMDs in Iraq.

O.J. was fun. Monica Lewinsky was fun. "America's New War" was fun - there was a war at the end of that rainbow. But "We All Totally Fucked Up" is not fun. You can't make a whole new set of tv graphics for "We All Totally Fucked Up." There is no obvious location where Wolf Blitzer can do a somber, grimacing "We All Totally Fucked Up" live shot (above an "Operation We All Totally Fucked Up" bug in the corner of the screen). Hundreds of reporters cannot rush to stores to buy special khakis or rain slickers or Kevlar vests in preparation for "We All Totally Fucked Up." They would have to wear their own clothes and stand, not in front of burning tanks or smashed Indonesian hovels, but in front of their own apartments.

I find it interesting that in Canada, our media, which is generally superior to that of the US, hasn't given this story much time either. However, there is a difference - most Canadians knew from the beginning that the US fucked up.

Maybe there is some hope for the American corporate media after all. CNN has decided not to renew Tucker Carlson's contract and is considering cancelling Crossfire entirely.

NEW YORK - CNN said goodbye to pundit Tucker Carlson on Wednesday, and with him likely the "Crossfire" program that has been the granddaddy of high-volume political debate shows on cable television.

...

The bow-tied wearing conservative pundit got into a public tussle last fall with comic Jon Stewart, who has been critical of cable political programs that devolve into shoutfests.

"I guess I come down more firmly in the Jon Stewart camp," Klein told The Associated Press.

He said all of the cable networks, including CNN, have overdosed on programming devoted to arguing over issues. Klein said he wants more substantive programming that is still compelling.

"I doubt that when the president sits down with his advisers they scream at him to bring him up to date on all of the issues," he said. "I don't know why we don't treat the audience with the same respect."

This is especially interesting because judging from the language used it seems that perhaps Jon Stewart's high profile bashing of the show and it's host caused CNN executives to reconsider what they were presenting and how it made them look.

I came across a story from the Inter Press Service via Matthew Good, concerning the use of poisonous gases and other reckless alleged abuses in the US assault on Fallujah.

”Poisonous gases have been used in Fallujah,” 35-year-old trader from Fallujah Abu Hammad told IPS. ”They used everything -- tanks, artillery, infantry, poison gas. Fallujah has been bombed to the ground.”

Hammad is from the Julan district of Fallujah where some of the heaviest fighting occurred. Other residents of that area report the use of illegal weapons.

”They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud,” Abu Sabah, another Fallujah refugee from the Julan area told IPS. ”Then small pieces fall from the air with long tails of smoke behind them.”

He said pieces of these bombs exploded into large fires that burnt the skin even when water was thrown on the burns. Phosphorous weapons as well as napalm are known to cause such effects. ”People suffered so much from these,” he said.

If it is indeed the case that weapons similar to phosphorus or napalm are being used in Fallujah, then something should be said about it through the media or through protest. The use of weapons such as these was a contentious issue during and after the Vietnam War, and in my opinion should be considered a war crime. Regardless of the fact that there are reports of these weapons being used on civilians, such chemicals should be banned for any use on human targets on the basis that they cause unnecessary suffering for those they are used on.

What is troubling to me is the lack of mainstream media coverage of such events described in this article. Presuming these reports are right, the citizens of the United States should be aware what is being done in their name and how they are fighting this war. We should have pictures and videos of actual war on the news on our television screens. It may be gruesome and disturbing, but to fully come to a conclusion either way on what is going on in Iraq, people need to know what is actually going on instead of simply listening to Wolf Blitzer give a recap like it's a post-sports game analysis.

Some might say to me that war is hell and by showing these sorts of things and reporting on them the media would be playing politics through attempting to provoke an emotional response. To this I say yes, war is hell, however, there are degrees of hell in war. At some point we must draw the line and say that we have crossed from the typical hell of war to unacceptable hell. I believe that the line has been crossed in this case, but if people do not hear about it they cannot even make such a judgment call.

Jesus speaks through the Republicans:

I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.

It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.

The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.

