Tuesday, November 15, 2011
It is safe to assume, even without having read any of the winning works, that nothing disruptive to the dominant economic order will receive commendation or emolument from the media mafia enforcers.
On the government payroll, the winning authors collect for what one might well suspect is the usual politically correct distractions from what literature with guts would present.
No novel with a theme critical of the corporate-socialist oligarchy and their pseudo-progressive flunkies is going to be awarded financial subsidy by the Governor-General or any of the government "arts councils."
Instead of grinding out "literary" crud for their government sponsors, the winning hacks should get off the government suck dole . . . and write with fire in the belly and rage against the machine.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Obama: U.S. war in Iraq ends Dec. 31.
The troop withdrawal is required by the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated with Iraq by the Bush administration. The agreement was ratified by the Iraqi parliament prior to Obama's inauguration, and expires at the end of the year. Officials had been discussing the possibility of maintaining several thousand US troops in the country to train Iraqi security forces. Ostensibly, the Iraqis wanted some US troops to stay but would not give them legal immunity, a key demand of the administration.
The only reason US troops are not going to be staying in Iraq is because the Iraqi government refused to agree that US soldiers would enjoy legal immunity if they commit serious crimes while in the country, such as killing Iraqis without cause.
If the government in Iraq granted immunity, the US troops would stay. In denying immunity, the new Iraqi government has in effect indicated that the US lost the war.
Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent and hundreds of thousands of people killed . . . so that bankers and munitions dealers could profit.
What else was accomplished?
Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons were not seized . . . because he did not have any.
There was no revenge on Iraq for the WTC attack . . . because Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attack.
There was no punishment of Iraq for supporting al-Qaida . . . because Iraq did not support al-Qaida; Saddam Hussein was a bitter enemy of al-Qaida.
At this point, there is no indication of huge profit accruing to the US from oil in Iraq . . . perhaps because the government of Iraq represents people that the US tortured, shot, burned, mangled and maimed, for no good reason.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
The lower house passed a bill to provide up to $825 million over the next eight years to recapitalize Afghanistan's central bank — a move that smooths the way for the International Monetary Fund to extend Afghanistan a new line of credit. Afghanistan has been without IMF backing for more than a year, threatening to choke off billions in aid to the country.
No aid is given; it is contingent on the target country borrowing "money" to pay for aid. If the target country is recalcitrant, it is subjected to more destabilization and destruction by the IMF's enforcement service, the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization.
The corrupt nature of the Kabul Bank serves the IMF by impoverishing Afghans who have suffered ten years of NATO bombing.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Rogozin calls on UN to draw conclusions from NATO's Libya campaign
You had your chance in the UN Security Council to veto the Libya "intervention," Russia.
If the strategy was to trip the US and its NATO flunkies into another sand-trap, it may succeed. But don't act virtuous.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Panetta employed the Bush administration deception when he told US troops on 11 July 2011 in Iraq that US forces were there because of 9/11. US intelligence reports have stated quite clearly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Panetta later attempted to correct the remark, saying, "We really had to deal with al-Qaeda here." It has been established (and was known by the Bush regime at the time) that there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until the US invaded. Saddam Hussein had kept radical Islamics down and out.
This could explain why Russia and China did not veto the UN Resolution 1973 authorizing NATO to bomb Libya: every munition expended by NATO against Libya makes Russia and China stronger relative to the North Atlantic Terror Organization.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Harper says repeatedly, "The opposition forced this election."
Harper also says repeatedly that the Opposition Parties caused the election by voting against the government budget proposal.
Harper's minority government fell because it was found in Contempt of Parliament.
Members of Parliament voted on a Liberal motion of no-confidence and found the Conservative government in contempt of Parliament. The motion passed by a margin of 156 to 145.
It was an epochal event as it was the first time a Canadian Government has fallen on Contempt of Parliament, and marks a first for a national government anywhere in the Commonwealth of fifty-four states.
Monday, April 18, 2011
He ranted for years about open transparent government.
Then he lied to Parliament about the true cost of his pet projects (jets and jails) and shut Parliament down twice to avoid answering difficult questions.
He promised electoral reform.
Then he cheated to win the 2006 election by overspending more than $1 million through the in-and-out scandal.
He kicked Helena Guergis, a member of the Conservative caucus, out of the party for allegedly associating with prostitutes and other offenses, none of which were substantiated.
Then he entertained Bruce Carson and his prostitute girlfriend at 24 Sussex Drive.
Though he has reviled the Senate, he has appointed partisan supporters to the Red Chamber.
He yaps about the 15-year-old sponsorship scandal repeatedly, then lies to Parliament in order to get a $50-million slush fund approved for Tony Clement's riding and added to the G-20 summit (June 2010) costs. Parliament was told the money was for border security during the summit, according to a leaked Auditor-General report.
He talks relentlessly about being tough on crime, then surrounds himself with convicted criminals and fraudsters in the Senate and on his staff.
It seems that whatever Harper is criticizing most loudly in public is exactly what he himself practises and tries to conceal.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
The bombing of Libya by US, France, UK, and other nations began 19 March 2011, exactly eight years after the US began its invasion of Iraq.
Any collateral damage falls on the US.
Russia's Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said the blame for "humanitarian consequences" following any military action will be on the shoulders of those involved in such operations.
