Friday, October 31, 2008

A Christian warlord, with interesting friends and associates.

Congo's maverick warlord who kills in the name of Christianity

General Laurent Nkunda is a contradiction. An urbane jungle-dweller; an evangelical Christian warlord; a cerebral military strategist who unleashes awful brutality; a tribal protector and father of six who recruits children into his ranks; a patriot who wages war and steals the resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

General Nkunda sometimes dresses in smartly pressed camouflage fatigues with a beret and a gold-topped cane, at other times in warlord chic with dark sunglasses, cowboy hat and a badge emblazoned with the slogan “Rebels for Christ”.

What I don't get? Why is he a contradiction? Because he is a christian warlord? An evangelical christian warlord ? Is that the contradiction? If that is so, that is a load of nonsense. As if "christians" are foreign to murder and warfare?
Where is the contradiction? How is this man not doing anything that hasn't been done by an good Christian leader in the west? Hmm, didn't the American troops in Iraq, kill for God, a christian God also?

This little tidbit is rather interesting:

Armed with a sense of righteousness fortified by visiting American evangelical Christian groups, Nkunda has in recent months been carrying out attacks against village after village.
Wondering is he emboldened by the Christian Evangelicals alone, or is there more?

As if the relationship with the American Christian Evangelicals isn't enought to have one pondering who stands behind this man? The "friendship" with Paul Kagame just makes inquiring minds want to know even more.

Paul Kagame, Graduate, Command and General Staff College, Fort Levenworth
( a graduate school for US Military Leaders)
The man who had a hand in the Rwandan genocide. Aided by the US.

This article makes it even more clear, that there are indeed good reasons to wonder who stands behind and beside, the Christian war criminal/warlord

US-Rwandan backed general, Laurent Nkunda, to ‘liberate’ Congo again- Watch out!

Keith Harmon Snow, is the man on this subject!

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Big Brother to save Aussies from the evils of the Internet

In Australia, the government is moving to keep it's population "safe" while on the Internet.

It is going to be so wonderful, because BIG BROTHER government loves you.

And would never deny you, your right to choose.

There is going to be a black list! (such fun)

And that black list will contain all the government deemed "bad sites".

The black list will be administered by The Australian Communications and Media Authority.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority, will decide for you.

You can 'opt out', but you will still be censored.

It doesn't matter that this legislation puts Australia on par, with such dreaded oppressive regimes as Iran.

All that matters is you are kept safe, snug, and you don't have to make an effort to decide for yourself, guide your own kids, or any of those things that a thinking brain is capable of.

Just remember...........

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The bail-out: Helping the banks, help themselves.

We must recapitalize banks, to the tune of 700 billion dollars, in order to "save the economy".
That sounds so dramatically desperate, doesn't it? As if it was a move that was vital to everyone.

Except there is just one little teeny tiny problem with the scheme, the banks are hoarding the money and saving the economy was not even in the cards!

Last Thursday, at the hearing of the Senate Banking Committee, this exchange took place

Senator Dodd asked, was Treasury going to ensure that banks used their new government capital to make loans — “besides rhetorically begging them?”

“We share your view,” Mr. Kashkari replied. “We want our banks to be lending in our communities.”
Senator Dodd: “Are you insisting upon it?”
Mr. Kashkari: “We are insisting upon it in all our actions.”

Well, Joe Nocera, author of a most recent article in the NYT would beg to differ. In fact it doesn't appear he believes a word of this 'saving the economy' tripe.

"I don’t know about you, but I’m starting to feel as if we’ve been sold a bill of goods."

Now why would he say such a thing? Could it have something to do with statements such as this one from an executive at JP Morgan Chase?

“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”
I missed it! Did he say save the economy?...Nope, I read it twice.
He said, the move gives us the opportunity to be "more active on the acquisition or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling".

To restate what he said in simple terms- Taxpayer money will help big banks acquire smaller banks.
You mean the banks aren't going to save the economy, increase liquidity, or help Main St?!
They are just going to help themselves?
I know, I know, it's a stretch, yet it appears that is what the banks are planning to do!

To make it all the more interesting, this is exactly what the Treasury Department wants them to do, as reported in this article- U.S. Is Said to Be Urging New Mergers in Banking

As the Treasury embarks on its unprecedented recapitalization, it is becoming clear that the government wants not only to stabilize the industry, but also to reshape it.
“One purpose of this plan is to drive consolidation.”

You might think, well this could make sense, why prop up weaker banks? It might be good that a stronger bank buys up a weaker one. Except that is not the case. Remember this is cronyism, not realism we are talking about here. Citigroup is not a strong bank, and yet....

Citigroup, at this point, probably falls into the category of troubled bank, and nobody seems to be arguing that it should be taken over. It is in the “too big to fail” category, and the government will ensure that it gets back on its feet, no matter how much money it takes. One reason Mr. Paulson forced all of the nine biggest banks to take government money was to mask the fact that some of them are much weaker than others
Oh and one more item, most helpful to the banks in encouraging them in there quest for take-overs, a tax break! Imagine that? Tax rule change, may spur bank deals

The rule change could mean that Wells Fargo would potentially be able to recognize tax benefits of $23 billion over three years, compared with $3 billion under the old rules, Deutsche Bank analyst Mike Mayo said in a research note.

"These write-downs in the past would only help reduce tax burdens modestly over many years," Mayo wrote. "Now the tax benefits can potentially be used to reduce much if not all taxes in the first couple of years after a merger."
Wow, that kind of tax change seems tailor made to bank take-overs doesn't it? Instead of 3 billion in tax benefits, 23 billion in the same time period!

It is highly doubtful Paulson had to do much arm twisting to get the banks to take the no strings attached gift of taxpayers money. And, with the tax changes just sweetening the deal it could only get better and better! They banks were all happy to take it for their own reasons. Wether it kept them going, or presented them with opportunities to reshape the banking landscape through acquistions.

But, whatever their reason for taking the money, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with saving joe six-pack, or joe the plumber, or joe schmoe. It seems an opportunity to enrich themselves and grow bigger and more predatory was just too good to pass up.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Corporate Elites as Marauding Pirates !

A recent paper by Peter Hayes from the University of Sunderland, Pirates, Privateers, and the Contract Theories of Hobbes and Locke, put a rather interesting spin on the latest corporate greed induced financial crisis.

In his paper the author makes the claim that the roots of the modern corporation/current fiscal crisis can be seen in the marauding pirates of the 17th century. I found it an interesting analogy!

In this interview or this interview , Peter Hayes speaks of Pirates, Privateers, and the Adventurer. Who were they and what role did they play in gaining massive rewards/profits for themselves, through nothing more then thievery! Sadly, different names, same kind of criminals. All three were involved in stealing the wealth of other people/countries. But, some criminals get rewarded, and have their crimes against others legitimised by the state. Rather like the bankers/corporations in our most recent and ongoing financial crisis. Still lets identify the players in our marauding corporate, er, uhm, I mean pirate world.

Pirates, well they were pirates. They stole whatever they could, basically.