This kind of thing scares the hell out of me. Go ahead and be religious and born again. In fact, I think religion can be a positive force in the world and in many people's lives. However, just remember that saying stuff like this is just completely obnoxious. I really have no idea what to say to this. Except for the fact that we live in an awful world if God's will is to inspire people to be such jerks. I think I may start up a Liberals for Satan political party.

P.S. How exactly do prayers influence the election? Sure, maybe God exists. I can accept that belief. But how exactly can God take these prayers that the born-again Christians send to him and influence the election process?

P.P.S. I hear God loves guns. He has a huge gun cabinet up in Heaven and every once and a while he picks out his favorite gun and plays target practice with those sinful liberals down on earth. And you know the flood and Noah's Ark? God really flooded the earth because he's a sadistic bastard. Noah was only saved because he contributed great sums of money to God's gun lobby group.

P.P.P.S. I know I've gone completely out of control on the P.S.s here and have veered into spouting off Ridiculous Rhetoric myself. However, there is no real sane way to respond to statements such as he ones given. I probably shouldn't have even attempted to respond and instead just laughed. Unfortunately I feel somewhere between laughing and crying.

Bush says that "Americans have spoken." I agree with him. Americans* have told the world that they enjoy their ignorance, fear, lies, cutbacks on freedom, bad economy, needless war, lack of allies and inequality.

*I didn't say all Americans so don't start telling me I'm stereotyping. Bush claims that he has a mandate to govern in the name of the people and the sad thing is that he's right.

In the world of politics and election campaigns it is common for there to be an unbearable level of rhetoric and mud-slinging. This has been especially true in the U.S. Presidential race with both sides reduced to ridiculous charges of flip-flops and war records without actually discussing the issues. The borders of the issues have been blurred with knee-jerk voter reactions to whatever candidate makes them feel "safer." The other day Bush delivered a rally speech in St. Petersburg, Florida and said the following:

"With your help on November 2, the people of America will reject the politics of fear and vote for an agenda of hope and opportunity and security for all Americans."

Essentially the whole Bush campaign is based around the idea that Kerry is a wimpy liberal who won't protect you from the dangers of this new and frightening world and they, in turn, are the strong fighters who will protect you at whatever the cost. Of course, this whole idea in itself is absolutely ludicrous as the Bush administrations policies are only making the world a more dangerous place and are not paying attention to actually protecting the American people.

But that is besides the point. It is completely crazy that Bush would try and paint Kerry as the one fearmongering when to any sane person it is obviously the Republican campaign that loves to scare people. Just count how many times Bush or other republicans use the words terrorist, evil, weapons or any host of other fear-mongering phrases in their speeches alongside claims that they are the only ones who can protect you.

This is just another example of this administrations traditional of lying and deceiving the public. The worst part of it all is that they do it so obviously, yet nobody in the media ever seems to call them out on it. Obviously I'm not advocating completely biased media as in yesterday's Ridiculous Rhetoric post on The Toronto Sun, but when journalists interview someone or are writing an editorial piece it is their job to ask the hard questions.

That is why this is ridiculous rhetoric.

I found this video via BoingBoing. It shows Bush joking to an audience about not being able to find WMDs in Iraq. When the video intersperses this footage with that of the horrible consequences of Bush's deceit in Iraq, it becomes clear that this is no laughing matter.

As I was walking down the street today towards a class, I scanned the headlines on the row of newspaper boxes. Whenever I do this I notice that the headlines of The Toronto Sun are always the most sensationalist, irrelevant and unprofessional of the lot. In reality The Sun is essentially a tabloid disguised as a real newspaper. I've seen crazy headlines on the front of The Sun before, but the headline today seemed especially unworthy of a "newspaper."

Dalton McGuinty says his government rates a 'B' ... yeah, it stands for BROKEN PROMISES

Today McGuintry said that he would give his government a 'B' grade in terms of their performance thus far.

Now, on to The Sun's headline. I find it absolutely outrageous that they print such a sensationalist biased headline on their front page. The front page of a newspaper should provide people with as much objectivity as possible. Not only is this headline incredibly biased, but it is written in a completely unprofessional snarky and sarcastic tone which, in my opinion, is inappropriate for a newspaper. Not only is it editorial where it shouldn't be, but it is dumbed down, exaggerated editorial in a place where it shouldn't be. Obviously each newspaper has it's own bias which shows through in it's headlines and all articles, but when it goes this far I question the use of the name "newspaper" for this kind of publication. In The Sun, there isn't really any news; there seems to only be over-the-top editorial.