"Responsibility for inevitable humanitarian consequences caused by excessive use of outside force in the Libyan situation would be fully born by those who resorted to such actions," Churkin told reporters following the Security Council vote.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
In a closed door meeting aimed at explaining why they had killed so many civilians, General Petraeus actually accused parents in the region of burning their own children in an attempt to raise the death count and make the US look bad.
According to the Post article:
"The exact language Petraeus used in the closed-door session is not known, and neither is the precise message he meant to convey. But his remarks about the deadly U.S. military operation in Konar province were deemed deeply offensive by some in the room. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions."
The US has a long history of making up ridiculous stories in attempting explain away massive civilian death tolls, including the May 2009 Farah Province massacre, in which the US initially claimed the Taliban had "pre-killed" a large number of civilians and stored them in buildings before tricking the US into bombing them, and scattering the bodies. They later admitted the claim was entirely false.
The US has also regularly accused Afghan civilians of fabricating stories of dead relatives in efforts to claim the paltry reparations that the military offers for accidentally killing civilians. This latest US story may the first time the US military has accused parents of killing their children just to make the US occupation look bad.
US does not need any help in making itself look bad.
In a related story yesterday from Norway's Views and News, the Norwegian government has been complicit with the US in concealing the extent of civilian slaughter committed by NATO forces in Afghanistan.
The Norwegian news report says:
WikiLeaks’s documents have shown that NATO’s standard response to civilian casualties been, at the urging of the Americans, to apologize for the loss of life, promise an investigation and put the blame on the Taliban.
WikiLeaks releases, accessed by Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, continue to embarrass the Norwegian government as well as the US, with latest revelations suggesting that Norway’s ambassadors joined their US-led NATO allies in attempts to avoid a messy debate on civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
Leaked cables from the American delegation to NATO, written in September 2008, allege that "Norway’s ambassador emphasized the need to avoid a public debate about the reporting of the number of civilians killed."
Saturday, February 19, 2011
The report by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Steve Coll says, "The discussions are continuing; they are of an exploratory nature and do not yet amount to a peace negotiation."
So it seems that the US is engaging in negotations, as Canada's New Democratic Party leader advised five years ago.
“A comprehensive peace process has to bring all the combatants to the table,” Jack Layton said on September 1, 2006.
The suggestion was ridiculed by Prime Minister Harper and other idiots in his Cabinet.
Now that the United States has entered direct talks with the Taliban, however, one may wonder what Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party followers will have to say about this development. If they remain true to form--and they lack the creativity or initiative to do anything else--they will wait for instructions from the US regime and then speak on the issue as ordered.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The document concerned government funding of seven million dollars to the Kairos alliance of religious groups involved in international development projects. Oda inserted the word "NOT" into a report (or she ordered the insertion to be made), reversing the decision for funding.
To repeat for the benefit of the people (Harper included) who don't seem to understand the issue:
A Cabinet Minister overruling the recommendation of her officials is perfectly acceptable.
But that is not the issue.
It is a red herring offered by Harper that Oda had the right to overrule the bureaucrats.
There is no justification for altering a document to hide the fact that she had done so is deemed OK by this government.
A Cabinet Minister lying to The House and a parliamentary committee is definitely not acceptable.
And a Prime Minister should not be commending one of his ministers for doing so. He should be firing her if she does not resign.
This is more than an integrity issue. A legal document was altered after it was signed. It is illegal to do so.
Even if it wasn't a legal document per se, it is a document signed by other people, which Oda altered to make it appear as though the other signatories recommended the denial of funding. It is a falsified document. That is forgery, which is crimina fraud.
The "NOT" was hand written on the document. If this was done before it was signed, then it would have to have been initialed. If it was done after it would have to be initialed by all parties and and dated.
But a document that concerns seven million dollars that has "NOT" hand written in is
a defaced document and is void. It reverts to a draft document.
Oda was also caught in a lie and possibly an attempt to deceive a Parliamentary committee and Parliament. If Harper does not understand that allowing this to pass as though it is insignificant is evidences either his complete contempt for the fundamentals of parliamentary procedure or his lack of understanding for why those procedures must be upheld. Either explanation reveals him to be one of the least responsible Prime Ministers Canada has ever had.
If Harper cannot see the seriousness of Oda's actions, he should not be Prime Minister.
To allow this to pass without, at the minimum, an acknowledgement of wrong-doing and an appology by both Bev Oda and Stephen Harper is completely unacceptable. But in truth, one or both of them should be dismissed.
Bev Oda claimed that she did not know anything about the change. Then she admitted she directed that the change be made (presumably she did not want to soil her hand by printing "NOT"), but she claims not know whom she directed.
Now it is solely her decision, but she can't/hasn't explained why she reversed her own department's recommendation. Perhaps Harper hasn't briefed her on this yet.
It is not as if only partisan opponents of Harper are calling for Bev Oda to be removed from Harper's Cabinet.
Oda must resign, says the Ottawa Citizen.
Oda must (not) stay, says the Calgary Herald.
Oda discredited for misleading Parliament, says the Vancouver Sun.
Oda, Kairos, should both be pruned, says the Toronto Sun.
Oda should resign, or be fired, says National Post.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Fidel Castro has written about the issues involved in the Seitenfus dismissal.
Fidel Castro on Escambray website