Privateers, were pirates also. They stole everything they could, from other people in other countries, wherever, whatever. The difference between a Pirate and a Privateer? State approval! Rather like our modern day approved "bankers and corporations"

"Privateering was encouraged by governments including England where it was considered perfectly acceptable to capture a Spanish ship as long the Crown got a cut of the booty.
Privateers are authorized by a state to attack enemy shipping and leave neutral ships alone. The idea of a privateer is that you could legitimize piracy."
Really good 'privateers (state approved pirates) were rewarded with Knighthoods and Titles.

Dr Hayes says: “Eventually the state stepped in to reward successful pirates, by calling them ‘privateers’ giving them knighthoods, and making them part of society
Henry Paulson and Alan Greenspan just popped in my head at this very moment!
Must be all that rewarding of the privateers as of late, what with billion dollar bail-outs, and no criminal investigations of the marauding pirates, I mean profiteering parties. Sorry, it is just that similar spelling!

The Adventurer, These were the financial backers of the Pirate/Privateers. The basically funded their capitalist adventures. So they were the persons who colluded with the pirates, but didn't actually get their hands dirty.

Now that we know the players, excerpt from the interviews:

How are modern venture capitalist like pirates ?

"There was an attitude and psychology that are quite similar. They weren't interested in promoting trade, exporting or making things, only this attitude to take stuff. Both are willing to take very high risks for very high rewards. They used the whole globe as their arena"
The roots of corporate structure on a pirate ship?

"Captains were quite weak and had supreme authority only during times of chase. They couldn't make a major decision without a vote amongst the crew" (shareholders)
Spoils divided amongst the crew, much like todays modern corporations/shareholders?
"It's exactly like shareholders today. You see something akin to shareholder democracy on the ship. If you were an out-and-out pirate, you'd redistribute all the shares to whoever was on the ship. But if you stuck to the privateering motives, when you came back to home port and got rid of the booty, the conventional division was that the land-based adventurer – the venture capitalist – would get two-thirds, and one-third would be divided among crew members on the ship."

The power of a fleet of buccaneers was formidable?

"What we have in some cases is the sense that the organization is more powerful than the states themselves. It was a case of business adapting itself; the same kind of techniques that pirates and privateers used became entrenched in the modern capitalist system, which allowed unscrupulous, predatory activity to gain hold."

The privateers (state sanctioned pirates) exhibited a "counterfeit holiness and hypocrisy" on shore that was cast aside once at sea in favour of plain greed. Is there a contemporary analogy?
"I'm thinking of multinationals and the gap between rather pious rhetoric and their treatment of employees away from head office. Major companies can behave in an exploitive and ruthless way, while they have pious mission statements and fall short of the standards they say they are maintaining."

You suggest that corporate elites,(pirates, privateers, adventurers) both then and how, have different standards of ethical behaviour and human rights?

It's extraordinary the way they support one another; these extraordinary payments in such an extreme crisis, the sense of them and us, separating themselves from the problems they have created, and they don't seem to feel any sense of responsibility for what it is they've done. That fits in well with the selfish psychology I believe they have.

Aargh there matey, I say make the scurvy scum walk the plank!

Friday, October 24, 2008

How Deeply is the U.S. involved in the Afghan Drug Trade?

Eric Margolis wrote a most interesting editorial:
How deeply is the US involved in the Afghan Drug Trade?

Upon a google search, I didn't see this one coming up in many places at all.
I can't imagine why? Actually, that is me being facetious.
I can actually read for myself why this column may not have been as widely covered, as a usual Margolis column.

But first, let me thank one of the 'doomers' for posting this on the group site, thanks fellow doomers. :)

My second indulgence: A brief media rant. Another way the media serves to mislead is by controlling the information, through accessibility or lack of access to pertinent information.

Oh and sorry a third indulgence!! I am going to bold, the 'naughty' parts, the parts that might have made this a little unacceptable for the western media and it's largely dumbed down readership. My commentary in red. (See second indulgence for reason why large swathes of readership are ignorant.)

Now onto some most interesting excerpts of the editorial by Eric Margolis-available in it's entirety here .

Most Europeans see the Afghan conflict as a 19th-century style colonial war for regional domination and resources. By contrast, Americans are still being misled by their corporate media and posturing politicians of both parties into believing the seven-year U.S. occupation of Afghanistan is a noble `anti-terrorism' mission that is defending women's rights and rebuilding a ravage nation instead of another brutal grab for energy, this time from the Caspian Basin.

It isn't just Americans, it Canadians and Australians also. Mislead by the lies of the MSM, bowing to their paymasters. Again, anyone with working braincells, KNOWS there is nothing "noble"about the mission in Afghanistan.

But McKiernan also called for talks with Afghan nationalists resisting western occupation collectively known as Taliban. Days earlier, it was revealed that senior British officers and diplomats in Afghanistan had called the US-led war `un-winnable' and advocated peace talks with Taliban.

Sleeping with the enemy, cooperating with terrorists. Remember the rhetoric?

The 64,000 rupee question that arises from Admiral Mullen's new anti-drug policy is: Why was it not done seven years ago when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan? Why did Washington turn a blind eye to the Afghan drug trade and is only now taking some action?

The answer is simple and dismaying. America's local allies in Afghanistan, the politicians and warlords who overthrew Taliban in 2001, are up to their turbans in the heroin trade. Drug money is the blood that courses through Afghanistan's veins and keeps the economy limping along. The U.S.-installed Karzai regime in Kabul propped up by US and NATO bayonets has only two sources of income: cash handouts from Washington, and the proceeds of drug dealing.

Washington called off efforts by the Drug Enforcement Agency to combat the Afghan drug trade for fear of endangering the power base of its former CIA `asset,' President Hamid Karzai. Starting with Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali, the U.S.-installed regime's most important supporters are all involved in varying degrees with the heroin trade. As this writer has seen himself, almost every important warlord gets revenue from the drug trade. The Northern Alliance warlords are considered the biggest of the nation's narco-dealers. Ahmed Karzai denies involvement. Moving against the drug warlords would have meant undermining Karzai's sole domestic support.


Experience in Indochina and Central America suggests that CIA, the principal paymaster for U.S.-backed Afghan warlords, may be more deeply involved in the drug trade than we yet know.

Author Alfred McCoy's wrote a brilliant study in his ground-breaking `The Politics of Heroin' in which he documents how first French, then American intelligence was drawn into the heroin trade in Laos and Vietnam as a way of supporting anti-Communist guerilla fighters. The same thing happened in Central America where CIA collaborated with cocaine-dealing members of the anti-Communist Contras.

In both cases, drugs served as a currency and became more important than paper money. French and American spies even ended up transporting heroin for their local allies. The same may be happening in Afghanistan.

Goodness US involvement in the drug trade. That is 'the same old, same old' or 'nothing new under the sun'. Sadly, not enough people are aware of this fact.

If you are so inclined, here is a link to an interview with the author mentioned by Mr. Margolis in this editorial- Alfred McCoy 'The Politics of Heroin'

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Is the US losing it's grip on Europe?

Interesting thoughts from Willian Pfaff and definitely worth reading the entire article for it's european perspective on a number of recent issues.