Let me make it clear that I am not saying that The Sun is wrong to call McGuinty out on what they perceive to be broken promises. In fact, I think this is a good thing. What I take issue with is how it is presented in a place which should be devoted to "news" and moreover written in a somewhat intelligent tone.

That is why this is Ridiculous Rhetoric.

Lodenocity: Top Three Reasons Why The Electoral College is Bad For America

Remeber[sic] four years ago, when the presidential candidate supported by the majority of Americans lost the election? Remember how there was a lot of noise about electoral reform? Remember how the noise was just that, noise, and nothing ever got done? Here we are, four years later, with the same flawed system. The electoral college is outdated and bad for America.

While most Americans don't know of him, in Canada the name Matthew Good and the former Matthew Good Band are quite familiar. Matt Good seems to have stradled the border of Canadian musical fame and artist throughout his career. In the late 90s the Matthew Good Band released a few very solid albums with such hits as Hello Time Bomb and Apparations. After the band broke up over personal differences, Good went out on his own with his first album Avalanche - a subdued and poignant political album. His latest, White Light Rock & Roll Review, is a more rocking but equally political outing.

I have always liked Matthew Good, and as of late I've been really enjoying his latest two albums. He is masterful both musically and lyrically. Throughout his career his music has almost always highlighted his strong political bent. He is also an adamant supporter of Amnesty International. Many may resent musicians for putting their political beliefs forward to such an extent, but I admire Good for doing it in such an intelligent and clever manner.

Just recently I've discovered, much to my delight, that not only is Matt Good a really cool musician, but he's also an avid blogger. Matt writes almost daily on his weblog on a whole range of political and sometimes musical topics. I was amazed at the amount of thought and time he must put into writing this while pursuing an active musical career including touring and all that goes along with it.

Yesterday he wrote on the lies of the Bush administration concerning the war in Iraq:

If this administration is not held accountable by the people of the United States next month, how is the rest of the world to respect Americans if they have so openly shown that they have no respect for themselves?

While everything is going from bad to worse in Iraq the US administration and the Iraqi interm government have consistantly maintained that elections are still on track for January. Although almost everyone thinks it is a good idea to have elections in Iraq, there has been debate over the timing. Is January too soon? Isn't the country still too unstable?

Throughout, the US administration has maintained their course for January. Today, however, Donald Rumsfeld has revealed that these general elections may not be as "general" as we have been led to believe.

"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

"Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.

Is this democracy? Only the parts of the country which they have been able to control get a say in their future? In my opinion, an election in which a large segment of a country is not able to vote is not a fair democratic election and it should not be held. The US needs to work on getting these violent unstable regions on their side. Actions like this will simply alienate them more. If you were an Iraqi living in one of these regions would you not feel cheated that after all the promises of a fair democracy, you are denied your right to determine your country's future? I would be angry.

Isn't it also a funny coincidence that not allowing these anti-US regions to vote will reduce the risk of the Iraqi people electing an administration that is hostile to the United States.

I guess the Bush administration has just come to enjoy false election results and is trying to spread this shining example of US democray to the rest of the world.

Legal Fiction: Why Do People Hate the Left

[...] Let's assume that the Left (or the fringes of the Left) actually did have some political power in a Kerry administration. What exactly is so distasteful about that fringe? Or more precisely, why is the Left's fringe less tolerable than the Right's fringe? That's the million dollar question. I'm sorry, but the Right fringe is fucking crazy, and I'm not sure why people who think like Drezner are willing to tolerate it.

This is a good questioning of both left-wing and right-wing fringes and why some in the U.S. are afraid of "the Left." It is noted that the left fringe's beliefs are far less offensive and extreme than those of the right fringe:

The Left's extremists fight for animal rights, environmental protection, racial/gender equality, peace, a bigger welfare state, against business, against nationalism, and so on.

