May 26, 2007
May 25, 2007
George Bush finally looks like he has fallen over the edge – the edge when a president no longer wants makeup artists fussing before a camera explores ones frailty. As he predicts a bloody summer of violence in Iraq he does not seem to realise that his actions are not inspiring peace. “Modern war” is still a barbaric excuse for not communicating.
Yes, it is going to be a bloody summer.
Just imagine if George Bush had conceded to Al Gore all those years ago. Al would have been able to do some sums and would have sent 100,000 troops plus into Afghanistan and followed this up with 100,000 civilians to rebuild the country after isolating the Taliban. Iraq was in need of attention, yes, but invasion may be seen as a breach of trust by the citizens.
What gets me is that George Bush has said nothing about how to make things better in Iraq, only how he will wage war on Iraq – and why? To kill terrorists. Where do they keep coming from? They grow up hating those that impose upon their country. It is generally accepted by invading Iraq created more terrorists. Bush is the grand executioner of fools drawn to the battle for reasons of religious zealotry.
What is transpiring is nothing less than a huge waste of humanity and is a great tragedy and a terrible sin, on both sides.
May 23, 2007
He criticizes the secret authorization of the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a court order on telephone calls and e-mail messages between the United States and other countries, and its suspension of the rights of due process for “enemy combatants”. He says these acts demonstrate “a disrespect for America’s Constitution that has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of democracy.”
This is not a polite criticism. No, like Disturbing Trends, Al Gore has taken a harsher approach to the actions of the man who stole his job.
May 21, 2007
Will Al Gore run for president?
Maybe. But there is a nice sub ed article in the New York Times.
It’s a city within a city. A citidal housing the American Embassey, larger than the Vatican. Does this seem like some kind of cruel hoax to the Iraqi on the street? How could it be seen as anything other than the Americans snuggling up too closely? Actually, it is better to build am embassey than a fortress, diplomacy may create a pathway to peace now that roadmaps all seem to lead to more war. It seems a typically domainant and agreesive stance that is all to familiar by this Bush administration.
The strict insistence on continuing the war in Iraq is the Cheney doctrine. Do not let one day go by when his frat buddies who run Halliburton could be amassing more cash from “facilitating” Iraq oil distribution.
May 18, 2007
May 17, 2007
May 14, 2007
May 12, 2007
May 11, 2007
Al Gore (not the real Al Gore, but actually the campaign to have him drafted back into presidential elections, posts on my myspace page – and so I post back an “thanx for the add” note on his very public blog http://myspace.com/algore – and I link to http://disturbingtrends.org
Whoops. The domain is/was dtrends.org
So I went and bought http://disturbingtrends.org – hey its available – so why not? So you can now reach your latest predictions about the state of things to come by name:
May 9, 2007
The Sunni are threatening to imminently pull out of the Malaki Government if the Shiite death squads are not being actively disarmed by this time next week. This could make the government just a little too fragile to survive a no-confidence vote, if any other party was strong enough to risk taking power. The number of political assassinations make the prospect of being in government at this time less than delightful. The job probably pays well but the likelihood of surviving each week in office is increasingly grim. And the Sunni who are helping battle people being called “Al Qaeda” but who are actually Salafi Jihadis – and not strictly the same thing – want to carry on when that is over and get the Shiites in the South.
“If this is not civil war…” statements do not clarify what it is. It is a concerted effort by a number of parties to be in control of Iraq’s vast oil wealth. It is also a question of loyalty and brotherhood. Can Iraq take possession of its jewel collectively without slaughtering each other?
Perhaps we should be saying “Look, this IS A CIVIL war with specific objectives. Now what we are going to be able to achieve by occupation is… and that means….”
Then perhaps the American troops would be able to improve matters by fulfilling a valuable role rather than just battling “terrorists” with no clear objective except to cause trouble for the Americans.
Does not see that long ago that it was breaking away from England and going out on its own. Trouble is that it never stopped growing and worse than that it is not the only mega-economy making demands upon the world’s resources but it is the one that wastes more. The scale of greed is beyond reason. The cult of greed is unreasonable upon the whole of humanity. We exist not as drifting seeds but well established trees. We require a recycling of natural resources so that we are not eating away the ground on which we stand.
A self sustaining America would change the fortunes of the world, no matter who controls Iraq.
May 6, 2007
The man has his faith to rely upon.
‘An analysis of the “No Religion” responses over time shows a steady increase from 1 in 5 Kiwis in 1991, to 1 in 4 in 1996, and 1 in 3 at the last census in 2006. This growing rejection of religion is by far the most significant trend in the religious affiliation responses over this period.’
We Kiwi’s love statistics – especially when they are easy to absorb. And 1:5, 1:4 then 1:3 seems to have a sort of inevitable logic to it.
In fact what are we measuring? The decline of religion in New Zealand could be an increase in sectarian values replacing religion. But I do not think that is what is at work here.
It is the acts of the apostate.
The acts of the Sunni Terrorist mob that tore down the twin towers. Yes – we have heard all the conspiracy theories that Bush did it himself, but we doubt that to be the case. Bush is one of those who replaced life long problems with faith.
And it is that creature that makes up the 60% not included in 1:3
That creature is the person who can not maintain their own will regardless of the state of their faith in their maker. It is in essence an existential problem – how can they be made without a maker? The person can not exert their will as it has no direction.
The solution is to construct values, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is every bit as healthy to inform yourself that your neighbour may have other customs to you, but he can still be your neighbour, if not your brother.
If you do not have to lay your faith out in a prescribed fashion as a demanding religion demands then what will you do with your will? We must replace our faith with values, with liberty to employ others and resources, so that we may create our own world within the world. But faith sates this thirst for the many.
It will always be like this.
The majority need a faith or their world values are no longer supported. The world would not make much sense. Secular worlds require more will and skill to maintain. A secular monarchy is rare as it is liable to end suddenly.
May 5, 2007
The Bush administration is asking Congress to pass legislation that would grant telephone companies immunity from all prosecution related to their assistance of the intelligence community.
The intent is to protect those companies that have assisted the government with its illegal wire-tapping activities.
As Congress is controlled by Democrats and it is in their interests to highlight the illegality of certain actions by the Bush administration, preventing legal action for constitutional violations allows the Bush adminstration to avoid exposure.
It may be a deal that Bush made with the major phone carriers – but bugging phone lines is a restriction on freedom (of speech) in the same way that censorship is.
The worst Bushism of all is the “if you are not with us, you are our enemy” alongside the idea “if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear”.
Taken together, it means, if you are not a God fearin’ Republican – you definitely would have something to fear.
Making the illegal orders of a Government retroactively acceptable is nothing but a white wash.
9/11 was a failure of intelligence. What has happened since is overreaching by the state – effectively criminalising anyone.
The problem with freedom of speech is that you may not realise that you do have something to hide when the Government goes and changes the rules. If you are not with them 100%, then you have already been declared an enemy. So do Americans really want to allow Bush to legalise retroactive “speech liability” for all citizens?