The United States, as Richard Holbrook observed several years ago, became and has remained in certain respects “a European power” ever since the second world war. Europeans have often grumbled, and Charles DeGaulle during his 1950s presidency successfully reestablished French political and strategic autonomy. But France’s critical position versus the U.S. has had relatively little serious consequence except by de-legitimating, so to speak, the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, forcing Washington to give up the attempt to win UN Security Council approval for that war.

That was six years ago, and Nicolas Sarkozy, when elected France’s president in 2007, proclaimed his admiration for the U.S. and his intention to restore France to full NATO membership. But since then, much political and financial drama has occurred.

Europeans and European governments alienated from America’s Iraq and Palestine-Israel policies, its use of torture and illegal imprisonment, and now being drawn by NATO towards the intractable Afghanistan-Pakistan tragedy, have become increasingly hostile to military involvements at America’s side.


The Georgia fiasco in August, resolutely but unconvincingly rationalized as unprovoked Russian aggression by American supporters of further NATO expansion, confirmed doubts about American foreign policy judgement. While George Bush stayed at the Olympic Games, Nicolas Sarkozy, current president of the European Union, immediately flew back to negotiate with Russia a ceasefire in Georgia, European Union observers, and the outlines of a lasting settlement.

But political mistrust proved easier to discount than mounting signs of American government and financial community incompetence, precipitating the still unstaunched American and global credit crisis. No end seem near to the international crisis, since bank bankruptcies and emergency government financial interventions continue, whose ultimate success and costs are unforeseeable. But in these circumstances foreigners could see little in Washington but confusion and incompetence.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Mainstream media, leading you by the leash!

Anyone with working brain cells knows that mainstream media, is first and foremost not here to inform you!

Oh , I know, I know, it's because the media is too "left" or too "right" as some claim.

Hate to break it to you, the media is neither right nor left. It is self-serving. The media is there to make money, not to provide you or me with quality coverage, insightful information, or anything really useful, if they cannot make money doing so.

One practice the media engages in is presenting as 'news', what is actually a Public Relations Firm's report, that is beneficial to their corporate clients. The intention is to sway public opinion in favour of their clients.
And, the bonus to the media outlet is, it costs very little to present this ready made "news" to an unwitting audience.

Recently a news story was reported :The Internet needs traffic cops: report

The Internet needs traffic cops. Hmm? Who says so?
As reported, in this 'news' article a group called Seaboard.
Seaboard, to quote from the article "follows technology and the telecommunications industry"

Why does Seaboard claim the internet needs traffic cops?
"Without some way to manage congestion on the Internet, it will become a less useful tool"
Less useful to whom? Doesn't say. I find the internet very useful, no traffic cops necessary

The spokesperson from Seaboard, then goes on to make these statements.

"The Internet shouldn't be "romanticized" as a place where all content flows equally"

"Without some way to manage congestion on the Internet, it will become a less useful tool"

"The idea that content flowing over the Internet be treated equally, regardless of user, application or destination doesn't make the Internet better

"Net neutrality" is a romantic notion being applied to the Internet that never existed."

You foolish internet users, with your silly romantic notions of being able to share in this great communication tool, as equally as big multinationals, How do you think you have the right?
That is some serious belittling of internet users!

In this instance, and there are many other 'news' stories similar to this, what the media didn't tell you is, who is Seaboard? Oh yah they did, sorry, the reader was informed that Seaboard "followed" technology and telecommunications industry. What does that mean in this case? Do they proceed behind the industry? Do they keep them under surveillance? Nothing like that at all, and this is why the media was intentionally misleading.

This is Seaboard.
The SeaBoard Group is a leading provider of strategic consulting and research services for companies operating, or interested, in the Canadian information technology and telecommunications sectors.

SeaBoard group helps its clients grow value - in the eyes of investors, employees and customers. We specialize in strategic consulting and research and our focus is the technology and communications industries.

Seaboard is a consulting firm, which is rather misleading way of saying it is a Public Relations Firm. It works for clients in an industry, to help them make more money.

Simply put, Seaboard put out a report, that is beneficial to their paying clients, which the media then reported on, as if it was newsworthy. It wasn't news and it wasn't newsworthy. What it really was? A cheap filler. Promotion done to aid Seaboards corporate clients, namely various technology and communication industries, including ISP providers and media outlets.
Can you say conflict of interest ?

Anyone who spends time on line, KNOWS, that Internet Service Providers, despite there massive profits, are looking for a way to take more of your hard earned money, for the same services you are getting now. Seaboard wants to help them do that! And, they need you, the internet user, to realize your foolishness and accept their version of the truth.

This is but one way the media misleads you and insures you are ill-informed and attempts to influence the reader in a way, that is diametrically opposed to your own interests.

Can you see how it is in your interest to have Internet cops? Or to pay exorbitant gouging rates to these telecom companies? How is it that you, getting less for more money, is to your benefit?
Sounds like a suckers game to me?!

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Interviews you just can't miss !!! James Petrus and Michael Hudson !!!

Thanks alternative media for putting mainstream media to shame, with every interview done!!!!!

2 excellent interviews, take the time and listen to them both, enlightening, informative, interesting!!!

Global Research News Hours with Steve Lendman: Guest James Petrus
Hour 1,

James Petras
is Binghamton University, New York Professor Emeritus of Sociology. His credentials and achievements are long and impressive as a noted academic figure on the Left. A well-respected Latin American expert, and longtime chronicler of the region's popular struggles. He is also a prolific author of hundreds of articles and dozens of books, including his newest now out: "Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power." This book and Petras' views on world issues will be discussed on the program.

Guns and Butter with Bonnie Faulkner: Guest: Michael Hudson, economist

"The Bailout's New Financial Oligarchy"

Economist and financial historian, Dr. Michael Hudson, discussing the largest financial theft in American history - the evolving giveaway to Wall Street crooks. We talk about the class war leading to depopulation, de-industrialization, poverty, and sharply increasing default and debt. The bailout offers no help to the economy. The only way to resolve the crisis is to write down the debt, and this is not being done. We discuss the IMF/World Bank, the end of foreign investment, Enron-style accounting, and the false cover story promulgated through media deception. The bailout is a gangland operation to pay the pals of Paulson.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Canada's banks- Financial crisis, or NAU standardization ??

Canada's banks were supposed to be in good shape? Canada's banks were supposed to have been insulated from the "credit" crisis? So these last few news reports leave me a tad concerned.
Why these bailouts? Why the accounting changes to bring Canada's banks in line with "elsewhere"? Is there something else, coming down the pipeline? I have a sneaking suspicion there is more here then meets the eye.

The first news story that grabbed me was: Canada takes 25 billion dollars in mortgages off the books of the banks

Canada is buying 25 billion dollars in insured mortgage pools to help the country's banks, plagued by the widening global financial crisis, raise long-term funds to loan to Canadians, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Friday.

Whose mortgages are contained in these pools? From the articles I read, I don't get the impression these are necessarily Canadian citizens mortgages. I haven't yet noted any news of a mortgage crisis in Canada. Then Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says
the "relief" would not cost taxpayers.
He says this because, the mortgages in this mortgage pool, are already backed by the Canadian government.