While the right fringe:

[...] Is racist, xenophobic, militaristic, homophobic, and theocratic - oh yeah, and they want to do away with the social safety net that helps poor and working class people.

I found this article interesting as I don't think there is so much of a left fear here in Canada. People may think the far-left is a little too over-the-top, but nobody seems to be scared of them. While on the other side many Canadians seem to be very afraid of the far-right.

And for good reason.

Legal Fiction: Why Do People Hate the Left

[...] Let's assume that the Left (or the fringes of the Left) actually did have some political power in a Kerry administration. What exactly is so distasteful about that fringe? Or more precisely, why is the Left's fringe less tolerable than the Right's fringe? That's the million dollar question. I'm sorry, but the Right fringe is fucking crazy, and I'm not sure why people who think like Drezner are willing to tolerate it.

This is a good questioning of both left-wing and right-wing fringes and why some in the U.S. are afraid of "the Left." It is noted that the left fringe's beliefs are far less offensive and extreme than those of the right fringe:

The Left's extremists fight for animal rights, environmental protection, racial/gender equality, peace, a bigger welfare state, against business, against nationalism, and so on.

While the right fringe:

[...] Is racist, xenophobic, militaristic, homophobic, and theocratic - oh yeah, and they want to do away with the social safety net that helps poor and working class people.

I found this article interesting as I don't think there is so much of a left fear here in Canada. People may think the far-left is a little too over-the-top, but nobody seems to be scared of them. While on the other side many Canadians seem to be very afraid of the far-right.

And for good reason.

John Kerry has finally taken a firm stand on the Iraq issue.

"Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists," he said in his speech delivered at New York University.

"Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. That was not a reason to go to war. We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Regardless of whether this is a politically prudent move or not, I think this is the right position for Kerry to take. Obviously a great number of his supporters are of this same belief. Having Kerry not take a stance aginst the decision to go to war seemed to be discordant with the ideas expressed by the majority of people who would be voting for him.

Now, of course, Kerry opens himself further to questions of why he voted for the war in the first place if it was a mistake.

A friend of mine recounted to me something that they had heard which is especially applicable to this situation. In life, when one changes their opinion over time when new information becomes avaiable they are called a mature thinker, while one who stands by their beliefs regardless is closed-minded. On the other hand, in politics one who changes their opinion over time gets called a "flip-flopper", while one who stands firm with a single opinion is regarded as a good leader.

In another good example of clarity, Kerry provides a four step plan for Iraq:

• Get more help from other nations
• Provide better training for Iraqi security forces
• Provide benefits to the Iraqi people
• Ensure democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

In my opinion these are good moves all around by Kerry. Although he opens himself up to more flip-flop attacks and may alienate some who think he should be "supporting the war to support the troops" and all that nonsense, this might finally give the election an issue and put Bush on the defensive. The Democrats and the media have not been doing a good enough job of asking the hard questions about the War in Iraq and the War on Terrorism.

Nerd Protest

Via Boing Boing

Apparently Bush called the war in Iraq a "Catastrophic Success."

From Dictionary.com:

ca·tas·tro·phe  Pronunciation Key  (k-tstr-f) n.

1. A great, often sudden calamity.
2. A complete failure; a fiasco: The food was cold, the guests quarreledthe whole dinner was a catastrophe.
3. The concluding action of a drama, especially a classical tragedy, following the climax and containing a resolution of the plot.
4. A sudden violent change in the earth's surface; a cataclysm.

Every single one of those definitions has negative connotations. It's puzzling that Bush would use such an adjective.

Perhaps it was a freudian slip.

Op Ed: How Long Can the Country Stay Scared

A terrorist alert that instills a vague feeling of dread or panic, without giving people anything to do in response, is ineffective. Even worse, it echoes the very tactics of the terrorists. There are two basic ways to terrorize people. The first is to do something spectacularly horrible, like flying airplanes into skyscrapers and killing thousands of people. The second is to keep people living in fear. Decades ago, that was one of the IRA's major aims. Inadvertently, the DHS is achieving the same thing.

On the news the other night I saw a clip of US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci commenting on the Missile Defense Shield in reference to Canada's involvement. He noted that Canada's involvement in the program is worthwhile in what he called a "new and dangerous world that we now live in."