And since the mortgages are already backed by the Canadian government, there is no additional risk to taxpayers.

So , if the mortgages were already backed by the government, why give the banks 25 billion dollars for them? What did the banks have to worry about witht these mortgages, they were insured and were going to get paid? Or was this just a way to give banks money? Similar to the way the US is buying "stocks" in US banks. That is a major joke, at the taxpayers expense.

Then shortly after this questionable bail-out, that won't cost taxpayers anything, right after PM Harper told Canadians , "don't worry , be happy" this news saw the light of day.
Accounting rules eased for banks

The timing of that seems suspicious. 25 Billion dollar bail-out, and now the ability to use creative accounting practices by easing rules for banks.

Canada's accounting watchdog confirmed Friday it is changing rules that govern how financial institutions value poorly performing assets on their balance sheets.

These accounting rules will bring Canada's rules in line with standards "elsewhere".
Elsewhere? Like where elsewhere, the US elsewhere?

the Accounting Standards Board (AcSB) is amending its rules to make them consistent with accounting standards elsewhere in the world.
This is a bonus for the banks.

Essentially, the new rules mean banks postpone reporting losses on assets that have slipped below their market value but are not likely to be sold in the near future.
Now that is interesting. Getting to fudge the losses, by postponing reporting them, isn't that what brought the financial crisis on? Read on fearless reader, read on!

But there are also fears that easing up on so-called mark-to-market rules will lead to the same risky lending that brought large investment banks around the world to their knees over the past year.

Scratching your head yet? Perplexed? Join the club. What comes to mind is the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Moving along to today: Ottawa poised to bolster bank lending

Ottawa is poised to guarantee loans Canada's banks extend to other financial institutions, a dramatic step aimed at ensuring the raft of multibillion-dollar bailouts around the world don't leave the banks at a competitive disadvantage.
The pledge to backstop interbank lending would cost the government nothing immediately, and the risk of ever being called on to bail out any of the banks is minimal because Canada's lenders have plenty of cash in reserve

So, here is Ottawa, being so generous with taxpayers dollars and so enamoured of changing rules of ACCOUNTABILITY, for the banks. What is going on? This is NOT the time to throw money, at newly unaccountable banks. And this utter nonsense, this will cost the government nothing to do, unless the banks require bailing? How soon before the news reads, the banks need bailing? This is confidence inspiring?

Update Greyhound attack

Vigil held at Manitoba legislature:

Speaking during a vigil at the Manitoba legislature, Carol de Delley said federal law must be revised so that people with mental illness found guilty of a crime cannot eventually be released.

"In Canada, the question here becomes treatment or punishment," she told a crowd of about 150 people. "Why not both? I believe that treatment and punishment should go hand-in-hand."


Some experts said, however, that being found not criminally responsible for a crime in no way guarantees release, or even an easy ride.

"The general public is, on the whole, not necessarily very well informed about what happens when someone is found not criminally responsible," Winnipeg defence lawyer Sarah Inness said.

"They truly are not getting away with it. It's a humane way of dealing with people that are mentally ill. It's different than dealing with criminals."

Others have said that most people declared not criminally responsible spend much more time in psychiatric hospitals than they would if they were convicted of the same crime and given a sentence.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

If it walks like DEBT and talks like DEBT, why call it credit ?

This ongoing financial crisis is often referred to as a "credit crisis". I don't understand why it is called a credit crisis, when it actually is a crisis of DEBT.

Debt, Debt and more DEBT!!!

When I think of the word CREDIT, I think back to when I took high school accounting. I am 'dating' myself here, but bear with me.
There was a ledger, in which you recorded your credits and debits, a credit was your income, earnings or assets.
On the debit, side of the ledger was what you owed, or what had to be payed out.

Notice, in the word debit is the word DEBT, there is a reason for that. It's because that's what you owe, and you have to pay that debt out of your earnings or income.

When someone extends, what is oxymoronicaly called "credit", what you are really being offered is the opportunity to bury yourself in DEBT.

So, if we have an imaginary ledger, we take our income and put it on the credit side, we then take all the "credit" we have been extended and place in on the debit side. That's right, it is debt, it is not income, it is not an income supplement, it's not a vacation, or a brand new car. It is simply put, debt.

I acknowledge the simplicity of this example, it was meant to be, but it still doesn't change the fact. The fact is when someone give you credit, they are giving you DEBT.

Which brings my to my next beef with the use of the word 'credit crisis' to describe the current mess in the economy. What is really going on is a DEBT crisis, a crisis of excessive debt.

There is so much money owed by people, banks, countries etc., to people, banks, countries etc.,
that there is no way to pay it back.

Or, to go back to my trusty ledger.... the credit side is empty and the debit side is filled up.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Got the Post - Canadian Election blues???

Did you feel shortchanged in this last election?
Like your vote didn't count?
Did you hold your nose, and vote strategically for a party you did not want, so a party you despise would not come to power?
If you voted yes to any of those questions and would like to see some changes to the electoral system in Canada, this may interest you?


Read there latest report: Read the Fair Vote Canada press release.

some of us want some actual representation!

The Real Monster in the Meltdown Closet

I was impressed by this article, The Real Monster in the Meltdown Closet -Not Enough Money in the World-I thank the writer, Chris Floyd and hope he doesn't mind. It is posted at his blog- Empire Burlesque

What I liked about this was the clear explanation of the current financial crisis, and it isn't entirely what you have been led to think -the mortgage crisis. It is infact much more then that, and his posting explains it in such a way that anyone at all can understand it.

The myth has quickly taken hold that the global financial crash was caused by bad mortgages. This has allowed rightwing hatemongers to blame the meltdown on the "liberal" programs that encouraged home ownership among a small percentage of lower-income people (a poisonous canard that parts of the mainstream media have actually done a fairly good job of knocking down), while "progressives" of various stripes have denounced banks and other financial institutions for pushing over-easy credit on people who couldn't really afford it.

Unsustainable mortgages are a key factor in the global crash, of course. And many people (most of them white, by the way) did take out mortgages they would not be able to afford if the housing bubble ever burst, which it has, most spectacularly. And yes, it is undeniable that the financial services industry has been tempting people with easy credit like schoolyard pushers flashing reefers.

All of this was bound to end badly, and did.

I hope you pop over to the blog and read the rest.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Sheriff with a heart- he should be supported by all of us

Sheriff's move to halt foreclosure evictions draws 'overwhelming' response

When Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart announced that he was suspending all foreclosure evictions, he expected some reaction. But nothing like this.

Since Sheriff Dart made the announcement last Wednesday - saying "mortgage companies only see pieces of paper, not people" - his office has been flooded with messages of support and inquiries from around the world.

Bailing out on mutual funds

It has been reported that Canadians have fled their mutual funds in record numbers, due to market volatility. A total of 4.5 billion dollars in redemptions in the month of September alone!

I held on a little longer but threw the towel in this month. It is not an easy decision to make. Are you making the right choice? The wrong choice?