I want to ask Mr Cellucci what is so new and dangerous about our world now? The same perils of terrorism and alleged weapons of mass destruction existed before 9/11. Our world right now is by no means significantly more dangerous than it was the day before September 11th. Terrorists even struck the World Trade Center before! And North Korea has been building up real weapons for years before this "New and Dangerous World" policy came into effect.

The only difference between now and pre-9/11 is an attack managed to work. The threat and danger was still there before. Just because an attack happened does not mean that the threat is increased. In fact, logic would tell you that since an attack occurred, governments are more likely to stop further acts. Hence the threat is actually less than it was when governments weren't paying as much attention. Globally, terrorism has been declining for years. I guess nobody bothered to tell Cellucci that the world was actually getting safer. (Perhaps by the word "world" he really means "The United States.")

The same dangers existed before that exist now and anyone who claims that this is some new development is fear mongering.

Besides the fact, the Missile Defense Shield is not an effective means to counter terrorism. This is even assuming that the technology behind the Shield would actually work.

There is no "new and dangerous world;" it is the same damn world as before.

So they captured Saddam and say it is closure. This is good news, but is it closure? What closure? I thought this whole issue was about weapons of mass destruction. Where is the closure on that? Were they hiding in a hole in the ground as well?

Oh wait, I forgot. Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.

Doublethink time.

Tonight it has finally become official - Paul Martin is now the leader of the Liberal Party and will be our next Prime Minister. With a landslide 94% of the leadership vote Martin has come into his leadership position on a very, very high podium. Much is expected of him from all areas. The business community supports him and they expect a friendlier relationship with Ottawa, while active social groups also give him their support. In addition the provincial and municipal governments also expect improved relations and more help from federal sources. It will be hard for Martin to live up to all that is expected of him. Let us hope that he can do so.

The cynical political observer in me currently has warning bells going off all over the place. (It's like the beginning to Pink Floyd's Time with the volume cranked all the way.) The cynic thinks that he is just another politician producing rhetoric and lauding large empty promises to further his personal objectives. Yet, the hopefull idealist inside of me is working very hard to surpress my cynicism. Something about Martin's speech tonight made me trust him. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but the former Finance Minister seems to have an air of the ordinary guy about him. The ordinary guy who know's what he is doing and is looking out for you.

As I type these words my cynical side is vomiting in my head, but I don't think I'll listen to it until I see what Martin does. It may just be good political tact covering up just another corrupt politician, but something is making me trust that Martin is a good man. He is seemingly a very inspirational, charismatic and efficient leader. From what he has said it is clear that he also has a very active social conscience. This is evident through his work at the United Nations and his message about the state of rest of the world and the country in his speech this evening.

The speech by Bono at the convention earlier in the evening was also quite interesting. To me it seemed unusual for a foreigner to speak primarily about a specific political issue at a leadership convention. In this case the issue was AIDS in Africa and the alleged imminent collapse of the continent into flames. I found his speech to be quite good and a bit of an eye opener. He noted that 6,000 people die in Africa from AIDS each day. That is quite an astounding number. Six thousand is a hell of a lot. Although Bono's speech was fairly unconventional and began with some rather amusing humour, I was impressed by him. He is not just a rock star; he is a man who knows the issue and is working very hard simply out of the goodness of his heart to do something about it.

Overall, things do look like they are going to improve considerably on the political stage in our country. Now I just hope Martin can follow through with his words, or else the cynic inside of me might burst free!

The Romanian President was welcomed at the Pentagon for a meeting with Donald Rumsfeld with full honors, including the Russian flag. Pentagon officials are excusing it as simply a mistake.

We rented Bowling for Colbumbine last night. It was a very well done documentary and deserved the awards it received. Michael Moore makes some very good points in the film, even though he can be a little sensationalist at times. One interesting thing I noticed from the film was that Marilyn Manson sounded a lot more intelligent than those who blamed his music for inspiration for the Columbine killings.

Paul Martin, who can safely be called the next Prime Minister of Canada, has a weblog on his website! It's rare for politicians and figures of his sort to communicate directly with people in this way. It's cool that this is directed towards people and not towards the media.