But the time comes, at least for me, when you just can't watch the losing anymore. And, besides you come to the conclusion, that things are going to get a lot worse, for some time to come.

So, off to the 'financial adviser', to save what you got left. I am lucky, I really do like my financial adviser, we get along well, and I do find this person generally helpful. On the other hand, I am a person of limited means and limited investing experience. But, I know enough to act in my own interest.

Yet, there were still words spoken in the course of discussions that left me stewing afterwards.

The financial adviser reminded me, we had talked about riding out the ups and downs.
Yes, we had.
But, I just don't buy into this.
If you had $1000.00 and it had earned $100.00 in returns in two years , then you lose that all, and it takes you another 2 years to make that $100.00 dollars back, that is four years of time to earn $100.00.
That just doesn't make any sense, to ride the ups and downs or "hold the course" I noticed the people who really play the stock market don't do that. The other day, it was being reported that the market was falling because of profit taking. Which means all the people who had made their money were taking it out, and moving it elsewhere to maximize their own earnings.
This makes sense to me. So why would I hold the course and watch my money disappear?

The next measure of my annoyance came when this person said, well you haven't lost anything because your principal amount is still there.
I insisted I had, as I knew what the numbers were previously and I knew what they were at that day, and I was definitely down! Well yeah, but that was just your returns , your money is still there, again referring to the actual amount of money I had put into the investments.

Well what exactly is the point of putting money in these investments if I am not going to make anything in returns on this money?
I can just as well dig a hole in the backyard and bury it, and the principal amount will still be there. Sure, there will be no returns but also no worries about losing the principal amount!

This was incredible to me! I have resolved to ask my bank next time should I need to borrow money again, that they lend it to me, interest free of course! They won't lose anything, I'll pay back the principal, guaranteed!
Do you think that a bank, any bank, any lender at all, will lend you, me or Bobby McGee any money on the basis of having their principal paid back as the only return??
Yet somehow, that fact that my principal investment was intact was some kind of bonus?
And I hadn't lost anything?

Then the financial adviser said, I am not a good candidate for these mutual fund investments, and that, as this person said, they would be hesitant to sell me these again.


This is utter nonsense. If I went back there in better financial times, these services would not be offered to me again?
Here take my money.
Oh, you don't want it?
Well I'll go elsewhere, then.

Do you see that playing out, realistically? I don't.

I realize these people are just doing their jobs, that they would love to keep. No doubt they tow the line and they 'feed you a line' as the saying goes.
Bottomline: When it comes to my money, I will do what I think is in my best interest.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

The Canadian Election- the myth of the conservative "mandate"

The Conservative mandate, in Canada is pure myth.

Before the election, Prime Minister Harper was telling Canadians that the country had moved to the right. In his dreams perhaps , but reality was a different story. That reality played out last night in Canada, as PM Harper was handed another minority government. This is his second minority in a row and a third minority Government for Canada! Hey, maybe the fourth time will be the charm! But, I don't think so. I think Canadians have had quite enough of elections, for the foreseeable future.

It is clear, from this minority "victory" that if the country had moved to the right, the Conservatives should have handily won a majority. Why do I say that?
Three reasons, as follows.
First, there are 3 so called 'left of centre parties' in Canada. The Liberals, the NDP and the Green Party. The three parties effectively serve to split the vote on the 'left'. The Conservatives are the ONLY 'right of centre party' in Canada. Therefore, if Canada had "moved to the right" as the Conservatives had claimed, the only "right" party should have handily won a majority. Yet, they did not.

Secondly: What this minority government tells us, is the Harper government, is still viewed by Canadians as a government warranting suspicion, and control. For good reason.

The third reason, this minority government's Conservative mandate, and myth of a Canda that has "moved to the right" is more delusion then a reality?
This minority was won on the lowest voter turn-out in recent history. Just 59 percent of registered voters turned out for this election. Since statistically speaking, voter turnout is higher amongst higher income, higher educated persons it is quite safe to assume, that had the rest of the people shown up, Mr Harpers minority would have been even smaller or non-existent.

This apathy demonstrates something else, Canada, like many other counties need mixed proportional representation. That is a story for another day.

On a general note, the lack of discussion on real and relevant topics. Where was the SPP? Where was any real discussion on Afghanistan? How about discussing globalization and the free trade agreements? The real meat and potato kind of stuff!

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Economic opportunity in bio-warfare

I'll elaborate here on an response I made regarding the US controlling the bird flu vaccine.

Where I said despite my typo , lol

"now think of genetically modified resistant strains of birds, owned by monsanto or some other giant agri-business, then see the dollar signs"
Do you see lots of them? Well you should because the potential is there. Think not, think again!

Bio-warfare doesn't have to just be about killing people, though that is always one "benefit". Unfortunately that is just too narrow a view. How about bio-warfare as an economic opportunity?
How about bird flu as a means to wipe-out bird populations, to have them replaced with Genetically Modified Chickens- Problem, Reaction, Solution.

When the bird flu strikes a country, what is the response? Cull the flocks!
Cull or culling is one of those doublespeak ways of saying killing or slaughtering.
Rather like collateral damage is the double speak of choice when civilians are targeted 'mistakenly' or so it is always claimed. Anyway.......

Bird flu fears beget the response, kill or slaughter massive amounts of birds,( I am doing away with the niceties here, and just calling it slaughter)
As was reported here, or here or even here

The problem is by slaughtering birds, you reduce genetic diversity amongst the bird population, to say nothing of reducing the bird population itself.

That is convenient if diversity is not what your after.
What if you were after birds as a controlled mono-culture farming crop?
This bird flu and subsequent culling can be about wiping out a diverse, yet unpatentable food source. Then replacing it with a more appropriate source, shall we say.
A source that alot of money can be made from.
That new highly profitable source ? Genetically modified poultry!!

Complete with a premium price tag to be paid by the farmer to big agri-business, wiping out diversity, crushing the little farmer, ensuring factory farm practices for ever more.

What a dream!
But it isn't really, it is one that agri-business is working hard to fulfill for themselves.
Scientists aim to beat flu with genetically modified chickens
I wonder who is funding this research, and who will benefit from this??

Are you feeling like a guinea pig yet?

Monday, October 13, 2008

Tim Mcleans Mom backs off on death penalty call, and trial questions

Beheading victim's mom backs off execution call

Carol deDelley doesn't want to see her son's killer executed. But she plans to fight all the way to Ottawa to ensure he never tastes freedom again.

On Friday, deDelley clarified those comments, saying she was speaking out of anger, not lobbying to bring back capital punishment as part of her proposed law.

Mom backs away from death penalty- Says earlier comments were made in anger

About the trial:

It has been clearly stated that the only issue at the trial of Vince Li will be , wether he can be held criminally responsible for his crime.
The fact that he carried out the crime is a forgone conclusion. Other circumstances or questions surrounding this crime had fallen immediately to the wayside! (questions I had posed numerous times here, so I won't rehash them)

There appears to be two possible outcomes to the trial:

If he is found to be responsible, Li would be given an automatic life sentence, with no chance of parole for at least 10 years.

If he's not, he would be sent to a mental health facility for an indeterminate period, but subject to yearly reviews. He would be released only if doctors deem him no longer a risk to society.

He will be found not responsible, and will be sent to a mental health facility for the rest of his life,

Sunday, October 12, 2008

US controls bird flu VACCINES.

Interesting news story. The US controls bird flu vaccines over bioweapons fear ?

Controlling vaccines over bioweapons fear? I could understand the control of the viruses, over bio-weapons fear, but the vaccines? Regardless of what the headline reads US controls bird flu vaccines over bioweapon fears, the story contained under this headline, seems to point in another direction.

Remember back when Indonesia stopped sending the US samples of the bird flu viruses?
Indonesia claimed the US was going to use the viruses for bio weapons and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said " that was the nuttiest thing" he had ever heard.

Yet buried in some little non-descript report, is one lone sentence, that says the US bars the export of the vaccine, not the virus, to countries designated as "state sponsors of terrorism"
Now as anyone with a working brain should know, "state sponsor of terrorism" is a euphemism for " countries we want to control every aspect of ".
And why is it that these countries can't have the vaccine?
Because the US fear that they (the vaccines) "will be used for biological warfare".

But as this guy says:

They make "no scientific sense," said Peter Palese, chairman of the microbiology department at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. He said the bird flu vaccine, for example, can be used to contain outbreaks in poultry before they mutate to a form spread more easily between people.

"The more vaccines out there, the better," he said. "It's a matter of protecting ourselves, really, so the bird flu virus doesn't take hold in these countries and spread."

And therein lies the rub.

Despite the title of this article, this action on the part of the US seems more about curtailing the ability of certain countries "state sponsors of terrorism" , to control and contain outbreaks. A dangerous game for the US to play, one would think?

Wouldn't that be 'convenient' if , speculating here, the US was to use such a virus as a bio-weapon and then to withhold the vaccine, to coerce an 'offending' country into compliance.??

When U.S. Commerce Assistant Secretary Christopher Wall, was questioned on this subject he declined to elaborate on the precise threat posed by vaccines for chickens infected with avian influenza, except to say there are "valid security concerns" that they "do not fall into the wrong hands.

One wonders why he just didn't say, get lost, cause that was what he said anyway, in an official political sort of way.

But some experts say the idea of using vaccines for bioweapons is far-fetched, and that in a health emergency, it is unclear how quickly authorities could cut through the current red tape to get the vaccines distributed

So by controlling these vaccines it would make it harder to contain an outbreak of bird flu in a country designated as a "state sponsor of terrorism"???

A researcher at the University of Toronto pointed out- "it would be ironic if the bird flu virus morphed into a more dangerous form in one of those countries."

Irony? Well one could say that, certainly irony hadn't crossed my mind.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Tommy Douglas- Mouseland, how fitting for today.

In honour of the mice everywhere caught up in the mess of the financial crisis, created by the fat cats.
While this is old, it was said in 1944, it seemed fitting.

This is the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played. Were born and died. And they lived much as you and I do. They even had a parliament. And every four years they had an election. They used to walk to the polls and cast their ballot. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. They got a ride for the next four years afterward too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day, all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big black fat cats.

Now if you think it’s strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats. You just look at the history of Canada for the last ninety years and maybe you’ll see they weren’t any stupider than we are.

Now I am not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows; they conducted the government with dignity. They passed good laws. That is, laws that were good for cats.

But the laws that were good for cats weren’t very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouse holes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much physical effort.

All the laws were good laws for cats. But oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn’t put up with it anymore they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse the polls.

They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats. The white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said all that Mouseland needs is more vision. They said the trouble with Mouseland is those round mouse holes we’ve got. If you put us in we’ll establish square mouse holes. And they did. And the square mouse holes were twice as big as the round mouse holes. And now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.

And when they couldn’t take that anymore they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. And then they went back to the white cats, and then to the black, they even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up with up cats with spots on them. They were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but they ate like a cat.

You see my friends the trouble wasn’t with the colour of the cats. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats they naturally look after cats instead of mice.

Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends watch out for the little fellow with an idea. He said to the other mice. “Look fellows why do we keep electing a government made up of cats, why don’t we elect a government made up of mice?” Oh, they said, he’s a Bolshevik. So they put him in jail. But I want to remind you that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can’t lock up an idea.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Updates on Greyhound Attack, Lawsuit and a push for Capital Punishment

Greyhound responds to suit

WINNIPEG -- Accused killer Vince Li bears sole responsibility for the grisly death of Greyhound bus passenger Tim McLean, the bus line says in court documents filed last week.

In a statement of defence filed Oct. 6, Greyhound maintains it took all reasonable precautions to keep passengers safe.

"The injuries suffered by Tim McLean were caused solely by the sudden and unforeseeable actions of the defendant Vince Weiguang Li ... not by any breach of duty by (Greyhound)," says the statement of defence.
As much as I hate to say this because this has been such a tragic event and so difficult for the McLean family, but I have to. Greyhound is correct. The responsibility lies soley with the assailant. Though I am still left wondering about the RCMP role in this??

and then this also:

Victims mom wants capital punishment

WINNIPEG -- The mother of a young man beheaded on a Greyhound bus in July says Canada's most dangerous criminals should either be locked up forever or executed.

Carol deDelley says she's going to be pushing for legislation she's calling "Tim's Law" that would bring back capital punishment in cases where there is "no doubt" of guilt, or at least set the punishment at life with no chance of parole.

This is something that I cannot be in support of.

While I agree Vince Li, should have been taken down on the bus, and there is no question of his guilt in this case. The judicial system is , as a whole too corrupt to be sure that ONLY guilty people are put to death.

It seems in the haste to solve a crime, sometimes innocent people are targeted for convenience sake. Putting them to death would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

I'll cite some recent names Maher Arar, David Milgaard , Steven Truscott, I know of others, infamously found guilty and cleared later.

Here are some stats on this problem out of the US......

Death Penalty and Innocence

"Since 1973, more than 125 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row."
These numbers are likely low.

In 2000 Governor George Ryan said:

"I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate."--Governor George Ryan of Illinois, January 2000, in declaring a moratorium on executions in his state, after the 13th Illinois death row inmate had been released from prison due to wrongful conviction.

This call for capital punishment by Tim McLeans mom, could in fact lead to innocent people dying, like her son died that day. I would wonder if that is the legacy she would wish for, in her son's memory? I understand that this is so painful for this woman, but is this the answer?

The other problem with this proposal?

In light of the question of Vince Li's sanity, or lack of sanity.
Is it practical, realistic and or humane to put to death, people who are by definition, mentally ill?
Incapable of rational thoughts, behaviour, possibly delusional, separated from the usual perception of reality. This is a difficult question to be certain. But, for a person to be found guilty of murder, would they not have to be aware, in some sort of a rational, realistic manner?

As much as I feel for this family, when the State puts people to death, they do it on behalf of the citizens of the country, I want no part in the State committing the murder of innocent persons on my behalf.

This is a difficult situation, that much is for sure.