Maybe it's just a ploy for attention and controlled sensationalism (it does radiate with a great deal of patriotism), but I still think it's an interesting thing.

This is a little disturbing. How can the U.S. ever expect to pay off their debt? You can't procrastinate it forever. War after war, tax-cut after tax-cut, they are always spending more and never paying it down. It has to be paid sometime.

The Daily Times reports that the US government has plans to turn the military base in Guantanamo Bay into a death camp.

The US has floated plans to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp, with its own death row and execution chamber.

Prisoners would be tried, convicted and executed without leaving its boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported recently.

What is their justification for this? Doesn't their justice system state that everyone has the right to a fair trial? I guess that doesn't matter for terrorists. I agree with that, except how can we trust that they know beyond any doubt that they are terrorists?

This information is a little disconcerting. The US says there will be "consequences" if Canada decriminalizes pot. I don't like this attitude. I don't see why the American government should be "forced to respond" to our policies. We aren't hurting them. Their argument that it would make it easier for Americans to get pot is absurd since so many Americans have it already anyways. There wont be a huge black market across the border or anything.

Also, how would it make Canada look worse in the eyes of the World? Many countries would probably like the decision and respect it. A simple thing such as this shouldn't change a country's status in the global community and it wont. I heard an interesting interview on CBC this morning that said that a large number of Americans want pot to be decriminalized, however, the government doesn't want to face that. The man argued that they want to suppress this in Canada so that Americans don't get any ideas about having decriminalization there instead of suppressing it in Canada so that Americans can't get it.

The Register has posted a strange but funny story about how CNN accidently posted obituaries on it's website of world leaders and figures who are not yet dead including Fidel Castro, Bob Hope, The Pope, Nelson Mandela, Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford.

One thing I'm beginning to hate is some Americans' attitudes about free speech. First they cut down your opinion calling it stupid and "Liberal" (with a bunch of other stereotypes). Then they will go on to say something about how you should feel lucky not to live in Iraq where you would be killed for expressing your opinion. Then they tell you to shut up.

They are violating their own principles. Are people only allowed to speak out if they agree with you? Speaking out is the American way! Thats how things get done in democracies. If it weren't for people who disagreed, we wouldn't be living in a democracy now. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anything if you are pressured, insulted and told to leave when you say anything against the grain.

If that idea is logical then I'm George Bush.

This is one of the most (if not the most) brilliant Onion article of all time.

Although it is refering to September 11th and is shrouded in humor, I think the message is timeless and true. Everyone in the world should understand this.

Scott Rosenberg of Salon wrote a great essay on the seemingly inevitable upcoming conflict with Iraq. Although nothing is inevitable it seems that the people in power in the states want this war to go ahead unless Saddam and his sons in Iraq flee the country. This doesn't seem likely. Here's a great passage from Scott's essay:

The president's speech tonight, full of the rhetoric of "liberty and peace," was suffused with an almost millenarian triumphalism, an attitude of certainty in U.S. victory that is no doubt borne out by the superiority of American weaponry and power and that, yet, to anyone with a sense of the twists of history, seems fatuously arrogant. War is rarely easy; the speed of the victories in 1991 Kuwait or 2001 Afghanistan was, historically, the exception, and there is no guarantee that every future American campaign will be as fast or as painless to Americans. Overconfidence breeds disaster.

Any leader who predicts certainty of victory is asking for it. War isn't predictable, especially with people like Saddam involved. If he is faced with his own destruction who knows what he'll do.

In the world today you want to be able to trust those who have influence and power. You want to be able to think that they are above petty insults and bad diplomacy, then you read something like this and you realize that the people running the show are complete idiots.

That deserves an honerary award for stupidity. Why does everyone have to agree with the Americans? France can still be an ally and not have the same view-point on everything. Why must they resort to pathetic name calling (or changing) like that. How incredibly stupid can you get.

I dearly hope next election the Americans elect competent representatives.

The BBC wants you! Cool idea.

Here's a great find! To be sung to the tune of "If You're Happy and You Know It".

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it's all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.