I am of the opinion in this case Vince Li will never see the light of day.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Ivins knew who conducted the anthrax attacks

Apparently Bruce Ivins, a man who was in the habit of sending himself e-mails, sent himself at least two e-mails in which he exclaimed he knew the identity of the person who had sent the deadly anthrax.

This information came from recently unsealed court documents, and affadavits.
Here is what an e-mail, dated Sept 7th/07 said:

"Yes! Yes! Yes!!!!!!! I finally know who mailed the anthrax letters in the fall of 2001. I've pieced it together!"

"I'm not looking forward to everybody getting dragged through the mud, but at least it will all be over," Ivins allegedly wrote.

"Finally! I should have it TOTALLY nailed down within the month. I should have been a private eye!!!!"

He sounds pretty happy that he figured it out! Lots of exclamations marks, he must have been pleased.

Ivins' lawyer, Paul Kemp, maintains Ivins was innocent and said scientist would have been cleared if the case had gone to trial.
"The absence of any information from the search warrants that conclusively finds he did it only confirm that,"

He said the September 2007 e-mail is merely Ivins "attempting to explain who could have had access to the (anthrax) beaker," Kemp said.

Ivin's Lawyer said and I quote :

"He had his own views about who might have been capable of this thing. And he explained that to the FBI."

Ivins had his own views on who was capable of committing this crime and he explained that to the FBI.

"In addition, Ivins has sent at least one other e-mail to himself that details his opinion of who may have been the anthrax mailer,"
states another affidavit.

It is pretty safe to assume, he did not think he was the killer, so did he infact know who the real anthrax killer was? Was he right?

On a seperate note, I want to note the way the article reporting this news story was written.

First of all, I find it written in a confusing manner.

Secondly, from the title that was chosen, "Ivins bragged"??
Usually we brag to other people, we don't brag in e-mail to ourselves, I am of the opinion that word was chosen to portray Ivins in a negative light, as arrogant or self-absorbed. No one likes a braggard.

Thirdly: the article notes that Ivins used another e-mail account to post what is claimed as "violent messages" about the tv show, the Mole. What this bit of garbage is even doing in this story, is beyond me? It is not relevant, has nothing to do with the FBI investigation. So why is it here? Again to cast Bruce Ivins in a negative light, as a person with a propensity towards violence.

Children as young as 4 can develop OCD

Isn't this interesting, children as young as 4, can develop obsessive compulsive disorder?

The study, published online by the Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, found many parallels between young children with OCD and their older peers with the anxiety disorder.
Well this study, published by a group that would be well served by this kind of conclusion being drawn says this is true. You see they found "parallels". What does that mean exactly?

For example, both groups had similar obsessions and compulsions, multiple psychiatric diagnoses, and high rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder in their family history. However, the younger children were less likely to have depression than the older children.
So those are the parallels? Similar obsessions and compulsions that could easily be learned from other family members, picked up matter of factly by younger children, via imitation?
Because as everyone knows kids really do live what they learn.

In their study of 58 children with OCD, aged 4 to 8, a fifth had an immediate family member with a history of the disorder. Roughly a fifth of the children also were diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).

Seventy-five percent of those studied reported having multiple obsessions, the most common being fear of contamination and catastrophic fears that involved death or harm to themselves or loved ones. Nearly all had multiple compulsive behaviors with an average of four per child. Washing, checking and repeating were the most common.

Garcia noted the importance of the study, saying, "early diagnosis and intervention are critical to reducing the severity of symptoms and improving quality of life."

I find it interesting that somehow the writers of this study would find the fact that small children have unnatural fears, unusual. Given there lack of knowledge, inability to fully understand, or comprehend many situations, I don't think it would be unusual at all for kids to have unnatural fears. Oh and being afraid of losing a loved one is a common fear for small ones, it is because of the bonding process between a child and a parent.

I just find this whole concept alot of baloney, that's my opinion, and of course drugs would be the accepted treatment.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Car bomb in South Ossetia kills Russian Peacekeepers

So what gives here?
Did Russia perpetrate a false flag, or did Georgia or her cohorts kill the Russian peacekeepers?

Myself, I am leaning towards Georgia and her cohorts, but I could be wrong.
I don't think Russia is going to pull troops from South Ossetia anyway, so there isn't much of a need to do this kind of stuff.
Car bombs seem to me to be a tactic of western warfare, covert or otherwise.
Anyone else?

read here

Stephen Harper, and the Military Industrial Complex bankrupt the country.

Bulking up Pentagon North
With the prospect of a Harper majority hanging menacingly over the country, the mind inevitably turns to the question: Just what is the "secret agenda" lurking behind the friendly sweater?

Actually, I don't believe there is one. The truth is that Stephen Harper has already laid out an agenda that would fundamentally change this country - in ways most Canadians would oppose.

While this agenda is not "secret," my guess is few Canadians know about it. That's because Harper, realizing it would be unpopular, unveiled it when Canadians weren't paying attention - in fact, we were sleeping. Sometime in the dark of night last June 20, the Harper government posted a plan on the Department of National Defence's website - called Canada First Defence Strategy - to spend an eye-popping $490 billion over the next 20 years on the military.

Given all the recent buzz about the size of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout in the United States, it's striking to note that Ottawa quietly announced a plan to spend nearly half a trillion dollars on the military, almost in passing.

Isn't it "striking"?

Harper knows Canadians would balk at this shift in priorities, if they got wind of it. In a 2008 pre-budget survey conducted for the finance department, Canadians were asked which of 18 different issues they considered a high priority. "Increasing spending on defence" ranked last.
Oh and the lobbyists are here, I am assuming they are the big American ones?
This man is going to bankrupt the country, just like GWB

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

US sells weapons to Taiwan

The US is going to sell 6.4 billion dollars worth of weapons to Taiwan.
As reported by Taiwan: Arms sales demonstration of U.S. commitment to Taiwan: AIT
And announced by the US: US Announces $6.5 Billion Arms Sale to Taiwan
This of course has China furious, and understandably
so! China cuts military ties with the US
or Beijing cancels US military exchanges

It is a message to China isn't it? A loud and clear one.
It says we will arm your enemies, who will fight proxy wars for us, if necessary, to keep you in check!

Another move on the Grand Chessboard.

Bus incident in Vancouver

Bus-accident victim had been in police custody

and again, the police took this guy to the bus, and tried to put him on the bus, for goodness sakes!
He was picked up by police appearing to be drunk or under the influence of drugs. He did not seem to be sobering up. Four hours later, police took him to the hospital.

He wandered away from the hospital after waiting for hours, seen by a triage nurse but not yet assessed by the emergency-room doctor in the Vancouver suburb of Delta.

Less than 90 minutes later, he was found dead, after dropping down from the undercarriage of a bus. Investigators later concluded he had been hit by another vehicle, then run over by the bus and carried along underneath it for at least five kilometres.

Police and hospital officials said yesterday they did nothing wrong in their dealings with the 53-year-old Indo-Canadian man in the hours before he died late last Friday. The man's family asked authorities to withhold release of his name. The transit driver, who has also not been identified, was unavailable for an interview.

Constable Steinwand said police had dealt with the victim twice within hours before the accident. Police were called around noon Friday.

The man appeared to be drunk or under the influence of drugs, and seemed to be confused.

Police brought him back to their headquarters for his own safety.

The man was taken to the hospital in the late afternoon after he did not appear to be sobering up.

Two hours later, police were called again about the same man.

He was reported to be causing a commotion at the recreation centre across the street from the hospital. They took him to a nearby bus stop.

"We just took him in the police car, took him to the local bus, said, there's the local bus to Vancouver loop. Go away," Constable Steinwand said.

In this news story- Mayor questions police's handling of troubled man

"The officer interviewed him and was convinced he was lucid and able to look after himself," reads the police release. "He was offered and accepted a ride to the Ladner bus loop."
This is after they were called because this man was making a commotion at a rec centre, now how exactly did they conclude he was lucid?? So this guy is on god knows what, or is he unstable, the police take him to the hospital, where he is not looked at, the police are then called again because he is causing a commotion, and they put him on the bus, and tell him to go away ???? Why would the police put this person on the bus, at all ?

I am seriously wondering if these indicidents are not going to be used to justify some form of mandatory psychiatric testing, mandatory incarceration for mental illness, ya know " to prevent violent incidents" And to sweep alot of people up who are questioning the PTB. Also, to justify a crackdown in security on all forms of bus/subway travel ( including increased surveillance, searches etc,) I just have never heard of so much of this going on.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Vince Li update

Li doesn't appear in court

Vince Li, the man accused of killing and beheading fellow Greyhound bus passenger 22-year-old Tim McLean on July 30, did not appear in court as scheduled on Monday. Li was supposed to appear in court on Sept. 8, but his psychiatric assessment had not been completed at that time. He was supposed to appear again on Monday. While the assessment is now complete, according to lawyers on the case, Li's case is still being assessed, and not ready for the courtroom as of Monday. No information from the report can be revealed at this time under the privacy and protection act as it is feared any information from the report could prejudice Li's case.

According to sources at the courthouse, Li is co-operating fully with psychiatrists and lawyers.

Gordon Bates, one of the lawyers assigned to Li's case, said, "We are prepared to consent to his committal to stand trial on second degree murder."

Li's case will next appear in Court of Queen's Bench on Nov. 6 in Portage la Prairie. This date is to establish the trial date to decide if he is criminally responsible for his actions. Li will not be appearing.

or this news story:Vince Li To Stand Trial

A man accused of beheading a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus will stand trial for second-degree murder.

The decision was made Monday at a Portage la Prairie court hearing for Vincent Li, who is accused of killing Tim McLean in July. Defence lawyers Alan Libman and Gordon Bates say the trial will hinge on whether their client should be deemed criminally responsible.

The lawyers and the Crown have agreed not to release details of Li's court-ordered psychiatric assessment because it could be prejudicial to his trial. They also say Li is co-operating with authorities and is not under a suicide watch.
The case is to return to court Nov. 6.

When that takes place Li again will not appear in court! The guilt is a foregone conclusion, it all boils down to wether he is criminally responsible or not. Hence no real investigation!
Here is what some of us had to say on the first appearance

Bingo Girls gone wild.

Get over to rustynode, and check out the video on brians blog, it is.... Bingo girls gone wild.
Best laugh of the day.
And if you have seen the stock market today, the Dow, or the TSX.
You may need a laugh.

Vince Li, will he appear today?

Well he is supposed to! Let's see what happens?

Man accused in the beheading of fellow Greyhound passenger due in court

WINNIPEG — The man accused of a gruesome killing onboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba is expected back in court Monday.

Vince Li has been undergoing psychiatric examination to see if he is fit to stand trial. His last court appearance in Portage La Prairie was postponed to allow for more testing.

The Crown said Li is co-operating with the psychiatrist examining him.

Li is charged with second-degree murder in connection with the July death of Tim McLean

NASCAR gets bailed out-must be for the psy-op benefit !

What does NASCAR have to do with the ongoing financial crisis?
Nothing, you say? You would be wrong.

Me, I think NASCAR is the biggest psy-op sport in the US. Ever really watch it?
Someone in my house loves racing, not just NASCAR, all racing! But the opening of the NASCAR races are like no other.

Every race is the same, and it is nauseating.
There is God, Flag-Waving and Militaria, in a very big way, every race!

This spectator sport blurs all the lines between sport and police state, between democracy and fascism, with a mix of theocracy to boot!
Is it any wonder the government gave them a big bail-out with taxpayers dollars, the service they perform is invaluable.

The U.S. Senate shows NASCAR a little bailout love

The Senate larded down (or, as they like to term it, "sweetened") the bill with tax breaks, benefits, grants, loans, and kissy-face promises to pretty much every opportunistic Senator and grasping special interest out there. Business as usual.

Which is where NASCAR comes in. Now, buried way way down in the bill is this particular little tidbit:

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 168(i)(15) (relating to
termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2007'' and inserting
``December 31, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply
to property placed in service after December 31, 2007.

What this refers to is a method of depreciation for race tracks that's a handy little tax break. First introduced in a 2004 amendment to 1986 legislation, this tax break is available for "a racing track facility that is permanently situated on land and which during the applicable period is scheduled to host one or more racing events for automobiles (of any type), trucks, or motorcycles that are open to the public for the price of admission." Basically, any place that's a notch over racing in your backyard.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Penny's saying for the day, cause I like it !

"if you can't baffle them with your brilliance, dazzle them with BS"

particularly relevant with elections going on in Canada and the US.

US regulators say Melamine in food is not harmful !!

There , there stupid people, do you feel better? It is ok to ingest toxic melamine!!! Nothing to be upset about!

U.S. regulators say tiny bit of melamine in food is not harmful


WASHINGTON - Eating a tiny bit of melamine, the chemical responsible for a global food safety scare, is not harmful except when it's in baby formula, U.S. food safety officials said Friday.

While were at it, let's go eat some lead paint , just a little bit of it. Then inhale some asbestos filled air. And for good measure, stand at the tailpipe of the car and breathe deeply.
Just a little ain't gonna hurt you!

What is melamine? Why is this substance dangerous in food?

Melamine is a synthetic chemical (most often combined with formaldehyde YUMMY) used in a variety of industrial applications including the production of resins and foams, cleaning products, fertilizers and pesticides. It is not naturally occurring and is not allowed in food.

Health effects from exposure to melamine vary depending on the amount and duration of exposure. Scientific research indicates that effects to the bladder and kidneys, such as bladder and kidney stones and chronic kidney inflammation, can be seen if exposed to high enough levels of melamine.

For the Progressive Canadians, and yes you are, so act like it !

Are Canadians mostly progressive or conservative?

watch the video, read the transcript.

Murray Dobbin: The Right has convinced Canadians that their values will never become public policy

oh, and btw Harper has been caught plagiarizing another speech. This time from Mike Harris.I am left wondering what does he even have people to write speeches on staff for??? But then, if the manner of manipulation vis a vis speech writing is all the same, what does it matter? Regurgitating sound bites, specific talking points and certain words, only help reinforce the big lie method, no matter who is spouting the rhetoric.